Skip to main content

Customised Software Designed For Specific User Is Also Taxable As 'Goods'

Cause Title : State Of Kerala vs Sri. V. C. Vinod, Kerala High Court, St. Rev. No.2 Of 2016

Date of Judgment/Order : 24/7/2023

Corum : Justice Mohammed Nias C. P. & Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar

Citied: 

  1. Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh – [(2005) 1 SCC 308]
  2. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi v. Quick Heal Technologies Limited – [(2023) 5 SCC 469]

Background

The respondent/assessee was doing business in software. Computer software attracted tax @ 4% ad valorem was introduced into the KGST Act with effect from 1.4.2002. As the respondent/assessee had not taken any registration or paid tax in respect of the sale of software  to its clients under the KGST Act, penalty proposals were initiated by the Sales Tax Department for each of the assessment years,  against which the assessee argued that customised software was not goods and sales tax could not be demanded from it for the supply of customised software to its clients. When the first and second appeals preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Authority were dismissed, the assessee approached the High Court. The High Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a de novo consideration on merits. This time the Tribunal observed that the judgment of the Supreme Court on this issue in Tata Consultancy (supra), was rendered in the context of “canned software”(or software available off the shelf) and has no application in cases of uncanned software which referred to software that was developed for a particular customer. The Tribunal therefore ordered in favour of the assessee. This revision petition was preferred by the State agains the said order.

Judgment

The High Court observed that the reasoning given by the Tribunal is that customised software developed and supplied to its clients by the assessee could not be brought to tax under the KGST Act since the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Consultancy [supra] dealt only with canned software or software that was available off the shelf and not customised software. However on a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Consultancy [supra], the High Court held  that the findings therein are clearly applicable not only to canned software but also to uncanned or customised software. 

The High Court therefore held that -

As per the findings of the Supreme Court there is no doubt that even a customised software will satisfy the definition of 'goods' for, it is evident that it has the attributes having regard to (a) its utility; (b) capable of being bought and sold; and (c) capable of being transmitted, transferred, delivered, stored and possessed. Once the said attributes are seen satisfied in the software in question, then whether the software is treated as customised or non-customised, it would nevertheless be categorised as 'goods' for the purposes of levy of tax.

The said view of the Supreme Court has since been followed in later decisions including a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Quick Heal Technologies Limited (supra). We are therefore of the view that merely because the software developed by the respondent/assessee in the instant case was customised for a particular user and was not sold to other users, the charges collected from the customer cannot escape the levy of sales tax under the KGST Act. This is more so because the mere fact that it was customised for a particular user did not lead to the software ceasing to be goods for the purposes of levy of sales tax.

Comments

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

Person Being Prosecuted To Be Provided With All Relevant Documents

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them.