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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more