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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...