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

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...