Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: information technology software in Commissioner Of Service Tax Delhi vs Quick Heal Technologies Limited on 5 August, 2022Matching Fragments
6. It appears from the materials on record that it came to the notice of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (Headquarters) that the assessee engaged in the development of Quick Heal brand Antivirus Software had not been paying service tax prior to 01.07.2012 on the services covered under the category of “Information Technology Software Service” falling under Item No. (vi) of clause (zzzze) of subsection (105) of Section 65 of the Act 1994 w.e.f 01.07.2012 on the services covered under the category of “Information Technology Software Service” under Section 66E(d) of the Act 1994 for providing Quick Heal brand Antivirus Software license key/code supplied along with the CD/DVD replicated with the Quick Heal brand Antivirus Software through the dealers/distributors to the end customers in India.
8. In such circumstances referred to above, a show cause notice dated 02.02.2015 came to be issued to the assessee by the Additional Director General, DGCEI (Hqrs.), New Delhi proposing a demand/recovery of service tax amounting to Rs.
62,73,05,953.36p. (Rupees Sixty Two Crore Seventy Three Lakh Five Thousand Nine Hundred Three and paise Thirty Six Only) on the taxable value of Rs. 5,30,94,66,783/ (Rupees Five Arab Thirty Crore Ninety Four Lakh Sixty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Three Only) for supplying Quick Heal Antivirus Software replicated CDs/DVDs in the retail packs (i.e. Information Technology Software Service) through its dealers/distributors to the endcustomers in India for the period between 01.03.2011 and 31.03.2014 under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act 1994 by invoking the extended period of limitation with interest and penalty.
4.6 Similarly, the definition of taxable services is contained in section 65(105) (zzzze) which are also reproduced earlier.
4.7 While the above definitions were prevailing prior to 01.07.2012, section 66E(d) – provided for declared service under the new negative regime and read as follows:
“development, design, programming, customization, adaptation, upgradation, enhancement, implementation of information technology software” 4.8 Further, section 65B (28) defined “information technology software” which was almost identical to the earlier definition under section 65 (63a).”
22. The learned senior counsel thereafter made his submissions on the CBEC Circular/Education Guide. Following comments have been offered as regards the said Circular in the written note furnished to this Court: “5.1 After the negative regime came into force on 1.7.2012, reproduced above, the CBEC Education Guide issued the following guidelines:
(i)Prepackaged or canned software would not be covered by the entry relating to information technology software. This is because such software as “goods” as held by the Supreme Court in the TCS case. The guidelines specifically reproduced the text of the Supreme Court ruling.