2018 (5) TMI 1891 - AT - Service Tax

Territorial Jurisdiction - appellant had taken a categorical stand before the authorities below that they have centralized registration at Mumbai and as such there jurisdictional authorities at Noida have no jurisdiction to raise the demands - Management and Business Consultancy Services - payment made to foreign service providers as professional fees - HELD THAT - The appellant is aggrieved with the said observation of the appellate authority. He has drawn over attention to the centralized registration certificate issued by the Mumbai Commissionerate - As such, the above observation of Commissioner (Appeals) is factually incorrect. Matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision on the issue of Jurisdiction - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of authorities in Noida, Liability of service tax on professional fees and royalty payments.

Jurisdiction Issue Analysis: The appellant argued that the authorities in Noida lacked jurisdiction to decide the service tax liability due to their centralized registration in Mumbai. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially dismissed this claim based on the appellant's registration certificate. However, upon review, it was found that the Commissioner's observation was factually incorrect, as evidenced by the centralized registration certificate issued by the Mumbai Commissionerate. Consequently, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision on the jurisdiction issue, ensuring the appellant the opportunity to present their defense.

Liability of Service Tax Analysis: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing washing machines and electronic tuners, made payments to foreign service providers for professional fees and royalty. The department alleged that these payments were for "Management and Business Consultancy Services" and "Intellectual Property Rights," respectively, subjecting the appellant to service tax liability. The appellant contended that the payments were for services provided abroad, including market information, customer acquisition, product quality control, and delivery, which should not be considered taxable services. Additionally, the appellant argued that they had already paid service tax on royalty charges in Mumbai, precluding a duplicate demand in Noida. The revenue, represented by the Commissioner (DR), maintained that the appellant was liable for service tax on professional fees under Management & Business Consultancy Services.

Conclusion: The appellate tribunal found in favor of the appellant on the jurisdiction issue, remanding the case for further consideration. The decision on the liability of service tax for professional fees and royalty payments was not conclusively determined, as the focus of the judgment primarily addressed the jurisdictional matter. The appellant's arguments regarding the nature of services provided by foreign professionals and the alleged double taxation on royalty charges were acknowledged but not definitively resolved. The judgment emphasized procedural fairness and the right to present a defense, ensuring a comprehensive review of the jurisdictional aspect before addressing the substantive service tax liability issues.