2017 (7) TMI 248 - AT - Service Tax

Reverse charge - Management or business consultant service - payments made to the overseas collaborator - taxability - Held that - section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 deems the recipient to the be the provider of service for fastening of tax liability. Such deeming provision is found to be enforceable only with delineation of the specific circumstances by which the services are determinable as imported. The Rules framed for the purpose owe parentage to the exemption powers under section 93 of Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, there is an implied exemption to such activities as are not specifically enumerated in the Rules or, if enumerated, are circumscribed - matter remanded to the original authority to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability of 'management or business consultant service' received from an overseas collaborator by a public trust educational institution.
2. Interpretation of section 65(105)(r) and section 65(65) of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Application of section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 3(iii) of Taxation of Services Rules, 2006.
4. Exclusion proviso in the charging section and its impact on tax liability.
5. Consideration of special enactments and deeming provisions in tax liability determination.
6. Scope of exemption powers under section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The case involved appeals by a public trust educational institution regarding tax paid on 'management or business consultant service' received from an overseas collaborator. The institution believed it was liable under section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The competent authority sanctioned a refund, but the first appellate authority upheld the tax liability, considering the service within the ambit of taxation under section 66A. The Trade Notice relied upon was disregarded due to its narrow application.

2. The institution ceased tax payments to the overseas collaborator, leading to show cause notices for recovery of tax under section 66A. The appellate authority confirmed the tax amounts for different periods. The original authority had sanctioned a refund based on the non-commercial objectives of the institution, but the appellate authority upheld the tax liability.

3. The Tribunal considered the scope of section 66A and Rule 3(iii) of Taxation of Services Rules, 2006. The appellant argued that lower authorities did not consider the scope of section 66A as elaborated in previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal noted the deeming provision in section 66A and implied exemptions under section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994.

4. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not consider certain aspects raised by the appellant, necessitating a fresh decision. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original authority for a fresh decision after hearing the appellant.

Conclusion:
The judgment addressed the taxability of services received by a public trust educational institution, the interpretation of relevant sections of the Finance Act, 1994, and the application of specific rules and provisions. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a comprehensive consideration of all relevant aspects in tax liability determination and ordered a fresh decision by the original authority.