2018 (6) TMI 132 - AT - Service Tax

Exemption to taxable service provided for distribution of electricity - services performed as an agent on behalf on the principal - appellant is a distribution licensee or not? - Benefit of N/N. 32/2010-ST dated 22/06/2010 denied - sole ground for denial of benefit of exemption N/N. 32/2010-ST dated 22/06/2010 is that the appellant is not a distribution licensee or distribution franchisee or any other person authorized under the Electricity Act for distribution of electricity - Held that - Admittedly, the appellant is providing the services of distribution of electricity on behalf of DHBVN & UNBVN, who are the distribution licensees. Therefore, it is to be seen that whether the appellant got the right for transmission of electricity from their principals. Admittedly, the appellant has provided these services on behalf of the distribution licensee, who are having license to distribute the electricity. In the case of Canara Bank 2012 (6) TMI 274 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD , this Tribunal got an occasion to examine the issue whether a person, who is providing services on behalf of the principal is entitled to the benefit of notification or not, and it was held that an exemption to the principal would be available to agent also. As the appellant is providing services on behalf of the principal, who is having a license as distribution licensee to distribute electricity under the Electricity Act. Therefore, the benefit exemption N/N. 32/2010-ST dated 22/06/2010 cannot be denied to the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order demanding service tax, interest, and penalties under the Finance Act, 1994 for services provided in relation to distribution of electricity without obtaining service tax registration and payment.

Analysis:

1. Issue of Service Tax Liability:
The appellant appealed against the order demanding service tax, interest, and penalties for providing erection, commissioning, and installation services to distribution licensees without obtaining service tax registration or payment. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties for the period after 30/06/2012. The appellant argued that services provided are exempted from service tax under Notification No.32/2010-ST dated 22/06/2010 as they acted as agents of the distribution licensees. The appellant relied on precedents where agents were entitled to exemptions available to principals.

2. Interpretation of Exemption Notification:
The central issue revolved around the interpretation of Notification No.32/2010-ST dated 22/06/2010, which exempts taxable services provided for the distribution of electricity by authorized entities. The appellant contended that since they acted on behalf of distribution licensees, they should be entitled to the exemption. The tribunal analyzed the notification and held that the benefit of the exemption should extend to the appellant as they provided services on behalf of the distribution licensees who were authorized under the Electricity Act.

3. Legal Precedents and Application:
The tribunal referred to legal precedents where it was established that agents representing principals were entitled to the same rights and exemptions as their principals. Citing cases like Canara Bank and State Bank of Patiala, the tribunal concluded that the appellant, acting as an agent of the distribution licensees, should be granted the benefit of the exemption notification. The tribunal emphasized that the appellant, providing services on behalf of the principal with a distribution license, should not be denied the exemption.

4. Decision and Relief Granted:
After thorough analysis and considering the arguments presented, the tribunal held that the appellant correctly availed the benefit of the exemption under Notification No.32/2010-ST dated 22/06/2010. Consequently, the impugned order demanding service tax, interest, and penalties was set aside. The tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellant, granting them consequential relief as deemed necessary. The decision was pronounced in court, providing relief to the appellant against the service tax liabilities imposed by the adjudicating authority.

This detailed analysis highlights the legal interpretations, precedents, and application of exemption notifications that led to the tribunal's decision in favor of the appellant regarding the service tax liabilities for services provided in relation to the distribution of electricity.