9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1521 - HC - Service TaxRefund claim - Business Auxiliary Services - commission received from foreign based principals for promotion of sale of its products/ goods in India. Held that - An identical nature of services as rendered by the Respondent to its foreign clients, had come up for consideration before this Court in Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai v/s. ATE Enterprises (P) Ltd., 2017 (8) TMI 1233 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , where it was held that services of procuring orders and passing it to its overseas principal/parties and receiving payments for the same in foreign exchange, is an activity of export of services covered by the Export of Service Rules, 2005. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of case law and circulars related to service tax. 2. Determination of services falling under 'Export of Service Rules, 2005'. 3. Applicability of Circular No.111/5/2009-ST in the case. 4. Consideration of previous court decisions on similar issues. Issue 1: Interpretation of case law and circulars related to service tax The High Court considered the appeal challenging the Tribunal's order dismissing the Revenue's appeal regarding service tax demand. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in considering certain cases and orders as they were not applicable to the present case. The Court analyzed the interpretation of Circular No.111/5/2009-ST and questioned its alignment with the Respondent's case. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Service Tax's decision that the services provided by the Respondent fell under the Export of Service Rules, 2005, based on Circular No.111/5/2009-ST. The Court reviewed the arguments presented by the Revenue's counsel based on the show cause notice but found the issue no longer resintegra due to previous court decisions. Issue 2: Determination of services falling under 'Export of Service Rules, 2005' The genesis of the case lay in the Revenue's contention that services provided by the Respondent, receiving commission for promoting foreign-based principals' products in India, should be classified as 'Business Auxiliary Services' chargeable to tax. However, the Commissioner of Service Tax accepted the Respondent's argument that the services constituted export of service under the Export of Service Rules, 2005. The Tribunal also upheld this view, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. Issue 3: Applicability of Circular No.111/5/2009-ST in the case The Court noted that Circular No.111/5/2009-ST clarified that services rendered by Indian agents for marketing foreign sellers' goods would be covered by the Export of Service Rules, 2005. This circular played a significant role in supporting the Respondent's case and influencing the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the Revenue's appeal. Issue 4: Consideration of previous court decisions on similar issues The Court referred to previous judgments, including Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai v/s. ATE Enterprises (P) Ltd., and Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai VII, Commissionerate v/s. M/s. Blue Star Ltd., to support the conclusion that the services provided by the Respondent constituted export of services under the Export of Service Rules, 2005. These decisions, along with Circular No.111/5/2009-ST, formed the basis for rejecting the Revenue's appeal and upholding the Tribunal's order. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the questions raised did not give rise to any substantial questions of law. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant case law, circulars, and previous court judgments, ultimately supporting the classification of the services provided by the Respondent as falling under the Export of Service Rules, 2005.
|
