2022 (3) TMI 230 - AT - Service Tax

Liability of service tax - appellants are partners of partnership firm and they received certain renumeration and distribution of profit and same amount is shown as profit in their income tax returns - HELD THAT - The service recipient at the best in this case is only a partnership firm. The partner of a partnership firm is none other than the same, therefore, one would cannot provide service to oneself. As there is no recipient of service in this case, no service has been provided by the appellant. In the income tax returns, the figures shown by the appellants as sale of service is just a portion of the profit earned by them from the partnership firm. In that circumstance, on merits itself, the appellants are not liable to pay service tax. There are no merit in the impugned orders - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Common issue in two appeals - Whether partners of a partnership firm are liable to pay service tax on income received from the firm.

Analysis:
The appeals involved partners of a partnership firm, M/s. Ernst & Young, LLP, who had filed income tax returns showing income received from the firm as 'sale of services.' The authorities raised queries regarding the taxability of this income under the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants contended that the income received was a share in the profit of the partnership firm and not a payment for services provided to others. They referred to legal precedents, including a decision by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court, to support their argument that income received by partners of a partnership firm is not liable for service tax.

The Tribunal examined the records and arguments presented by both parties. It observed that in this case, the service recipient was the partnership firm itself, and a partner cannot provide services to oneself. The income shown as 'sale of services' in the tax returns was deemed to be a portion of the profit earned by the partners from the firm. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in a similar case, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were not liable to pay service tax as no service was provided to an external entity. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, granting relief to the appellants.

In summary, the Tribunal held that partners of a partnership firm receiving income from the firm are not liable to pay service tax under the Finance Act, 1994, as the income represents a share in the profit of the firm and not payment for services provided externally. The decision was based on the principle that a partner cannot provide services to oneself, and legal precedents supporting the non-taxability of partner income for service tax purposes.