2016 (4) TMI 986 - AT - Service Tax

Whether the manpower services rendered by the respondent are on behalf of the airport authority or not - providing services to M/s. Jet Airways (I) Pvt. Ltd. in the airport premises under a contract - Revenue contended that respondent is covered under Section 65(105)(zzm)(b) on the ground of providing services as per authorization by airport authority - Held that - the terms services provided to any person by any person who was authorized by Airport Authority means the services which are otherwise to be undertaken by Airport Authority is out sourced by Airport Authority for provision of services in the airport shall be covered under Airport Services , that means even a person is authorized to undertake the services in the airport, the service should be undertaken on behalf of Airport Authority. In the present case, the respondent is providing the services directly to M/s. Jet Airways (I) Pvt. Ltd. which is not on behalf of Airport Authority. The contract and terms thereof are decided by both i.e. by the respondent and M/s. Jet Airways (I) Pvt. Ltd., therefore it cannot be said that under this arrangement, Airport Authority has authorized the respondent to provide the services. Therefore, the Ld. Commissioner has correctly interpreted the definition of Airport Services and held that the services rendered by the respondent are not on behalf of the airport authority or authorized by airport authority. - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the definition of "Airport Services" under Section 65(105)(zzm) of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Whether the services provided by the respondent fall under the category of "Airport Services" and are thus liable for service tax.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of the definition of "Airport Services"
The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of the definition of "Airport Services" under Section 65(105)(zzm) of the Finance Act, 1994. The definition stated that "Taxable Service" means any service provided to any person by Airport Authority or any person authorized by it, in an airport or civil enclave. The key contention was whether the services provided by the respondent, within the airport premises, were covered under this definition.

Issue 2: Liability for service tax under "Airport Services"
The Revenue argued that the respondent's services to M/s. Jet Airways (I) Pvt. Ltd. within the airport premises fell under the category of "Airport Services" as authorized by the Airport Authority of India, making them liable for service tax. On the contrary, the respondent contended that they were not authorized by the Airport Authority but by the service recipient, M/s. Jet Airways (I) Pvt. Ltd., and hence did not fall under the definition of "Airport Services."

Analysis of Judgment:
The Tribunal analyzed the facts of the case and the relevant legal provisions. It was established that the respondent provided services directly to M/s. Jet Airways (I) Pvt. Ltd., without involvement or authorization from the Airport Authority of India. The Tribunal emphasized that for services to fall under "Airport Services," they must be provided by the Airport Authority or a person authorized by it. The Tribunal interpreted that authorization by the Airport Authority was a prerequisite for a service to be classified as "Airport Services."

The Tribunal referred to the amendment in the Finance Bill 2010, which clarified that services provided within the airport premises, whether authorized or not, would be covered under "Airport Services." However, prior to this amendment, authorization by the Airport Authority was necessary for a service to be classified as "Airport Services." The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings that the respondent's services did not fall under "Airport Services" as they were not authorized by the Airport Authority.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner's decision that the respondent's services were not covered under "Airport Services" and hence not liable for service tax under that category. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order and upheld the decision in favor of the respondent.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's interpretation of the relevant legal provisions leading to the final decision.