2017 (5) TMI 963 - AT - Service Tax

Reverse charge - banking and other financial services - maintenance and repair services - services received from foreign entities - Held that - the provision of the service, the nature of the relationship between the overseas entity that purportedly received the service and the entity in India, and the manner in which the payment for service has, in effect, moved from the Indian entity be examined in detail as a prelude to crystallising the tax liability. A mere linking of the various segments of section 66A of FA, 1994 and the payment made by a remotely connected overseas entity which has entered into a distinct agreement with other overseas entities would not suffice to justify the levy of tax on reverse charge - In order to ascertain the liability to tax, pertaining to banking or financial service , it would be in the interest of justice the remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to determine the tax liability after considering the various aspects - we exclude that portion of the demand pertaining to maintenance or repair service which we have held to be without authority of law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues:
1. Tax liability on services received from foreign entities
2. Maintenance and repair services taxability
3. Applicability of tax demand on external commercial borrowings
4. Bar of limitation on tax demand

Issue 1: Tax liability on services received from foreign entities

The appellant challenged the tax liability of service tax under section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, for services received from foreign entities. The impugned order confirmed a demand of service tax along with penalties. The appellant argued that the payments made were not for services falling under 'banking and financial services' or 'maintenance and repair'. The tribunal analyzed the transactions and found that the relationship between the lessor and lessee did not establish the lessor as a service provider. The contributions made to the maintenance reserve fund were deemed not taxable as consideration for services, as there was no evidence of the lessor providing maintenance or repair services. The tribunal held that the tax demand on these contributions was not sustainable in law.

Issue 2: Maintenance and repair services taxability

The tribunal examined the taxability of maintenance and repair services provided by the appellant for leased aircraft. It was established that the appellant undertakes maintenance and repair, while the lessor does not. The adjudicating authority deemed the lessor as a service provider based on contributions to the maintenance reserve fund. However, the tribunal found this reasoning to be unsupported by evidence and not in line with the definition of taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal concluded that the contributions to the fund were not subject to tax as consideration for services.

Issue 3: Applicability of tax demand on external commercial borrowings

The tribunal assessed the tax demand on costs incurred for external commercial borrowings for aircraft acquisition. It noted complex arrangements involving overseas entities and financial institutions. The adjudicating authority linked payments made by an overseas entity to the appellant, deeming the appellant as the recipient of services. However, the tribunal found a lack of evidence connecting the payments to the appellant's tax liability. It emphasized the need to establish the provision of services, the relationship between entities, and the flow of payments before confirming tax liability. The tribunal suggested a detailed examination of these aspects before finalizing the tax demand.

Issue 4: Bar of limitation on tax demand

The appellant contended that the tax demand was barred by limitation due to being a public sector enterprise. The tribunal did not rule on this aspect but directed the adjudicating authority to consider the appellant's submissions on the limitation issue. The tribunal emphasized the importance of a detailed assessment of all aspects related to the tax liability before finalizing the demand. The appeal was disposed of by remand limited to the demand concerning 'banking or financial service', excluding the portion related to maintenance or repair services.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the tribunal's thorough examination of each issue raised by the appellant, providing clarity on the tax liability on services received from foreign entities, maintenance and repair services taxability, applicability of tax demand on external commercial borrowings, and the bar of limitation on the tax demand.

← Previous Next →