2019 (8) TMI 209 - AT - Service Tax

Taxability - consideration received as commission agent - N/N. 13/2003-ST dated 20th June, 2003 - HELD THAT - While the definition of commission agent is of particular relevance to sale or purchase of goods on behalf of another person, the exemption is not restricted to the specific enumeration therein but to every activity of a commission agent . It would, therefore, appear, from a harmonious construction of the definition and the exemption notification, including the eligibility, that any commission agent , who deals in goods is not required to pay tax on any of the activities enumerated under section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Tax liability on consideration received as 'commission agent'
2. Justification for invoking the extended period of limitation
3. Interpretation of exemption notification no. 13/2003-ST dated 20th June 2003
4. Applicability of judicial decisions on tax liability

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the tax liability of M/s Nova Petrochemicals Ltd, concerning the consideration received as a 'commission agent' for the period from 2003-04 to 2006-2007. The order for recovery of tax liability of &8377; 2,76,10,000 was challenged by the appellant, contending that the demand arose due to the modification of exemption in notification no. 13/2003-ST. The appellant argued that the show cause notice lacked justification for invoking the extended period of limitation, citing Tribunal decisions supporting the belief that the activities were not taxable under certain circumstances.

2. The appellant highlighted that the proceeding stemmed from an erroneous interpretation of notification no. 13/2003-ST, which was subsequently clarified by Tribunal decisions in similar cases. The appellant relied on various judicial precedents to support their contention that the tax liability should not apply based on the interpretation of the exemption notification and the activities of a 'commission agent.'

3. The Authorized Representative opposed the appellant's arguments, stating that the cited decisions were not applicable to the present case, as they were based on different factual contexts involving bundled services. The Tribunal analyzed the exemption notification and concluded that a 'commission agent' dealing in goods is not required to pay tax on activities enumerated under the Finance Act, 1994. The impugned order was found to deny the benefit of tax exemption incorrectly, leading to the decision to set it aside and allow the appeal.

4. The judgment emphasized the importance of a harmonious construction of the exemption notification and the definition of a 'commission agent' to determine the tax liability. By interpreting the notification in a manner consistent with the activities of a 'commission agent,' the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning the order for recovery of tax liability. The decision was pronounced on 31/07/2019 by the members of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD.