9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 577 - AT - Service TaxClassification of services - Export of service or not - Management, Business Consultancy Services or Real Estate Agent service - appellant is engaged in providing non-binding investment advisory service to SITQ Mauritius Advisory Services and other such entities - export of services in terms of Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 - period from 2007-08 to 2010-11 - HELD THAT - the appellant renders investment advisory services in relation to investment and not to any particular real estate / project. It is advising in respect of investment in Companies in real estate sector in the form of equity / debt and not in real estate property per se. Further, the advisory services provided by the appellant are not restricted to advising in respect of investments. It is wider in scope and also includes general economic and market conditions, tax environment etc. The appellant also advises on various funding, investment structuring options. The matter is no longer res integra. This matter has already been decided by this Tribunal in party's own case M/S. SITQ INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS C.S.T., DELHI 2018 (3) TMI 770 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that Tribunal in the case of AMP capital Advisors Indian Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Mumbai 2015 (6) TMI 122 - CESTAT MUMBAI , observed that the appellant providing advisory services to AMP capital, Australia and the service recipient using said advice received for further advising for their customers in India, would qualify for export of service. The services provided by the appellant is classifiable under Management, Business Consultancy Services , and, therefore, the demand of service tax is not sustainable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the service provided by the appellant. 2. Applicability of the best judgment method for calculating service tax. 3. Determination of whether the service qualifies as 'Export of Service'. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of the Service Provided by the Appellant: The appellant is registered under various service categories, including 'Management, Business Consultancy Services' (MBCS). The Department contended that the appellant's investment advisory services related to real estate properties in India should be taxable under 'Real Estate Agent service' as defined under section 65(105)(v) of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant's services, which include advising on investment opportunities in companies within the real estate sector and not directly in real estate properties, fall under 'Management, Business Consultancy Services'. This conclusion was supported by previous Tribunal decisions in similar cases (AMP Capital Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Mumbai and others), which emphasized that services advising on investments in companies, even if those companies are in the real estate sector, do not equate to real estate agent services. 2. Applicability of the Best Judgment Method for Calculating Service Tax: The demand for service tax for the period 2011-2012 was based on the best judgment method under section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant argued that this method was applied arbitrarily, as they had filed service tax returns and provided financial statements for the period in question. The Tribunal noted that the best judgment method is applicable only when the assessee fails to file returns or when financial records are unavailable or vague. Since the appellant had filed the necessary returns and provided financial statements, the Tribunal found the application of the best judgment method unjustified. This was supported by decisions in Carisberg India Pvt Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi and Coca Cola (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi, which emphasized the necessity of a clear basis for resorting to the best judgment method. 3. Determination of Whether the Service Qualifies as 'Export of Service': The Department argued that since the real estate properties related to the advisory services were in India, the services could not be classified as 'Export of Service'. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant's services were provided to foreign entities without any office in India, and the advisory services were related to investment in companies rather than direct real estate transactions. Therefore, the services qualified as 'Export of Service' under Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. This was consistent with the Tribunal's previous rulings, such as in AMP Capital Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Mumbai, where advisory services provided to foreign entities were deemed export services as the benefit accrued outside India. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the services provided by the appellant were correctly classifiable under 'Management, Business Consultancy Services' and not 'Real Estate Agent service'. Consequently, the demand for service tax based on the best judgment method was not sustainable. The services were also deemed to qualify as 'Export of Service', making the appellant eligible for the corresponding benefits. The Order-in-Original was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
|
