Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/2331

ST on services rendered outside India by overseas branches.
Case:-  KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-I
 
Citation:- 2014 (33) S.T.R. 105 (Tri. - Mumbai)
 
Brief facts:- The appeal and stay application were directed against Order-in-Original No. : 30/RKS/ST/P-I/2012, dated 12-10-2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I.
The appellant, KPIT Cummins Infosystems Ltd., Pune were engaged in providing various services such as Business Auxiliary Service, Business Support Service, Information Technology Software Service, Management Consultancy Service, Maintenance or Repair Service, Renting of Immovable Property Service, Transport of Goods by Road Service, etc. They had their branch office in three countries outside India, namely, Japan, Singapore, South Africa, etc. These branch offices were engaged in ‘Software Development and Consultancy Service’ and these services were provided to overseas customers. Consideration for the services rendered abroad was received by the branches that raised such bills on the customers. Thereafter, deducting the expenditure incurred for rendering the services abroad, excess of income over expenditure of the branches was remitted to their head office of the appellant in India. The department was of the view that the services rendered by the overseas branches on behalf of the parent-company falls under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ and accordingly, the entire amount received by the overseas branches were liable to Service Tax. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 24-4-2012 was issued demanding Service Tax of Rs. 17,29,61,546/- on the total receipt of the overseas branches amounting to Rs. 1,55,22,06,404/-.
The appellant had also permanent establishment abroad by way of personnel located in the offices of their various clients abroad. These personnel rendered the service to the overseas clients and for rendering such services, they incurred various expenditure such as rentals, telephone, insurance charges, vehicle charges, postage and courier charges, conference and event management expenses, software AMC and licence renewals. For meeting these expenses the head office remitted money from India amounting to Rs. 1,15,30,16,285/-. The department was of the view that the appellant was liable to pay Service Tax, on reverse charge basis, amounting to Rs. 13,66,44,081/- during the period October, 2006 to December, 2011. The impugned show cause notice also proposed to confirm the above demand along with interest thereon. The notice also proposed to impose penalties on the appellant.
The notices were adjudicated vide the impugned order and Service Tax demands were confirmed along with interest and a penalty of Rs. 30,72,75,553/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
 
Appellant’s contentions:- The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions :
The branches were not independent entities and they were part of the appellant’s organization. Therefore, if the branches had undertaken service to the overseas customers, it would not be considered as service received by the appellant as there could not be a service to self. Even if it was held that the appellants had rendered the service, since service had been rendered to the overseas customers, it amounted to export of service. Thirdly, the appellant had received the proceeds in convertible foreign exchange and they had not made any payments to the branches. Therefore, the question of payment of any Service Tax on reverse charge basis under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 would not arise at all as there was no payment by the appellant to their branches abroad for rendering of any services.
For the services rendered abroad they had discharged tax liabilities such as GST/VAT etc. in accordance with the local laws. Therefore, on the same transaction, the authorities in India did not have any jurisdiction to impose any Service Tax. Similarly, in the case of payments made to service providers in USA for services rendered to the permanent establishment, the said service had been rendered in USA and the tax liability had been discharged thereon. Therefore, there was no jurisdiction vested with the Indian authorities to levy a tax thereon.
They rely on the decisions of this Tribunal in the following cases :
(i)          Aztecsoft Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore - 2012 (26)S.T.R.552;
(ii)         IDS Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore - 2012 (28)   S.T.R.389;
(iii)        Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad - 2009 (16)S.T.R.748;
(iv)        Tech Mahindra Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2012 (26)S.T.R.344.
Prior to 16-5-2008 ‘Information Technology Service was not under the tax net, and therefore, the question of demanding any Service Tax on such services rendered abroad in respect of ‘Information Technology Software Services’ prior to that date would not arise at all.

Respondent’s contentions:- The learned Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue on the other hand submitted that as per the provisions of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, even in respect of an Indian company, if they had a fixed establishment abroad, the services received by the Indian entity would be leviable to Service Tax in India on reverse charge basis and, therefore, the demand of Service Tax was sustainable in law. Accordingly, he pleaded for upholding the impugned order and putting the appellant to terms.
 
Reasoning of judgment;- The Bench had carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. As the issue involved interpretation of law, they took up the appeal for consideration, after waiving the requirement of any pre-deposit.
The provisions of Section 66A were attracted only when services were received in India by a person situated in India even if such persons may had permanent establishment abroad. In the present case, the appellant had provided services through their branches abroad to customers located abroad. Therefore, it was not a case of the appellant receiving the services but it was a question of rendering services abroad. Further, the appellant had not made any payments for the receipt of any services whereas on the other hand, the appellant had received proceeds of the service rendered abroad by their branches, after deduction of expenditure incurred for rendering of services abroad. Therefore, prima facie, they were of the view that the provisions of Section 66A were not at all attracted.
Secondly, if the services rendered abroad had been subject to local taxation, the question of levying Service Tax in India on the very same transactions would not arise at all. There could not be two taxing jurisdictions for the same transactions. Service tax was a destination based consumption tax and taxability would arise only at the place where the consumption takes place. In the instant case, the service had been rendered to the clients abroad and, therefore, the consumption of the service was not in India but abroad. Therefore, the question of subjecting the said activity to Service Tax in India does not appear to be sustainable in law. The appellant had assured that they will be able to lead evidence regarding payment of GST/VAT on the services rendered abroad if opportunity was given to them.
Thirdly, even if it was assumed that the appellant had received the service from abroad from their branches, since the service had been consumed by the clients abroad, it would amount to export of service under Rule 3 of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 in which case also there would not be any Service Tax liability. In the case of permanent establishment of the appellant situated abroad, the service had been provided by foreign service providers abroad and the service had also been consumed abroad.
In this view of the matter, it appeared that the adjudicating authority had not considered any of the issues germane to the matter. Further, this Tribunal in the case of Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) held that when service was provided outside India, liability to pay Service Tax under reverse charge mechanism under Section 66A would not arise. Similarly, in the case of IDS Systems Pvt. Ltd. also this Tribunal held that, as regards reimbursement of expenditure relating to employees deputed to USA, the activities had taken place in USA and therefore, liability to Service Tax would not arise. In the case of Aztescsoft Ltd. also, this Tribunal held that, if the activities had been undertaken in a foreign territory, the question of levying Service Tax in India would not arise.
In view of the above factual and legal position, they were of the considered view that the matter had to go back to the original adjudicating authority for consideration afresh with regard to the question, whether he had any jurisdiction to demand Service Tax on activities which were completely rendered outside India and on which tax liability had been discharged under the local laws where the activity had taken place. All issues were kept open. The appellant was at liberty to produce evidence of discharge of tax liability on the transactions rendered abroad under the local laws before the adjudicating authority.
Thus, the appeal was allowed by way of remand. The stay application was also disposed of.
 
Decision:- Appeal allowed by way of remand.
 
Comment:- The analogy drawn from the case is that if the overseas branch act as a part of assesses organization itself, then in such case, no service tax under reverse charge was payable for the services rendered by overseas branches outside India. Further, for the services rendered by the overseas branches, VAT, GST as per the local taxation laws had already been paid abroad. Thus, service tax being a destination based tax, service tax shall not be leviable on the services provided by the overseas branches.
Prepared by: Ranu Dhoot
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com