Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2020 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 80 - AT - Service TaxReverse charge mechanism - Banking & other financial services - recipient of services or not - services provided by the Foreign Banks situated outside India - extended period of limitation - October, 2010 to March, 2015 - whether the Foreign Banks have provided any service of transfer/exchange of documents and transfer of money relating to exports made by the exporters in India, who receive money through the Appellant Bank against the said export? HELD THAT:- The nature of the transactions that take place when an exporter in India exports goods to an importer outside India has been described in the preceding paragraphs. The Appellant Bank provides service to the exporters by sending the export documents to the bank of the importer abroad and collects payment. Thus, the role of the Appellant Bank is to settle the payment relating to export/import of trade. For performance of such activity, the Appellant Bank charges service tax to the exporters and there is no dispute about the said charges in this Appeal. The Appellant Bank cannot be said to be the recipient of service for the activities undertaken by the Foreign Banks situated outside India, the charges for which are deducted at source on the export bill. The Appellant Bank merely acts on behalf of the Indian exporter and facilitates the service. The Appellant Bank, therefore, would not be liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. It is, thus, clear that where service tax is chargeable on any taxable service with reference to its value, then such value shall be determined in the manner provided for in (i), (ii) or (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 67. What needs to be noted is that each of these refer to “where the provision of service is for a consideration”, whether it be in the form of money, or not wholly or partly consisting of money, or where it is not ascertainable. In either of the cases, there has to be a “consideration” for the provision of such service. Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 67 defines “consideration” to include any amount that is payable for the taxable services provided or to be provided, or any reimbursable expenditure, or any amount retained by the lottery distributor or selling agent. It is clear from the aforesaid definition of “consideration” that only an amount that is payable for the taxable service will be considered as “consideration” - The Appellant Bank has not paid any consideration to the Foreign Bank as is clear from the factual position emerging out of the export trade and, therefore, also the Appellant Bank cannot be said to be the recipient of any service by the Foreign Bank. The Indian Bank is not the recipient of any service rendered by the Foreign Bank and, therefore, there is no liability to pay service tax on a reverse charge mechanism. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|