Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2022 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 761 - HC - Service TaxRefund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - export of legal services - services on which no tax was payable by the Respondent - service provided by the Respondent fell under the definition of “Output service” as defined under Section 2(p) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or not - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of Rule 2(p) of the 2004 Rules would show that the definition of “output service” has the following attributes: First, the service should be provided by a provider of service who is located in the taxable territory. Second, the service provided by the service provider should not fall in the negative list of services, as adverted to in Section 66D of the 1994 Act. Third, in cases where the whole i.e., the entire service tax is liable to be paid by the recipient of service, such service would not fall within the definition of “output service”. Insofar as the assessee is concerned, there is no dispute that it is located within the taxable territory i.e., in India. It is also not disputed that the assessee does not fall within the negative list of the services provided under Section 66D of the 1994 Act. Thus, it cannot but be concluded that the said exclusionary provision i.e., Subrule (2) of Rule 2(p) of the 2004 rules, is not applicable to the assessee, as in respect of legal service exported by it, service tax is not paid by the recipient of service. The recipient of service is located outside the taxable territory and therefore, this provision can only apply to legal services offered by the assessee to the recipient of service located within the taxable territory. Clearly, the definition of exempted service excludes services which are exported in terms of Rule 6A of the 1994 Rules - the questions of law framed hereinabove are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue - the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
|