Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 9 - AT - Service TaxRefund of the unutilized input service credit - intermediary services or not - export of service or not - input services used by the respondent to export information technology software service to Jindal LLC located in New York, USA under the contracts - place of provision of services. According to the department, since the service provider i.e. the respondent is an intermediary, the place of provision of service by the respondent would be the location of the service provider under rule 9(c) of the 2012 Rules - According to the respondent, the place of provision of service shall be the location of the recipient of service as provided under rule 3 of the 2012 Rules. HELD THAT:- An intermediary is a person who arranges or facilitates provision of the main service between two or more persons. The respondent is not involved in the arrangement or facilitation of the supply of service. In fact, the respondent had entered into agreement with Jindal LLC for providing telecommunication services and other services on a principal to principal basis. The telecommunication service and other services provided by the respondent qualify for export service since it is providing services to Jindal LLC which is located outside India and is receiving convertible foreign exchange for such services. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in VERIZON COMMUNICATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SERVICE TAX, DELHI III, DIVISION-XIV & ANR. [2017 (9) TMI 632 - DELHI HIGH COURT] to hold that the respondent is not an intermediary. It is seen from a perusal of the aforesaid judgment that Verizon India had entered into a Master Supply Agreement with Verizon US for rendering connectivity services for the purpose of data transfer. Verizon US was engaged in the provision of telecommunication services for which it entered into contracts with the customers located globally. Since Verizon US did not have the capacity to provide such services across the globe, it utilized the services of Verizon India to provide connectivity to its customers. The issue, therefore, that arose before the Delhi High Court was whether the telecommunication services provided by Verizon India during the period April 2011 to September 2014 to Verizon US would qualify as ‘export of services’. The department believed that the said services would not qualify as ‘export of services’. The Delhi High Court noted that in the process of gathering the data from the entities in India for transmission to Verizon US, Verizon India availed services of Indian telecommunication service providers like Vodafone and Airtel. These service providers raised invoices on Verizon India and Verizon India paid these service providers the requisite charges. Verizon India thereafter raised an invoice on Verizon US for the ‘export of services’ provided by it to Verizon US. Since the recipient of the service (Verizon US) was outside India, Verizon India treated it as an export of service and understood that it was exempted from service tax under the Export of Service Rules 2005. Verizon US, in turn, raised invoices on its customers in the US - The Delhi High Court pointed out that the ‘recipient’ of services is determined by the contract between the parties and this would depend on who has the contractual right to receive the services and who is responsible for the payment for the services provided to the service recipient; there was no privity of contract between Verizon India and the customers of Verizon US; such customers may be the ‘users’ of the services provided by Verizon India but were not its recipients; Verizon India may have been using the services of a local telecom operator but that would not mean that the services to Verizon US were being rendered in India; and the place of provision of such service to Verizon US remains outside India. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly appreciated the position in the impugned order in holding that the respondent was not an intermediary and was involved in export of service to Jindal LLC. Circular dated September 20, 2021 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs also emphasizes that an intermediary essentially arranges or facilitates another supply (the “main supply”) between two or more other persons and, does not himself provide the main supply. It also clarifies that in cases where a person supplies the main supply either fully or partly, on principal to principal basis, the said supply cannot be covered under the scope of ‘intermediary’. There are no illegality in the order dated July 14, 2018 passed by the Commissioner - appeal of Revenue dismissed.
|