Clearing and forwarding agent service does not cover mere tank storage where core forwarding functions are not proved.

Storage of goods in tanks was examined against the statutory scope of clearing and forwarding agent service, which covers persons engaged in clearing and forwarding operations such as receipt, warehousing, dispatch, stock control, and invoicing. On the facts recorded, no evidence showed that those functions were performed; the activity was limited to storage and warehousing of products. Accordingly, the service could not be classified as clearing and forwarding agent service on the proved record, and the resulting tax demand was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amounts paid for storage tank facilities were taxable as clearing and forwarding agent service, or whether the activity was merely storage and warehousing service outside the disputed tax demand period.

Analysis: The relevant definition covered persons engaged, directly or indirectly, in clearing and forwarding operations. The trade notice relied upon by the respondent set out the normal activities of a clearing and forwarding agent, including receipt of goods, warehousing, dispatch on principal's directions, stock records, and invoicing. No evidence showed that the parties carried out those activities; the record indicated only storage of products in tanks. On that basis, the activity could not be brought within clearing and forwarding agent service on the facts proved.

Conclusion: The disputed activity was not taxable as clearing and forwarding agent service, and the demand was unsustainable.

---