Court affirms export of services ruling for marketing abroad.

The Court upheld the Authority's ruling that the place of provision of marketing and support services to foreign manufacturers was the location of the service recipients in the USA and China. It also confirmed that the services provided qualified as an export of taxable services under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Court rejected the Commissioner's challenge, noting that new grounds cannot be raised in a writ petition and that the ruling's binding effect was until 30.09.2014. The writ petition was dismissed without costs, with post-amendment taxation matters to be determined by lower authorities.

---

---

Issues:
1. Determination of the place of provision of marketing and support services under the Place of Provision of Service Rules 2012.
2. Qualification of marketing and support services as export of taxable services under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.

Issue 1: Determination of the place of provision of marketing and support services under the Place of Provision of Service Rules 2012:
The case involved the respondent, an Indian subsidiary of a foreign manufacturer, providing marketing and sales support for floor covering products to Indian customers. The respondent sought an advance ruling on the place of provision of services provided to the foreign manufacturers in the USA and China. The Authority ruled that the place of provision would be the location of the service recipients, i.e., in the USA and China, in accordance with Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules 2012.

Issue 2: Qualification of marketing and support services as export of taxable services under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994:
The Authority also addressed whether the services provided by the respondent to the foreign manufacturers qualified as an export of taxable services under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Authority determined that the services provided by the respondent to the foreign manufacturers would amount to an export of service within the meaning of Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.

The Commissioner of Service Tax challenged the Authority's order, arguing that the case fell under an exception in Rule 9(c) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules 2012, and the concession given by the Commissioner was based on incorrect information. However, the Court found no grounds challenging the concession given by the Commissioner. The Court also noted that the definition of "intermediary" had changed post-amendment effective from 01.10.2014, making the Authority's ruling inapplicable after that date.

The Court refused to interfere with the Authority's order, stating that the Commissioner could not challenge an order based on their own concession. The Court also highlighted that new grounds cannot be raised in a writ petition, especially if they relate to factual aspects not previously raised. The ruling's binding effect was clarified to be until 30.09.2014, after which the matter of taxation would be left to the lower authorities for determination.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition without any order as to costs, emphasizing that the effect of the ruling would not apply to the respondent-Company after 01.10.2014, leaving the taxation matter post-amendment to be decided by lower authorities.

---