Court invalidates service tax rules on ocean freight in CIF contracts, quashes related actions

The court deemed Rule 2(1)(d)(EEC) and Rule 6(7CA) of the Service Tax Rules, along with Explanation-V to Notification No.30/2012-ST, as ultra vires the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the proceedings for collecting service tax on ocean freight in CIF contracts were invalidated, and all related actions against the petitioners were quashed with accompanying reliefs and benefits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Rule 2(1)(d)(EEC) of the Service Tax Rules.
2. Validity of Notification No.15/2017-ST.
3. Validity of Notification No.16/2017-ST.
4. Validity of Circular No.206/4/2017-ST.
5. Validity of Show Cause Notice No.VI(a)/8-38/CEA/CIR-VI/Gr.29/2017-18 dated 28.6.2018.
6. Constitutional validity of levying service tax on ocean freight in CIF contracts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Rule 2(1)(d)(EEC) of the Service Tax Rules:
The court examined Rule 2(1)(d)(EEC) which defines the person liable for paying service tax on services by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India up to the Customs station of clearance in India as the importer. The court found that the rule was ultra vires Sections 64, 66B, 67, and 94 of the Finance Act, 1994, as it attempted to levy service tax on an extraterritorial event, i.e., services rendered and consumed outside India, which is beyond the statutory provisions of the Finance Act.

2. Validity of Notification No.15/2017-ST:
Notification No.15/2017-ST amended the reverse charge Notification No.30/2012-ST, making the importer liable for paying service tax on ocean freight in CIF contracts. The court held that this notification was ultra vires the Finance Act, 1994, as it imposed a tax on a third party (the importer) who is neither the service provider nor the service recipient, contrary to the provisions of Sections 66B and 68 of the Finance Act.

3. Validity of Notification No.16/2017-ST:
Notification No.16/2017-ST inserted Sub Rule (7CA) in Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, providing an option to pay service tax on 1.4% of the CIF value of the imported goods. The court found this rule to be ultra vires Section 67 and Section 94 of the Finance Act, as it attempted to fix the value of a taxable service without any statutory authority to do so, thus lacking a proper machinery provision for valuation.

4. Validity of Circular No.206/4/2017-ST:
The circular clarified that no abatement in value of service would be allowed for ocean freight, making the entire value of transportation charges subject to service tax. The court found this clarification to be incorrect and beyond the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, as it sought to impose service tax on the entire value of ocean freight without any statutory basis.

5. Validity of Show Cause Notice No.VI(a)/8-38/CEA/CIR-VI/Gr.29/2017-18 dated 28.6.2018:
The show cause notice was issued to recover service tax from the petitioner on ocean freight for imports made on CIF basis. The court quashed this notice, stating that the proceedings initiated under the impugned notifications and rules were invalid as they were based on provisions that were ultra vires the Finance Act, 1994.

6. Constitutional Validity of Levying Service Tax on Ocean Freight in CIF Contracts:
The court examined the constitutional validity of levying service tax on ocean freight in CIF contracts. It held that such a levy was beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament as it sought to tax services rendered and consumed outside India. The court emphasized that the Finance Act, 1994, does not permit the collection of service tax on extraterritorial events, and the impugned provisions were therefore unconstitutional and ultra vires Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion:
The court struck down Rule 2(1)(d)(EEC) and Rule 6(7CA) of the Service Tax Rules, and Explanation-V to Notification No.30/2012-ST as ultra vires the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for collecting service tax on ocean freight in CIF contracts were quashed and set aside with all consequential reliefs and benefits.

---