Port services classification turns on whether stevedoring is done on behalf of the port, not merely within port premises.

Stevedoring services performed by licence holders in the port area were treated as cargo handling, not port services, because the licences were only permission to carry on the activity and did not authorise the licensees to act on behalf of the port. The taxable character depended on the nature of the activity and whether it was rendered for the port, and services done directly by the licensee on its own behalf did not become port services merely due to their location within port premises. On that basis, the demand was unsustainable and the assessees obtained consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether services rendered by stevedoring licensees within the port area were taxable as port services or were only cargo handling services.

Analysis: The appellants held stevedoring licences and rendered cargo handling operations in the port area on their own behalf. The licence was treated only as permission to carry on such activities and not as authorisation to render services on behalf of the port. On the reasoning already accepted in earlier Tribunal decisions, services done directly by the licensee do not become port services merely because they are performed within port premises; the relevant character of the activity remains cargo handling.

Conclusion: The services were not liable to be classified as port services, and the demand could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the assessees obtained consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Services carried on directly by a stevedoring licensee on its own behalf are not port services merely because they are performed within port premises; the taxable character depends on whether the services are rendered on behalf of the port.

---