Statutory immunity from taxation barred reverse-charge service tax on services from international financial institutions.

Services received from the Asian Development Bank and the International Finance Corporation were held not liable to service tax under section 66A on a reverse-charge basis, because their statutory status and immunities placed them outside ordinary imported-service treatment. The Tribunal further held that the immunity provisions in the Asian Development Bank Act, 1966 and the International Finance Corporation (Status, Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1958, having the force of law in India, broadly excluded taxation and also any obligation to collect or withhold tax. As a result, the demands for tax, interest, and penalties were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether services received from the Asian Development Bank and the International Finance Corporation could be brought to service tax under section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 on a reverse-charge basis; (ii) Whether the immunity provisions in the Asian Development Bank Act, 1966 and the International Finance Corporation (Status, Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1958 excluded such services from tax and collection liability.

Issue (i): Whether services received from the Asian Development Bank and the International Finance Corporation could be brought to service tax under section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 on a reverse-charge basis.

Analysis: Section 66A created a deeming fiction for import of service where the foreign provider was outside India and the recipient was in India. The Rules framed under sections 93 and 94 of the Finance Act, 1994 were read as limiting taxability to cases falling within the prescribed categories of imported services. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from ordinary reverse-charge situations by holding that the foreign institutions were not jurisdictionally outside the Indian legal order in the same sense as ordinary foreign service providers, because their status, privileges, and immunities were statutorily recognised in India.

Conclusion: The services were not liable to tax under section 66A on the facts of the case.

Issue (ii): Whether the immunity provisions in the Asian Development Bank Act, 1966 and the International Finance Corporation (Status, Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1958 excluded such services from tax and collection liability.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the statutes implementing the international agreements had the force of law in India under Article 253 of the Constitution of India. Their non obstante clauses and immunity provisions were interpreted broadly to cover all taxation, including indirect taxes, and also to exclude any obligation to collect or withhold tax. The restriction clauses in the agreements were held not to dilute the core immunity from taxation on the services rendered by those institutions. On that basis, the contrary view in the adjudication order was rejected.

Conclusion: The immunity provisions barred the levy and collection of service tax on the services provided by the two international institutions.

Final Conclusion: The demands of tax, interest, and penalties were unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Parliament has given force of law to an international agreement conferring immunity from taxation and from collection or withholding of tax, a contrary deeming provision in the taxing statute cannot override that immunity.

---