2022 (2) TMI 11 - HC - Service Tax

High Court Upholds Re-Insurance Tax Credit for Insurers

Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Commissionerate Jaipur Versus Shriram General Insurance Company Limited,

Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Commissionerate Jaipur Versus Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, - 2023 (69) G.S.T.L. 339 (Raj.) Issues:- Challenge to the judgment of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding service tax paid on re-insurance as allowable input service.- Interpretation of the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.- Applicability of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in a similar case.- Distinction between simple re-insurance and pooling mechanism in the insurance industry.- Examination of statutory requirements and directives under the Insurance Act, 1938 regarding reinsurance and pooling arrangements.Analysis:The appeal before the High Court challenged the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's judgment concerning the eligibility of service tax paid on re-insurance as an input service. The Commissioner had denied the input service credit to the respondent-insurance company based on the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal, relying on a Karnataka High Court judgment, allowed the appeal, emphasizing the continuous nature of insurance processes beyond policy issuance. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal, stating that re-insurance is an integral part of the insurance process, eligible for CENVAT credit to prevent double taxation.The revenue objected to the applicability of the Karnataka High Court judgment, arguing that the pooling mechanism used by the respondent and other insurers was not a statutory requirement. However, the Tribunal highlighted the statutory provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938, empowering the IRDA to regulate reinsurance matters, including pooling arrangements. The IRDA's directive mandated all general insurers to participate in a pooling arrangement, similar to the scenario in the Karnataka High Court case, where re-insurance was considered an allowable input service.The High Court found little distinction between the two cases, emphasizing that the pooling system mandated by the IRDA was a form of re-insurance with statutory backing. The definition of reinsurance under the Insurance Act, 1938, and the compulsory nature of re-insurance under Section 101A further supported the conclusion that the pooling mechanism constituted re-insurance. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision and reaffirming the eligibility of re-insurance as an input service under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.