Tribunal ruling: Appellant not liable for service tax on business support services

The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax under Business Support Services (BSS). The arrangement with distributors was deemed principal-to-principal, not an Association of Persons (AOP). The revenue-sharing did not signify service provision, absolving the appellant from service tax obligations. The Court dismissed the Department's appeal, affirming the Tribunal's ruling.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the arrangement between the appellant and the distributors constitutes an Association of Persons (AOP) or a principal-to-principal basis.
2. Whether the services provided by the appellant fall under "support services of business or commerce" (BSS).
3. Whether the revenue sharing arrangement implies provision of services.
4. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the payments made to the distributors for screening the films.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Association of Persons (AOP) vs. Principal-to-Principal Basis
The Commissioner determined that the arrangement between the appellant and the distributors constituted an AOP, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Faqir Chand Gulati vs. Uppal Agencies Pvt Ltd. The Commissioner concluded that the enterprise created by the agreement was a joint venture, thus forming an AOP. This was based on the Circular dated 13.12.2011, which indicated that revenue/profit-sharing arrangements could lead to the emergence of a new entity with the character of an AOP.

Issue 2: Classification under BSS
The Commissioner classified the services rendered by the appellant under BSS, both before and after the amendment in the definition of BSS. The definition of BSS under Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act includes services provided in relation to business or commerce, such as infrastructural support services. The Commissioner held that the appellant provided infrastructure support services to the producers/distributors of films.

Issue 3: Revenue Sharing Arrangement
The appellant argued that a revenue-sharing arrangement does not necessarily imply the provision of services unless a service provider and service recipient relationship is established. The Tribunal in previous decisions, including Inox Leisure Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Hyderabad, and M/s. PVS Multiplex India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-l, concluded that such arrangements do not constitute the provision of services. The Tribunal emphasized that the agreements were on a principal-to-principal basis, and no service was provided by the appellant to the distributors.

Issue 4: Liability to Pay Service Tax
The Tribunal examined whether the appellant was liable to pay service tax on the payments made to the distributors. In Moti Talkies vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-l, the Tribunal observed that the appellant did not provide any service to the distributors, and no consideration flowed from the distributors to the appellant. Similar views were expressed in other cases, such as The Asian Art Printers (Sheila Theatre) vs. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-l, and Satyam Cineplexes Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-l.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax under BSS. The arrangement between the appellant and the distributors was on a principal-to-principal basis and did not constitute an AOP. The revenue-sharing arrangement did not imply the provision of services, and no service tax was payable on the payments made to the distributors. The Tribunal set aside the order dated 16.06.2016 passed by the Commissioner and allowed the appeal. The Supreme Court upheld this view, dismissing the Civil Appeal filed by the Department.

---