Tribunal sets aside service tax demand, ruling revenue-sharing not BSS, no service provider relationship

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order confirming the demand of service tax, interest, and penalty. It was held that the arrangement between the appellant and distributors did not constitute an Association of Persons or involve the provision of Business Support Services (BSS). The Tribunal emphasized that revenue-sharing arrangements do not necessarily imply a service provider-recipient relationship, supported by relevant Circulars and judicial precedents.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the arrangement between the appellant and the distributors constituted an Association of Persons or was on a principal-to-principal basis.
2. Whether the appellant provided Business Support Services (BSS) to the distributors.
3. Applicability of service tax on revenue sharing arrangements.
4. Interpretation of relevant Circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Association of Persons vs. Principal-to-Principal Basis:
The Commissioner argued that the agreement between the appellant and distributors constituted a joint venture, forming an Association of Persons, based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Faqir Chand Gulati vs. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. The Commissioner relied on a Circular dated 13.12.2011, which suggested that such arrangements lead to the emergence of a new entity. However, the appellant contended that the arrangement was purely on a principal-to-principal basis, as supported by various Tribunal decisions, including Inox Leisure Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Hyderabad and others. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, emphasizing that the agreements did not indicate joint ownership, control, or shared profits and losses, which are essential parameters for a joint venture.

2. Provision of Business Support Services (BSS):
The Commissioner held that the appellant provided BSS to the Association of Persons, falling under the definition of BSS before and after the amendment. The appellant argued that no service was provided to the distributors, as the relationship was based on revenue sharing, not service provision. The Tribunal noted that the appellant paid the distributors for screening rights, and no consideration flowed from the distributors to the appellant for any alleged service. The Tribunal cited several decisions, including Moti Talkies vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I, where it was held that no service was provided to the distributors, and the agreements were for screening rights, not renting of immovable property or BSS.

3. Revenue Sharing Arrangements:
The appellant argued that revenue sharing does not imply a service provider-recipient relationship. The Tribunal supported this view, citing decisions like Mormugao Port Trust vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Goa, which explained that public-private partnerships and joint ventures do not constitute a service relationship. The Tribunal emphasized that in such arrangements, partners contribute resources for a common business activity, and there is no consideration for specific services, thus no taxable service is present.

4. Interpretation of Circulars:
The Tribunal examined Circulars dated 23.02.2009 and 13.12.2011. The 2009 Circular clarified that screening movies is not a taxable service unless the theatre owner leases out the theatre. The 2011 Circular suggested that revenue-sharing arrangements could lead to a new entity subject to service tax. However, the Tribunal noted that this Circular would not apply retroactively and did not support the Department's case. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Faqir Chand Gulati and the Tribunal's decision in Mormugao Port Trust, concluding that no service tax could be levied under BSS.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the Commissioner, confirming the demand of service tax, interest, and penalty. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing that the appellant's arrangement with distributors did not constitute an Association of Persons or involve the provision of BSS, and revenue-sharing arrangements do not necessarily imply a service relationship. The relevant Circulars and judicial precedents supported the appellant's case.

---