Back-to-back outsourcing is not Business Auxiliary Service, and extended limitation needs proof of suppression or intent to evade.

A back-to-back outsourcing arrangement in which a contractor engages a sub-contractor to perform part of its own contractual obligations does not amount to Business Auxiliary Service merely because the contractor retains a commission; the retained amount is not consideration for service to the sub-contractor, so no service tax is payable on that count. Extended limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 requires proof of fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade tax; absent those elements and with relevant documents furnished during investigation, the extended period and consequential penalties are not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the commission retained by the appellant while outsourcing work on a back-to-back basis to sub-contractors was liable to service tax as Business Auxiliary Service. (ii) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation and consequential penalties was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the commission retained by the appellant while outsourcing work on a back-to-back basis to sub-contractors was liable to service tax as Business Auxiliary Service.

Analysis: Business Auxiliary Service under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 covers activities such as promotion or marketing of the client's goods or services, customer care, procurement of inputs, production or processing for the client, provision of service on behalf of the client, or incidental auxiliary activities. The arrangement in question showed that the appellant was the service provider to the tendering departments, while the sub-contractor was engaged by the appellant to execute part of the appellant's contractual obligations. The sub-contractor stepped into the appellant's shoes for performance of the outsourced work and was not a client receiving promotional or marketing services from the appellant. The commission retained by the appellant represented its own deduction in the course of outsourcing, not consideration for rendering Business Auxiliary Service to the sub-contractor.

Conclusion: The amount retained as commission was not taxable as Business Auxiliary Service and the demand on that count was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation and consequential penalties was justified.

Analysis: The demand covered a period beyond the normal limitation period under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and could be sustained under the extended period only on proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax. Once the underlying activity was held not taxable under Business Auxiliary Service, no service tax liability could arise on the appellant for that arrangement. The record also did not disclose any positive act of fraud, misrepresentation, suppression, or intent to evade, and the appellant had furnished relevant documents during investigation. The ingredients necessary to justify the proviso to Section 73 were therefore absent.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked and the consequential penalties could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed in full in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A back-to-back outsourcing arrangement in which a contractor engages a sub-contractor to perform part of its own contractual obligations does not amount to Business Auxiliary Service merely because a commission is retained by the contractor; extended limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be invoked in the absence of the statutory elements of fraud, suppression, or intent to evade.

---