Reverse charge taxability upheld for foreign commission, but extended limitation and penalty failed for lack of suppression.

Commission paid to a foreign holding company for a corporate guarantee arrangement was held taxable as a service after 01.07.2012 under section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994 and the reverse charge framework in Notification No. 30/2012-ST. The taxability remained unaffected by the classification dispute. However, the extended period of limitation was not available for 2013-14 because wilful suppression was not established, the transaction was revenue neutral, and penalty was therefore unsustainable. For 2014-15, the demand fell within the normal period and the matter was remanded for quantification of tax and interest, after adjusting the amount already deposited.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the commission paid to the foreign holding company was taxable service liable to service tax under the reverse charge mechanism; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation and penalty were sustainable, and whether the matter for the normal period required remand for quantification of tax and interest.

Issue (i): Whether the commission paid to the foreign holding company was taxable service liable to service tax under the reverse charge mechanism.

Analysis: The commission paid for the corporate guarantee arrangement was held to fall within the ambit of service after 01.07.2012. The liability was examined with reference to Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994 and the reverse charge framework under Paragraph I-B of Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. The Tribunal held that the commission remitted to the overseas holding company was taxable, and the classification dispute did not alter the taxability of the amount.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee on taxability, and the commission was held liable to service tax under reverse charge.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation and penalty were sustainable, and whether the matter for the normal period required remand for quantification of tax and interest.

Analysis: The Tribunal found no wilful suppression, noting immediate payment after audit, the absence of deliberate withholding, and the revenue-neutral character of the transaction because credit would have been available. On that basis, the extended period for 2013-14 was held to be unavailable. Penalty was also found unwarranted. For 2014-15, the demand was within the normal period, so the matter was remanded to quantify tax and interest and to adjust the amount already deposited.

Conclusion: The extended period demand for 2013-14 was set aside, penalty was not sustainable, and the normal-period matter for 2014-15 was remanded for recomputation of tax and interest.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part: taxability was upheld, limitation defeated the extended-period demand, penalty was unset aside, and the remaining normal-period liability was sent back for fresh quantification.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand cannot be sustained under the extended period where wilful suppression is not established and the transaction is revenue neutral; taxability under reverse charge may nevertheless remain intact.

---