TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the business auxiliary service rendered in a joint venture arrangement to the foreign principal qualified as export of service. (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period was invocable.
Issue (i): Whether the business auxiliary service rendered in a joint venture arrangement to the foreign principal qualified as export of service.
Analysis: The service was found to have been rendered for marketing the products of the foreign principal in Romania, and the joint venture partner in India was not treated as the real recipient of the service in the first instance. The arrangement showed sharing of commission from the foreign principal, and the payment was received in convertible foreign exchange. The absence of direct receipt of money from the foreign principal by the appellant did not alter the character of the service as one provided to the foreign principal.
Conclusion: The service qualified as export of service and the finding against the assessee was set aside.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period was invocable.
Analysis: The appellant was registered with the department, had disclosed the relevant turnover in returns, and there was no material to show fraud, suppression, or misdeclaration. On the facts, the claim of exemption as export of service was not shown to be a concealed or dubious position. The pleaded revenue-neutrality supported the absence of any basis for invoking the extended period.
Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the demand on limitation failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was held entitled to consequential reliefs in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where service is rendered to a foreign principal under a joint venture arrangement, receipt of consideration through an Indian partner does not by itself negate export of service, and the extended period cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression or misdeclaration by a duly registered assessee.
TaxTMI 
