Service tax on imported services required express statutory charging power; recipient liability arose only after later amendment.

Service tax could not be imposed on services received from a non-resident provider for the period before the statute introduced a specific charging mechanism, because liability under the statutory scheme rested on the service provider and a rule could not override the parent enactment. The later amendment showed that express legislative authority was absent for the earlier period. The levy for that period was therefore without authority of law, and the refund claim was sustainable. The reasoning followed the Bombay High Court's view on the same question, namely that recipient-based liability arises only when expressly created by statute, not by rules or notifications alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether service tax could be levied and retained on services received from a non-resident service provider for the period prior to insertion of the specific charging mechanism, and whether the refund claim was liable to be allowed.

Analysis: The liability to service tax under the statutory scheme rested on the person rendering the taxable service, and the rule that sought to fasten liability on the recipient could not override the parent enactment. The later statutory amendment inserting the specific provision for taxing services received from abroad showed that such authority was absent for the earlier period. The reasoning adopted by the Bombay High Court on the same legal question was followed.

Conclusion: The levy for the relevant prior period was without authority of law, and the refund claim was sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a specific charging provision, service tax could not be imposed on the recipient of services from a non-resident provider merely by rules or notification, and such liability arose only upon the later statutory amendment expressly creating that charge.

---