2024 (6) TMI 307 - AT - Service Tax

Appellants' services to overseas clients qualify as export services under Rule 6A, no service tax liability

FutureWorks Media Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West

FutureWorks Media Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the services provided by the appellants to their overseas clients constitute an export of services under the Finance Act, 1994.2. Whether service tax is liable to be paid on such services provided to overseas clients in terms of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 (POPS).Summary:Issue 1: Export of ServicesThe appellants, M/s FutureWorks Media Limited, are engaged in providing visual effects (VFX) services to film production and media houses in India and abroad. The Department contended that the services provided to overseas clients do not qualify as export of services and are subject to service tax. However, the appellants argued that the services provided to clients abroad, who are the sole users of the film after merging audio and video, cannot be treated as taxable under the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, and the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, and concluded that the services provided to overseas clients meet the criteria for export of services. The services were rendered to clients situated outside India, and the payment was received in convertible foreign exchange, fulfilling the conditions under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.Issue 2: Liability to Pay Service TaxDuring an EA-2000 audit, the Department interpreted that the services provided to overseas clients should be considered as services performed on a product, falling within the scope of Rule 4(a) of POPS Rules, and thus liable to service tax. The appellants argued that the services are provided through remote access to servers located abroad, and the place of provision of service should be the location of the recipient of service. The Tribunal referred to the legal provisions and the CBIC Circular No. 209/1/2018-Service Tax dated 04.05.2018, which clarified that in cases involving intangible goods accessed through electronic means, the place of provision of service is the location of the recipient. The Tribunal also relied on the case of Prime Focus Ltd., where similar services were held to be export of services and not chargeable to service tax. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld this decision in Civil Appeal Diary No. 23042 of 2023.Conclusion:The Tribunal held that the services provided by the appellants to overseas clients qualify as export of services and are not liable to service tax. The impugned order dated 27.02.2021 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.Result:The appeal is allowed in favor of the appellants.