2009 (8) TMI 236 - AT - Service Tax

Money transfer services by sub-agent to Western Union not taxable under business auxiliary services category

CESTAT, Bangalore held that money transfer services provided by sub-agent to Western Union cannot be taxed under business auxiliary services category. The ... BAS - Money transfer service - Appellants appointed as a sub-agent for undertaking money transfer – demand of Service Tax under the category of business auxiliary service. The allegation in the show cause notice was that the said activity is nothing but promoting the business of agent (WFL) - sub-representation agreement entered between the appellant and WFL – Agreement clearly indicating principal (Western Union) abroad as ultimate beneficiary - It is undisputed in this case, that a person approaches Western Union situated outside India for transfer of fund to a beneficiary in India - . It is undisputed that the appellant herein does not charge any amount as commission or fee from the recipients of the amount. - The said Western Union charges fee from the person who is situated outside India and pays WFL some amount as commission and WFL pay current appellant a part of the amount as compensation. In the whole transaction it can be seen that the services rendered by the appellant of money transfer is directly to Western Union. If that be so, it can be said that the appellant is providing the services to Western Union whose beneficiaries are outside India. – Benefits of service accrue to person outside India - We find strong forces in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel that the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Bench in the case of Nipuna Services Ltd. V. CCE&ST, Hyderabad [2008 (11) TMI 148 - CESTAT BANGALORE]. - Accordingly, we are of the considered view that services rendered appellant cannot be taxed under the category of ‘business auxiliary services’ 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:- Whether the services rendered by the appellant, a non-banking financial company acting as a sub-representative under an agreement with an Indian representative of a foreign company, fall under the category of business auxiliary services taxable under the Service Tax Act.- Whether the appellant's services constitute export of services, thereby exempting them from service tax.- The applicability of service tax on money transfer services prior to and after 1-5-2006, when money transfer was specifically brought under the taxable category of banking and financial services.- The nature of the appellant's role as a sub-agent or subcontractor and the consequent liability for service tax.- Whether the extended period of limitation under the Service Tax Act can be invoked in this case.- The applicability of interest and penalty provisions under the Service Tax Act in the facts of the case.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Classification of Services Rendered by the Appellant under Service Tax LawLegal Framework and Precedents: The Service Tax Act defines taxable services including business auxiliary services under Section 65(105)(zzb) and banking and financial services under Section 65(105)(zm). The relevant category for the appellant's services was contested. The appellant contended that the services rendered are as a sub-agent to a foreign principal (Western Union), not as a business auxiliary service to the Indian representative (Weizmann Forex Ltd.).Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined the sub-representation agreement clauses, especially clauses 5, 14, and 15, which clearly identify Western Union as the ultimate beneficiary and principal of the service. The appellant acts as a sub-agent of Western Union through Weizmann, holding funds in trust for Western Union, using Western Union's software, promotional materials, and adhering strictly to Western Union's terms and conditions. The appellant neither charges fees directly from recipients nor promotes Weizmann's services.Key Evidence and Findings: The agreement clauses reproduced in the judgment establish that the appellant's service is effectively provided to Western Union, a foreign company, and not to Weizmann. The appellant's role is limited to facilitating money transfers on behalf of Western Union, with no independent promotional activity for Weizmann.Application of Law to Facts: Since the appellant is providing services to Western Union and not to Weizmann, the Tribunal found that the appellant's services do not constitute business auxiliary services to Weizmann, the Indian agent. Therefore, the demand of service tax on business auxiliary services was not sustainable.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department argued that the appellant provides customer care services on behalf of Weizmann and thus is liable for service tax under business auxiliary services. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that the appellant promotes Western Union's services and not Weizmann's, and thus the Department's reliance on Clause 5.1 of the agreement was factually incorrect.Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's services cannot be taxed under business auxiliary services as they are rendered to Western Union, the foreign principal.Issue 2: Taxability of Money Transfer Services and Applicability of Service Tax from 1-5-2006Legal Framework and Precedents: The banking and other financial services category was extended to include money transfer services effective from 1-5-2006, as clarified by the Central Excise Circular dated 28-2-2006. Before this date, money transfer services were not taxable under this category.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged that money transfer services became taxable under banking and financial services only from 1-5-2006. The appellant argued that if taxable, the service tax would apply only to services rendered to customers in India, not to services rendered to Western Union, a foreign entity.Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant did not receive consideration from customers in India but from Western Union abroad. The Tribunal accepted that the appellant's service consideration was from a foreign principal, thus qualifying as export of service.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that money transfer services prior to 1-5-2006 were not taxable and even after that date, the appellant's services qualify as export of service and hence are not liable to service tax.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department maintained that the appellant's services are taxable under business auxiliary services. The Tribunal disagreed based on the contractual and factual matrix.Conclusion: Money transfer services are taxable only from 1-5-2006, and the appellant's services qualify as export of service, exempting them from service tax.Issue 3: Whether the Appellant's Services Qualify as Export of ServicesLegal Framework and Precedents: Export of Services Rules, 2005, Rule 3(1)(iii) governs export of business auxiliary and banking and financial services. Conditions for export include provision of service from India, to a recipient outside India, use of service outside India, and payment in convertible foreign exchange. CBEC Circular No. 137/307/2007 clarified that for Category III services, the location of the service receiver is decisive, and the benefit of the service must accrue outside India.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the appellant's services are provided to Western Union, a recipient located outside India, and the benefits accrue outside India. The appellant received payment in Indian currency from Weizmann, but since Weizmann also acts on behalf of Western Union, the service is effectively exported.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal relied on the agreement clauses and the CBEC circular to conclude that the benefit of the service accrues outside India, satisfying the export conditions.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that the appellant's services qualify as export of services and are exempt from service tax.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department disputed the export claim, emphasizing the Indian location of Weizmann. The Tribunal rejected this, focusing on ultimate beneficiary and benefit accrual.Conclusion: The appellant's services qualify as export of services under the Export of Services Rules, 2005.Issue 4: Liability of the Appellant as a Subcontractor and Service Tax ImplicationsLegal Framework and Precedents: Earlier circulars and Tribunal decisions held that subcontractors are not liable to pay service tax if the principal service provider pays the tax. These circulars were rescinded only in 2007.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The appellant contended that it acts as a subcontractor (sub-agent) and hence not liable for service tax. The Tribunal did not record detailed findings on this issue as the appeals were disposed on merits.Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant relied on various Tribunal decisions supporting non-liability of subcontractors.Application of Law to Facts: Since the Tribunal held that the appellant's services are not taxable, the subcontractor liability issue became moot.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department argued for taxability; however, the Tribunal did not elaborate on this point.Conclusion: No separate finding recorded due to disposal on merits.Issue 5: Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation and Penalty/InterestLegal Framework and Precedents: Extended period under Section 73(1) of the Act is invokable only in cases of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. Penalty under Sections 76 and 78 requires tax liability and intentional default. The Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions cited establish that disputes arising from interpretation cannot invoke extended period or penalty.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal accepted the appellant's contention that the dispute is purely one of interpretation, and there was no suppression or intention to evade tax. Therefore, extended period and penalty provisions cannot be invoked.Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant's bona fide belief and ongoing dispute with the Department on the taxability issue were emphasized.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that the demand is time-barred and penalty/interest is not leviable.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department sought to invoke extended period and penalties; the Tribunal rejected this due to lack of fraud or suppression.Conclusion: Extended period of limitation and penalty/interest are not applicable.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- 'Though the sub-representation agreement is entered between WFL and the appellant, clauses 5, 14 and 15 very clearly indicate the ultimate beneficiary of the entire transaction is Western Union.' (Para 8)- 'It is an accepted legal principle that the law has to be read harmoniously so as to avoid contradictions within legislation. For the services that fall under Category III [Rule 3(1)(iii)], the relevant factor is the location of the service receiver and not the place of performance.' (Para 10)- 'The services rendered by the appellant of money transfer is directly to Western Union. If that be so, it can be said that the appellant is providing the services to Western Union whose beneficiaries are outside India.' (Para 8)- 'We hold that the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside.' (Para 13)- The Tribunal established that money transfer services were taxable only from 1-5-2006 under banking and financial services, and prior thereto not taxable.- The Tribunal confirmed that export of services rules apply and the appellant's services qualify as export of services, exempting them from service tax.- The Tribunal held that extended period of limitation and penalty provisions cannot be invoked in cases of bona fide disputes on interpretation of law.