Cargo space trading activities ruled as non-taxable under Business Auxiliary Service provisions, no service tax liability

CESTAT Kolkata ruled in favor of appellant regarding service tax liability on cargo space trading activities. The tribunal held that purchasing cargo space from airlines and reselling to clients with margin constitutes trading activity, not taxable service under Business Auxiliary Service provisions. No service tax liability exists as appellant earned profit through buy-sell transactions without receiving commissions. The tribunal found no evidence of fact suppression by appellant, making extended limitation period inapplicable. Demand for extended period was set aside on limitation grounds. Appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to appellant.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Liability to pay Service Tax on the margin between the purchase price and selling price of cargo space under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS).
2. Liability to pay Service Tax on reimbursements received from clients.
3. Validity of the extended period for demand due to alleged suppression of facts.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability to Pay Service Tax on the Margin Between the Purchase Price and Selling Price of Cargo Space Under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS):

The Appellant, an IATA Agent, purchased cargo space from airlines at discounted rates and sold it to independent customers. The Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) claiming that the margin between the purchase price and selling price of such cargo space is liable for Service Tax under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). The Appellant argued that this activity amounts to trading, and the margin is the profit earned, not a service. The Tribunal found that the Appellant's activity of booking and selling cargo space is purely a trading activity and not a service. The Tribunal referenced its own previous decision and other judicial precedents, concluding that no Service Tax liability arises under BAS for such trading activities. Thus, the confirmed demand of Rs. 45,83,395/- was set aside.

2. Liability to Pay Service Tax on Reimbursements Received from Clients:

The Appellant received reimbursements from clients for expenses incurred on their behalf while providing services. The Revenue contended that these reimbursements should be included in the taxable value for Service Tax. The Appellant relied on the judgment in Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI, where it was held that reimbursements cannot be treated as consideration for taxable services. The Tribunal agreed, citing the Supreme Court's affirmation that only the value of the service rendered can be taxed, not the reimbursements. Consequently, the demands of Rs. 1,16,43,670/-, Rs. 19,59,785/-, and Rs. 56,11,525/- were set aside.

3. Validity of the Extended Period for Demand Due to Alleged Suppression of Facts:

The SCN issued on 21/12/2012 covered the period from 2007-08 to 2010-11, alleging suppression of facts. The Appellant argued that they had been regularly filing ST-3 Returns and accounting for all transactions in their Profit and Loss account and Balance Sheet. The Tribunal found that there was no concrete evidence of deliberate suppression by the Appellant. The case law in favor of the Appellant supported their bona fide belief that no Service Tax was payable on reimbursements and trading in cargo space. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the extended period for demand was not legally sustainable and set aside the confirmed demand for this period on account of limitation.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the confirmed demands on both merits and limitation grounds. The Appellant was found not liable to pay Service Tax on the margin from cargo space trading and reimbursements received from clients. The extended period for demand due to alleged suppression was also deemed unsustainable. The Appellant was granted consequential relief as per law.

---