Software licence arrangements and reverse charge tax demand remanded for fresh adjudication after disputed transfer of use.

Software licence arrangements with Microsoft were examined to determine whether the appellant received taxable information technology software service under reverse charge. The record did not clearly show a sale to the appellant or transfer of the right to use software; invoices were in end customers' names and the appellant appeared to act mainly as a reseller and payment facilitator. A FEMA compliance filing was not enough by itself to prove a taxable transfer. Because the adjudicating authority had not fully considered these core pleas, the demand and related issues on exemption, credit and short payment required fresh examination. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the software licence arrangements with Microsoft amounted to receipt of taxable information technology software services by the appellant so as to attract service tax under reverse charge, and whether the connected demands relating to exemption, credit and short payment required fresh consideration.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the true character of the Microsoft channel arrangement and whether the appellant received any taxable service from Microsoft by way of transfer of title or right to use software. The arrangement showed the appellant acting as a large account reseller and facilitator for orders, invoicing and collection, but the record did not clearly establish that Microsoft had sold software to the appellant or transferred the right to use it. The invoices stood in the names of end customers and the appellant's role appeared to be limited to procurement facilitation and transmission of payments. The document filed before Customs for FEMA compliance was not, by itself, sufficient to prove a taxable transfer to the appellant. Since the adjudicating authority had not fully examined these aspects and had relied on the volume licensing material without addressing the appellant's core pleas, the factual and legal foundation for the demand required reconsideration. The connected issues on adjustment of tax and credit were also dependent on the first issue.

Conclusion: The matter required de novo adjudication and the impugned order could not be sustained as it stood; the appeal was allowed by way of remand.

---