2024 (11) TMI 1282 - AT - Service Tax

Foreign data collection services don't qualify as market research under service tax classification rules

C.S.T. - Ahmedabad Versus Azure Knowledge Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

CESTAT Ahmedabad dismissed revenue's appeal regarding classification of services from overseas providers. The respondent received data collection services ... Classification of services received from overseas service providers - Determination of place of provision of such services - services received by the respondent from the overseas service providers is 'Online Information and Database access or retrieval services' OR 'Market Research Services' HELD THAT:- The activities done by the Foreign Service provider are merely in the nature of the data collection activities with no research or interpretation of the data. The raw data collected in terms of questionnaire designed by the respondent is supplied back to the respondent in the raw form. Research on the said data is done by the respondent. It is like an architect outsourcing services of a surveyor to map a piece of land as input for the architectural services that he may provide. Merely because survey is necessary input for providing architectural services the outsourced activity of survey cannot be classified as architectural service. Similar is the case of a tour operator hiring buses. While the service provided by tour operator is that of tour operator, the service availed by hiring buses does not become tour operator service although it is a necessary component of tour operator service. No merit in holding that foreign service provider is providing market research service. The issue if the said service was classified as ‘Online Information and Data Basis Access or Retrieval Service’ or not is not relevant in this background. The charge made in the show cause notice seeking to classify the service of data collection as market research cannot survive. Invoking larger period of limitation for issue of show cause notice - As on merits, the demand has not survive before Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal and therefore, it cannot be said that the interpretation of respondent was malafide or with intent to evade payment of duty. In these circumstances, extended period could not have been invoked to raise this demand show cause notice. As claimed by the respondent that the entire service tax if any payable on the services received from Foreign Service Provider would have been available as cenvat credit to the respondent. In that scenario, the entire exercise would have been Revenue neutral. This would be another reason to say that there would have been no intention to evade payment of duty. Revenue appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Classification of services received by the respondent from overseas service providers.2. Applicability of service tax on the services under the provisions of Notification no. 30/2012-ST.3. Invocation of the extended period of limitation for issuing the show cause notice.4. Consideration of revenue neutrality in the context of service tax liability.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Services:The core issue in this case was whether the services received by the respondent from their overseas service providers were 'Market Research Services' or 'Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval Services' (OIDAR). The respondent argued that the services were OIDAR, as the data collected by the overseas service providers was raw and required further processing by the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed, noting that the service providers abroad merely collected data, which was then retrieved by the respondent. The data was not analyzed by the service providers, and the respondent was responsible for processing it to provide the final outputs to their clients. This led to the conclusion that the services were indeed OIDAR, as they involved providing data in electronic form through a computer network, rather than conducting market research.2. Applicability of Service Tax:The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled that since the services were classified as OIDAR, the place of provision of such services was outside India, and therefore, no service tax was payable under Notification no. 30/2012-ST. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing that the activities conducted by the foreign service providers were limited to data collection without any research or interpretation, which is essential for a service to be classified as market research.3. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:The respondents contested the invocation of the extended period of limitation for issuing the show cause notice. They argued that the notice was issued beyond the prescribed period under the Finance Act-1994 and that all material facts were disclosed in their service tax returns. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that the demand did not survive on merits before both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Consequently, it was determined that the extended period could not be invoked, as there was no malafide intent or intent to evade duty on the part of the respondent.4. Revenue Neutrality:The respondent also argued that the entire service tax, if payable, would have been available as cenvat credit, making the exercise revenue neutral. The Tribunal agreed, stating that this further indicated a lack of intent to evade tax. The Tribunal emphasized that the classification of services was interpretational in nature, and thus, there was no malafide intent by the respondent.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the services were OIDAR and not subject to service tax under the circumstances of this case. The Tribunal also ruled against the invocation of the extended period of limitation and acknowledged the revenue neutrality argument.