2025 (5) TMI 1919 - AT - Service Tax

Service Tax liability confirmed for selling agent services despite incorrect classification as Clearing and Forwarding Agent

M/s. Voltas Ltd Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Coimbatore

M/s. Voltas Ltd Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Coimbatore - TMI The core legal questions considered in this case revolve around the applicability of service tax liability on the appellant under the category of Clearing and Forwarding Agents Services (C&F Services). Specifically, the issues presented and considered include:1. Whether the appellant, acting as a selling agent for various principal companies, is liable to pay service tax under the category of Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services.2. Whether the appellant's activities fall within the scope of 'clearing and forwarding' operations as defined under the Finance Act, 1994.3. Whether the extended period of limitation for demanding service tax could be invoked given the appellant's prior disclosures and clarifications regarding the nature of their services.4. The correct interpretation of the term 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent' in the context of the legislative intent and judicial precedents.Issue-wise Detailed AnalysisIssue 1: Liability of the appellant to service tax under Clearing and Forwarding Agent ServicesLegal Framework and Precedents: The Finance Act, 1994 imposes service tax on specified categories of services, including Clearing and Forwarding Agents Services. The scope of these services is defined by the nature of activities performed, typically involving clearing and forwarding operations related to goods.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined the agreements between the appellant and the principal companies which clearly established the appellant's role as a selling agent. The agreements uniformly appoint the appellant as a 'Selling Agent' responsible for promoting sales and procuring orders, with commission payable based on sales.The Court emphasized that these agreements must be read in their entirety, as per the principle laid down by the Apex Court in a precedent case, which mandates holistic interpretation rather than selective extraction of clauses.Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant's role was limited to identification of sales opportunities, promotion, and follow-up. The principals themselves handled invoicing, billing, and collection of dues. The appellant did not perform any physical clearing or forwarding of goods.Application of Law to Facts: Given the factual matrix and documentary evidence, the appellant's services do not fall within the ambit of clearing and forwarding operations. The mere receipt of commission for sales promotion does not equate to rendering C&F services liable to service tax under that category.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended that the appellant's services were taxable as C&F services, despite acknowledging the appellant's role as a selling agent in the show cause notice. The Court found no material or evidence to support this deviation and held that the Revenue's reliance on selective clauses without full context was misplaced.Conclusion: The appellant is not liable to service tax under Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services, as their activities do not constitute clearing and forwarding operations.Issue 2: Interpretation of the term 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent' and the conjunctive nature of 'and' in the phraseLegal Framework and Precedents: The Court relied heavily on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which interpreted the phrase 'clearing and forwarding agent' in the conjunctive sense. The Court held that the word 'and' must be read conjunctively, meaning both clearing and forwarding operations must be performed by the service provider to attract service tax under this category.The Supreme Court's precedents were cited to reinforce that replacing 'and' with 'or' would distort the legislative intent and language.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that since the appellant did not perform clearing operations, they could not be considered a clearing and forwarding agent. The Revenue failed to produce any evidence or trade practice indicating that rendering forwarding services alone would suffice for classification as a clearing and forwarding agent.Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant's own admissions and documentary evidence confirmed the absence of clearing operations. The Court noted that the Revenue's argument lacked legal and factual basis to treat the appellant as providing both clearing and forwarding services.Application of Law to Facts: The conjunctive interpretation of 'and' means that both services must be rendered. The appellant's limited role in sales promotion and absence of clearing activities precludes classification as a clearing and forwarding agent.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's failure to demonstrate any legislative intent or trade practice to the contrary led the Court to reject the Revenue's interpretation.Conclusion: The appellant's services do not satisfy the conjunctive requirement of clearing and forwarding operations, thereby negating service tax liability under this category.Issue 3: Invocation of extended period of limitation for service tax demandLegal Framework and Precedents: The Finance Act, 1994 allows invocation of extended limitation period in cases involving suppression of facts or fraud. However, if the assessee has made full disclosures and there is no concealment, the extended period cannot be invoked.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The appellant had, as early as 1999 and again in 2003, clarified to the Revenue that they did not perform clearing and forwarding operations but only sales promotion and follow-up activities. There was no suppression or concealment of facts.Key Evidence and Findings: Letters dated 08.12.1999 and 21.06.2003 from the appellant to the Revenue explicitly stated their role and denied involvement in clearing and forwarding operations.Application of Law to Facts: Since the appellant had made prior disclosures, the invocation of the extended limitation period was on a faulty footing.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not produce any evidence of suppression or concealment to justify the extended limitation period.Conclusion: The extended period of limitation for demanding service tax was not applicable in the appellant's case.Significant Holdings'By necessary intendment the expression 'a clearing and forwarding agent in relation to clearing and forwarding operations, in any manner' contemplates only one person rendering service as 'clearing and forwarding agent' in relation to 'clearing and forwarding operations'. To say that if, one person has rendered service as 'forwarding agent' without rendering any service as 'clearing agent' and he be deemed to have rendered both services would amount to replacing the conjunctive 'and' by a disjunctive which is not possible.''The word 'and' should be understood in a conjunctive sense ... if we read the word 'and' as or' then it would amount to doing violence to the simple language used by Legislature which cannot be imputed ignorance of English language.''The appellant is only to act as the selling agent of its respective principal and for that alone, the commission was payable.''The appellant is not performing the essential characters as highlighted by the Hon'ble High Court and hence, we are of the view that the impugned order has failed to appreciate the facts in the proper perspective.''The appeal stands allowed with consequential benefits, if any.'