Service tax demand dropped for 2012-2015 on group cross-charges; debit entries treated as internal chargebacks, not manpower supply

CESTAT dismissed the revenue's appeal and upheld the impugned order, thereby dropping the service tax demand for the post-negative list period (1.7.2012-31.3.2015) on manpower services provided by an overseas group company to its Indian group affiliate. The Tribunal treated the debit entries as internal chargebacks for deployed staff executing the overseas principal's contracts, not as taxable manpower supply or recruitment services, and distinguished the Apex Court decision relied upon by the revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in dropping the demand of service tax for the period 1.7.2012 to 31.03.2015 in respect of "Manpower Supply Service" provided by an overseas group company to its group company in India (project office), and whether the recipient (project office) is liable under reverse charge.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent (project office) was liable to pay service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for manpower supply services allegedly provided by its overseas head office for the period 1.7.2012 to 31.03.2015.

Analysis: The question requires examination of whether the overseas permanent establishment/head office and the project office in India are to be treated as distinct persons for attracting reverse charge for manpower supply. Authorities analysing Section 66A conclude that treating a permanent establishment as a separate person is for identifying where provision and consumption of service occur and does not convert intra-entity deputation of staff into a taxable manpower supply to oneself. Decisions applying this principle have held that debit entries for expenses of overseas staff deployed to execute the same contract do not amount to services of a manpower supply agency when such deployment is for executing the principal's own contract, and that secondment/deputation of employees of the foreign group to the project office may be a matter of internal deployment rather than a taxable supply to a separate person. The Apex Court decision relied upon by Revenue involved facts of secondment agreements specifying provision of skilled employees to the local entity; where facts differ (internal project office functioning as part of same enterprise and invoices/payments routed to head office), that decision is distinguishable.

Conclusion: The demand for service tax under reverse charge for the period 1.7.2012 to 31.03.2015 in respect of the alleged manpower supply is not sustainable; the adjudicating authority's order dropping the demand is upheld, favouring the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal by Revenue is dismissed, leaving intact the order dropping the service tax demand for the specified post-negative list period; the adjudication that the arrangement did not constitute a taxable manpower supply to a separate person remains effective.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an overseas head office and its Indian project office constitute parts of the same enterprise and employees are deployed to execute the enterprise's own contracts, such internal deputation/secondment does not constitute a taxable manpower recruitment or supply service under the reverse charge provisions; Section 66A's recognition of permanent establishments as separate persons is for identifying place of provision and does not automatically convert internal deployments into taxable supplies.

---