Scope of intermediary services and place of provision of service: data hosting treated as exported, not intermediary; tax liability absent

Whether a provider of data hosting qualifies as an intermediary under the Place of Provision of Service Rules was examined; the provider was not an agent, did not arrange or facilitate services between third parties, and rendered hosting on its own account, therefore it falls outside the definition of intermediary and the place of provision follows the general rule locating the recipient abroad, rendering the services exported and outside domestic service tax. Invocation of extended limitation was rejected as exceptions did not apply and bona fide belief in export treatment negated suppression. A remand was directed solely to determine whether interest on previously paid marketing-service tax was paid before issuance of the show cause notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant providing data hosting services to an overseas cloud provider is an "intermediary" under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 and therefore liable to service tax; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand in respect of data hosting services; (iii) Whether penalty is leviable for marketing services where tax was paid prior to issuance of the show cause notice and whether interest was paid such that Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 applies.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant is an "intermediary" under Rule 2(f) of POPS Rules and liable to service tax on data hosting services.

Analysis: The definition of "intermediary" in Rule 2(f) is pari materia with Section 2(13) IGST Act; CBIC circulars and subsequent judicial decisions distinguish providers who supply the main service on their own account from brokers/agents who arrange or facilitate supply between two persons. The appellant's DSA describes performance as an independent contractor on a principal-to-principal basis, allocation of operational responsibility for data centres to the appellant, payment on cost-plus basis, absence of privity between appellant and end customers, and no contractual role in negotiations, invoicing or receipt of payment from AWSI's customers. Relevant authorities and circulars classify data hosting providers who do not deal with end users as non-intermediaries and as exporters of services when recipient is outside India.

Conclusion: The appellant is not an intermediary; the data hosting services are export of services and not taxable under service tax.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation is invokable for the demand relating to data hosting services.

Analysis: Extended period exceptions require suppression or mis-declaration. The appellant bona fide treated services as export under Rule 6A Service Tax Rules; given the characterization as non-intermediary and existing precedent, there is no sufficient basis to invoke extended period.

Conclusion: Extended period of limitation does not apply to the demand for data hosting services in this case.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty is leviable in respect of marketing services for which tax was paid before issuance of show cause notice and whether interest was also paid so as to attract Section 73(3) protection.

Analysis: Section 73(3) protects persons who have paid tax with interest before issuance of notice; adjudicating authority recorded that interest appeared unpaid in ST-3 returns. The factual question whether interest was paid prior to SCN requires examination by the adjudicating authority; relevant precedents caution against issuing notices where tax with interest was paid.

Conclusion: Liability to penalty on marketing services is remanded for limited enquiry as to whether interest was paid before issuance of the show cause notice; if interest was paid, no penalty is leviable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order is set aside insofar as service tax demand on data hosting services (decision in favour of the appellant); the appeal is otherwise partly allowed and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for limited factual determination regarding payment of interest and consequent penalty on marketing services.

Ratio Decidendi: A service provider who supplies the principal service on its own account under a principal-to-principal contractual arrangement, without privity with the end recipient and without acting as broker/agent arranging or facilitating supply between parties, does not fall within the definition of "intermediary" under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 and such services, where recipient is located outside India, qualify as export of services.

---