Reverse charge on insurance-agent commission places Service Tax liability on insurers; tax-return data alone cannot sustain demands.

Insurance-agent commission for procuring policies falls under the reverse charge mechanism, placing Service Tax liability on the insurance business recipient rather than the agent under Rule 2(1)(d)(i)(A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Income Tax Returns and Form 26AS may trigger investigation but cannot, without independent corroboration, establish the nature, taxability or exigibility of receipts. Where no evidence proves taxable services at the agent's end, Service Tax registration and related penalty requirements do not arise. Accordingly, Service Tax demands, interest and penalties based solely on such tax-record figures are unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Service Tax on commission received by an insurance agent was payable by the appellant or by the insurance company under the reverse charge mechanism; (ii) whether the Service Tax demand, interest and penalties could be sustained on the basis of Income Tax Returns and Form 26AS without independent corroborative evidence.

Issue (i): Whether Service Tax on commission received by an insurance agent was payable by the appellant or by the insurance company under the reverse charge mechanism.

Analysis: Rule 2(1)(d)(i)(A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 places the liability for notified insurance services provided by an insurance agent on the recipient of the service, namely the person carrying on the insurance business. The documentary evidence, including the commission-agent description, bank statements and Chartered Accountant's certificate, established that the receipts represented commission received from the insurance company for procuring insurance policies. The Revenue neither produced cogent evidence dislodging that evidence nor verified whether the insurance company had discharged its liability. The appellant could not be saddled with the recipient's statutory liability merely because such verification had not been undertaken.

Conclusion: The appellant was not liable to discharge Service Tax on the commission receipts. The liability, if any, rested upon the insurance company under the reverse charge mechanism.

Issue (ii): Whether the Service Tax demand, interest and penalties could be sustained on the basis of Income Tax Returns and Form 26AS without independent corroborative evidence.

Analysis: Figures in Income Tax Returns and Form 26AS may initiate an investigation but cannot alone establish the nature, taxability or exigibility of receipts. The Revenue did not conduct an independent investigation or produce corroborative evidence proving that the receipts constituted taxable services chargeable to the appellant. Since the services were not liable to Service Tax at the appellant's end, registration was not required and the statutory ingredients for penalties were absent.

Conclusion: The demand of Service Tax, interest and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appellant's liability to Service Tax on the disputed commission receipts was negated, and the consequential fiscal and penal consequences were extinguished.

Ratio Decidendi: Commission received by an insurance agent is subject to the reverse charge liability of the insurance business recipient under Rule 2(1)(d)(i)(A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, and a Service Tax demand cannot be sustained solely on Income Tax Return or Form 26AS figures without independent evidence establishing the taxable nature of the receipts and the assessee's liability.

---