TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1595
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing out unnecessary detail are that the M/s Proglogix Research & Development Pvt Ltd. [Appellant ] is a company based in Delhi and it owns a website called instadubaivisa.com through which various persons living outside India can apply for Dubai (UAE) visa. In order to render this services to its clients, the appellant hired the services of City One Tourism and Travel LLC, Dubai(COTT). There is no dispute that all the clients of the appellant were living outside India and the services rendered by the appellant to them were not taxable. The dispute is regarding the services rendered by COTT to the appellant. The appellant is situated in India and its clients are all over the world but not in India and COTT is situated in Dubai. 3. When th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such services is the location of the service provider i.e, Dubai as per Rule 9 of POPS Rules. 7. Rule 3 and Rule 9 of POPS Rules read as follows: "Place of provision generally.- 03. The place of provision of a service shall be the location of the recipient of service: Provided that in case of services other than online information and database access or retrieval services, where the location of the service receiver is not available in the ordinary course of business, the place of provision shall be the location of the provider of service." "09. The place of provision of following services shall be the location of the service provider:- (a) services provided by a banking company, or a financial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was under the honest belief that no service tax was payable and hence had not paid any the service tax. Therefore, there is no evidence of any malafide intention of the appellant and extended period of limitation could not have been invoked. For the same reason the penalty under section 78 also cannot be sustained. 10. According to the learned authorized representative the appellant was not registered with the service tax department and had not paid any service tax nor filed any returns and the fact that the appellant had received services from COTT came to light only during investigation and, therefore, there were sufficient grounds to invoke extended period of limitation. 11. As far as the value of the service charges is concerned, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by COTT to the appellant were not intermediary services. Therefore, Rule 3 of POPS Rules, 2012 would apply and the place of provision of service will be the location of the appellant, Delhi. The appellant was, therefore, liable pay service tax on import of services under reverse charge mechanism. 13. As far as the value of service charges is concerned, service tax could only be charged on the service charges paid to COTT. Any amount paid to the Government of Dubai as visa fee through the COTT cannot be a consideration for the services rendered by COTT. Accordingly, the value of services needs to be re-computed and the corresponding service tax. 14. As for limitation, the appellant had not disclosed the details of the services receiv....