Case Details: Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Mumbai Versus Weizmann Forex Ltd. (2025) 28 Centax 372 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- B.V. Nagarathna & Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Facts of the Case
The respondent-assessee, acting as an agent of Western Union, facilitated the transfer of money from remitters abroad to recipients in India, earning a commission in convertible foreign exchange. The Revenue maintained that such commission was subject to service tax, considering the place of provision of service to be in India. However, CESTAT upheld the assessee’s position, determining that since the service recipient (Western Union) was located outside India and payment was received in foreign exchange, the services qualified as an export under Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, and were not taxable. Aggrieved by this decision, the Revenue brought the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the monetary limit prescribed by C.B.I.C., disposed of the Revenue’s appeal while leaving the legal question open in view of the latest C.B.E. & C. Circular. Consequently, CESTAT’s determination that the commission received in foreign exchange for such services constituted an export and was not liable to service tax remained undisturbed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Commissioner v. Weizmann Forex Ltd. — 2015 (37) S.T.R. 642 (Tribunal) — Affirmed
- Coperion Ideal Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 523 (Tribunal) — Affirmed
- Gecas Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2014 (36) S.T.R. 556 (Tribunal) — Affirmed
