Case Details: Arvind Singh Mewar Versus Commissioner of Central Goods Service Tax, Udaipur (2025) 28 Centax 61 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dr. Rachna Gupta, Member (J) & Ms Hemambika R. Priya, Member (T)
- Ms Shagun Arora & Shri Kunal Agarwal, Adv., for the Appellant.
- Shri Manoj Kumar, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, an individual appointed as an advisor to JCB UK for its Indian Advisory Council, received a fixed annual remuneration in foreign currency for rendering advisory services. The Income Tax Department noted that tax was deducted at source (TDS) on the payments received, but no service tax was discharged. Consequently, a show cause notice (SCN) was issued, alleging that the services were rendered in India and did not qualify as an export of services. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for service tax amounting to ₹27,17,073. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, contending that the services were rendered to a foreign entity outside India and, therefore, were not subject to service tax.
CESTAT Held
The Hon’ble CESTAT Delhi held that the advisory services provided by the assessee to JCB UK satisfied all the conditions stipulated under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 for qualifying as an export of services. The Tribunal observed that JCB UK’s business establishment, where key corporate decisions were taken, was situated in the United Kingdom, and thus, in accordance with Rule 2(i)(b)(i) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, the recipient of the service was located outside India. As all the requisite conditions were met, the services rendered by the assessee constituted an export and were not liable to service tax. Accordingly, the impugned demand was set aside.
List of Cases Cited
- Air India v. Commissioner — Final Order No. 50245/2024, dated 19-1-2024 by CESTAT, New Delhi — Referred [Para 3.4]
- Arcelor Mittal Stainless (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2023) 11 Centax 269 (Tri. – LB.) — Relied on [Paras 3.6, 14]
- Collector v. H.M.M. Ltd. — 1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 3.4]
- Commissioner v. A.T.E. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. — 2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 123 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 3.6]
- Commissioner v. Monsanto Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd. — 2014 (35) S.T.R. 177 (All.) — Referred [Para 3.5]
- Commissioner v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. — 2021 (2) TMI 399-CESTAT Allahabad — Referred [Para 3.6]
- Gap International Sourcing (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (37) S.T.R. 757 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3.6]
- Involute Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2020 (12) TMI 533-CESTAT New Delhi — Referred [Para 3.6]
- Orbit Research Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2023 (8) TMI 246-CESTAT New Delhi — Relied on [Paras 3.6, 15]
- Raj Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar M. Ltd. v. Union of India — 1996 (88) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 3.4]
- Sara Sae P. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2020 (12) TMI 701-CESTAT New Delhi — Referred [Para 3.6]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 25/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012 [Para 4.3]
