Case Details: Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Mumbai (2026) 41 Centax 3 (Tri.-Bom)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- S/Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (J) & M.M. Parthiban, Member (T)
- Shri Anil Kumar Makhija, Advocate, for the Appellant.
- Shri Badhe Piyush Barasu, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant’s overseas head office had contracted with Computer Reservation System (CRS)/Global Distribution System (GDS) companies for the supply of services. The issue was whether the Indian branch office would be liable to pay service tax on reverse charge basis in respect of such Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval (OIDAR) services received by the overseas head office. It was noted that the head office was contractually entitled to receive the services and was contractually obligated to make payment for the services rendered by the CRS/GDS companies. The matter was placed before Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that OIDAR services provided by a person situated in Singapore to another person situated in Hong Kong were not covered under the scope of levy of service tax under section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal further held that the Indian branch office was not the recipient of the OIDAR services and that the services were rendered between two persons situated outside India. Since the appellant had not received any service, it could not be held liable to pay service tax under section 65(105)(zh) read with section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 in respect of services rendered by the foreign CRS/GDS companies to its overseas head office.
List of Cases Cited
-
- British Airways v. Commissioner — 2014 (36) S.T.R. 598 (Tri.-Del) — Referred [Para 2.2]
- Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIT — [2017] 394 ITR 80 (SC) — Noted [Para 5.4]
