Service tax – Cestat Chandigarh: As the Respondent’s service is Routine back office process outsourcings activities which are completely based on instructions/guidelines, hence the same cannot be called as an intermediary service – Revenue appeal dismissed [Order attached]
Order date – 12 October 2022
- The Respondent, M/s Orange Business India Solutions Pvt. Ltd, is registered under the category of Business Auxillary Services. They had filed refund claim for the period October 2016 to June 2017, of unutilized cenvat credit on input service used in providing taxable service of the nature of “Business Auxillary Service exported to clients located outside India.
- The Adjudicating Authority rejected the entire refund claim on the ground that the respondent has not fulfilled the condition for export. On appeal filed by the respondent – assessee, the learned Commissioner following his decision in respondent’s own case for the period July, 2012 to September, 2016 allowed the appeal filed by the appellant.
- Aggrieve, Respondent has filed an appeal.
- Whether the service provided by the respondent-assessee falls within the category of “Intermediary Services”?
- The Tribunal observed that meaning of Intermediary Services has been clarified by the tribunal in respondent own case in the matter of “Commissioner of GST, Gurugaon– II v/s Orange Business Solution Private Limited” 2019 (27) GSTL 523 (Tri-Chan.) which states that as per the guidance note issued by the CBE&C on 20.06.2012 that the activity of computer networking is networking service which is an application running at the network application layer and above, that provides data storage, manipulation, presentation, communication or other capability which is often implemented using a client-server or peer to architecture based on application layer network protocols.
- From the above it does not find any arrangement or facilitation of the main service between two parties by a third person under the category of computer networking services. Further the activities of the appellant are routine back office process outsourcings activities and are completely based on instructions/ guidelines provided by ENSIL/AEs in this regard. The Revenue has not produced any evidence as to why providing of back office process outsourcing should be treated as intermediary.
- The Tribunal also followed the decision of the above order that the respondent is to entitle to consequential relief as per impugned order.
- Appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.