Goodwill Associates vs Bhubaneshwar-i

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA

REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. 2

Service Tax Appeal No. 76735 of 2016

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 48/ST/B-I/2016 dated 28.06.2016 passed by the
Commissioner (Appeals), Central Revenue Building, Rajaswa Vihar, Bhubaneswar –
751 007, Odisha)

M/s. Goodwill Associates
Goodshed Road, Lanjipalli,
Berhampur – 760 008 (Odisha)
: Appellant

VERSUS

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and
Service Tax,
Bhubaneswar Division, Patia,
Bhubaneswar – 751 031 (Odisha)
: Respondent

APPEARANCE:
Shri A.K. Padhy, Fellow Chartered Accountant (FCA), for the Appellant

Shri A. Mukherjee, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent

CORAM:
HON’BLE SHRI R. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON’BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 76141 / 2026
DATE OF HEARING / DECISION: 02.09.2026
ORDER: [ PER SHRI R. MURALIDHAR ]
The appellant is registered as a service provider
under the categories of ‘clearing and forwarding
agency service’ and ‘renting of immovable property
service’ duly registered vide Registration No.
ABDPM8508RST001 dated 07.08.2006. They have
been discharging Service Tax and filing their ST
Returns indicating the same.
2. On the ground that the appellant has not
discharged Service Tax on the entire consideration
received by them, a Show Cause Notice came to be

Page 2 of 4

Appeal No.: ST/76735/2016-DB


issued on 15.09.2011 demanding Service Tax for the
period from 2006-07 to 2007-08.
3. The appellant filed their reply submitting that as
a clearing and forwarding agent, they were getting
reimbursements from their principals, on which no
Service Tax is required to be paid by them; they also
took the stand that the Show Cause Notice issued on
15.09.2011, by invoking the extended period
provisions, is legally not sustainable since they had
been paying the requisite Service Tax and also filing
their ST-3 Returns.
4. However, the lower authorities have confirmed
the demand of Rs.2,00,769/-, along with interest, and
imposed penalties of an equivalent amount under
Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and of Rs.1,000/-
under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.
4.1. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before the
Tribunal.
5. The Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that in respect of the amount
received by them towards commission, the appellant
has been discharging their Service Tax liability; that
the principals reimbursed various expenses incurred
by them towards activities such as loading, unloading,
transportation, handling, etc. Such amounts are not
part of the ‘consideration’ received by them. He relies
on the case-law of Union of India v. M/s.
Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt.
Ltd. [2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 401 (S.C.)] wherein it has
been held that while computing the gross value,
the reimbursements are required to be deducted.

Page 3 of 4

Appeal No.: ST/76735/2016-DB


5.1. He further makes a submission that the
appellant had paid the Service Tax wherever the same
was required to be paid and they have also filed their
ST-3 Returns; that all the data towards
reimbursements received are properly recorded in
their Profit & Loss Account from wherein the
quantification has been arrived at by the Department
while issuing the present Show Cause Notice. It is his
submission that these factual details show that there
was no suppression on their part. It is also submitted
that the issue as to whether reimbursements were
liable to Service Tax payment or not, was being
litigated at various levels as can be seen by the
number of decisions taken by Tribunals and High
Courts on the issue; finally, the issue got resolved
after the Hon’ble Supreme Court interpreted it
correctly in the case of Intercontinental Consultants
and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. (supra) . In view of these
submissions, it is prayed by the Ld. Counsel for the
appellant that the appeal may be allowed on account
of limitation also.
6. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the
Revenue reiterated the findings recorded by the lower
authorities.
7. Heard both the sides.
8. After going through the factual details, we find
that, admittedly, the appellant was duly registered
with the Department and was also discharging Service
Tax and filing their ST-3 Returns.
9. The only issue involved is as to whether the
reimbursements received by the appellant are exigible
to Service Tax payment or not. As correctly submitted
by the Ld. Consultant for the appellant, the said issue

Page 4 of 4

Appeal No.: ST/76735/2016-DB


was being litigated regularly at various levels by both
the sides, whereafter the issue came to be resolved
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgement in
the case of Union of India v. M/s. Intercontinental
Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (10)
G.S.T.L. 401 (S.C.)].
9.1. We also find substantial force in the appellant’s
submission that no case whatsoever has been made
out against them towards suppression of facts on their
part.
10. Considering the above factual details, we hold
that the Show Cause Notice issued on 15.09.2011, by
invoking the extended period provisions, is legally not
sustainable.
11. Therefore, we set aside the confirmed demand
on account of limitation itself and allow the appeal.
The appellant shall be eligible for consequential relief,
if any, as per law.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)



(R. MURALIDHAR)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)



(K. ANPAZHAKAN)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sdd