LAWS(CE)-2007-12-185

SUPRASESH GENERAL INSURANCE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX

Decided On December 13, 2007
Suprasesh General Insurance Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE substantive issue involved in this case is whether the appellants are liable to pay the service tax demanded by the Commissioner, for the period July 2001 to March 2006, as a reinsurance broker [within the meaning of "intermediary or insurance intermediary" defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 read with Section 65(56) of the Finance Act, 1994] in respect of the brokerage received by them from reinsurers abroad as consideration for the service rendered by them as part of the reinsurance transaction between such reinsurers and Indian insurance companies, wherein the subject matter is the same as that of primary insurance transactions between the Indian insurance companies and the insured in India. For instance, the subject -matter of one of such transactions is a part of space research project of the Govt. of India in the Department of Atomic Energy. The demand on the appellants amounts to over Rs. 1.40 crores.

(2.) WE heard learned Senior Advocate Shri C. Natarajan representing the assessee yesterday (12 -12 -2007). Today, it was the turn of learned SDR Dr. Nitish Birdi and we have heard him for some time. He has, at the outset, referred to Section 2(1)(f) of the IRDA Act as also to Regulation 2(1)(m) and Regulation 4 of the Insurance Brokers Regulations 2002. With reference to the functions of a reinsurance broker as enumerated under Regulation 4 ibid, we put specific queries to the SDR but, unfortunately, the answers to some of these queries are inconsistent with the Revenue's case brought out in the impugned order.

(3.) WITHOUT making further comments on this aspect, we observe that we are at at juncture where we must require the Revenue to be represented by a special counsel. Accordingly, the Joint Chief Departmental Representative is directed to ensure that a special counsel/consultant, who can properly present the Revenue's case before the Bench, is engaged in this case in the interest of the Revenue. We trust, this will be done with utmost expedition, at any rate within one month's time. The matter is posted for mention by Jt. CDR, to 30th January 2008.