IN RE: M-1 OVERSEAS LIMITED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant claims to be a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands having its Indian project office situated in Mumbai. The control and management of the applicant is situated wholly outside India. It is "engaged in the business of providing services and facilities in connection with the prospecting for and extraction of and exploration of mineral oils". It has entered into a contract with Naptogaz India P. Ltd. for provision of mud -laboratory, operating personnel (mud -engineers) and mud chemicals. Naptogaz along with others has the right "to carry out petroleum operations in Block CB -ONN -2004/5" pursuant to a production sharing contract.

(2.) THIS Authority allowed the application under section 245R(2) of the Act for rendering rulings on the above two questions. The application was thereafter heard in detail leading to the present rulings.

(3.) ON behalf of the Revenue, it is contended that what is rendered by the applicant is technical services and section 44DA or section 115A was attracted. By virtue of the proviso to section 44BB(1) of the Act, the payment received by the applicant cannot be brought within section 44BB(1) of the Act, even if the services are rendered in connection with mining for mineral oil. It is submitted that the exception contained in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act was not applicable since the applicant had not undertaken any mining or like project. It was merely rendering service to a company that had undertaken that project. The service rendered by the applicant was technical in nature and the fees collected as consideration for it was "fees for technical services" and taxable as such under the Act. There was no tax convention with the Cayman Islands.