Cash Calls in Oil & Gas Joint Ventures Not Consideration for Taxable Service, CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a service tax demand raised against Oil India Limited, ruling that amounts received as “cash calls” from co-venturers in an unincorporated joint venture (UJV) for oil and gas exploration do not constitute consideration for a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. The bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that for a transaction to qualify as a taxable service, there must be a clear principal–agent or service provider–service recipient relationship, along with identifiable consideration paid as a quid pro quo for a specific service. In joint venture arrangements, these essential elements are absent. Oil India Limited, a public sector undertaking engaged in exploration and production of oil and natural gas, had entered into joint venture arrangements with other entities under the New Exploration Licensing Policy (NELP). These joint ventures were formed through Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs) with the Government of India for exploration of crude oil and natural gas blocks. Under the Joint Operating Agreements (JOAs), Oil India Limited was appointed as the “Operator” of the blocks. As operator, it undertook activities such as seismic surveys, drilling, exploration, and development, either through third-party contractors or by using its own resources. The expenses incurred by the operator for joint operations were required to be shared by all joint venture participants in proportion to their participating interest. The mechanism for recovering such shared expenses was through “cash calls”, whereby non-operators reimbursed their share of costs. The tax department alleged that these activities amounted to provision of taxable services by the operator to the joint venture and its members. On this basis, a show cause notice was issued invoking the extended period of limitation, alleging suppression of facts, and demanding service tax along with interest and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, leading to the appeal before CESTAT The central question before the Tribunal was whether cash calls raised by an operator on non-operators in an unincorporated joint venture for oil and gas exploration could be treated as consideration for provision of a taxable service, attracting service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The CESTAT noted that the issue was no longer res integra and stood settled by a series of earlier decisions. The Bench relied heavily on established jurisprudence holding that a joint venture is an association of parties formed to undertake a common business objective for shared profits and risks. In such arrangements, co-venturers do not act as service providers or service recipients vis-à-vis each other. Activities undertaken by one co-venturer, including the designated operator, are in furtherance of the joint venture’s common objective and also in its own commercial interest. Relying on earlier decisions such as Marmugao Port Trust v. CC & ST and multiple rulings in B.G. Exploration & Production India Ltd., the Bench observed that cash calls are merely mechanisms for sharing capital and operational costs. They represent capital contributions or reimbursements of joint expenses, not payments for services rendered. The Tribunal also referred to CBEC Circular No. 179/5/2014-ST dated September 24, 2014, which clarified that in joint venture projects, cash calls are in the nature of capital contributions and are not liable to service tax unless a member provides identifiable support services to the joint venture for a separate consideration. The CESTAT held that the activities carried out by Oil India Limited as the operator were part of its role as a co-venturer and not services rendered to other members of the joint venture. Consequently, the amounts recovered as cash calls could not be subjected to service tax. Case Details Case Title: Oil India Limited Versus Commissioner, CGST Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No.51690 of 2021 Date: 21.01. 2026 Counsel For Appellant: B.L. Narasimhan Counsel For Respondent: Vivek Kumar Jain Click Here To Read Order Read More: End-Use Can’t Decide Customs Classification: CESTAT Quashes Reclassification of Aluminium Tubes, Profiles as ‘Auto Parts’

Cash Calls in Oil & Gas Joint Ventures Not Consideration for Taxable Service, CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand

Membership Required

Latest articles

GoldBees vs Gold ETF – 2026

Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in GST Bribery Case Over Alleged Impersonation of Commissioner, Conspiracy to Demand Bribe

Whether Ledger Non-Handover By Junior Accountant Constitutes Criminal Breach Of Trust: Chhattisgarh High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Rs. 41.62 Lakh Hotel Case

Whether GST Registration Cancelled for Non-Filing of Returns Can Be Restored Under Rule 22(4) Proviso Despite Delay in Appeal? Gauhati High Court Answers

More like this

GoldBees vs Gold ETF – 2026

Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in GST Bribery Case Over Alleged Impersonation of Commissioner, Conspiracy to Demand Bribe

Whether Ledger Non-Handover By Junior Accountant Constitutes Criminal Breach Of Trust: Chhattisgarh High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Rs. 41.62 Lakh Hotel Case

About us

Company

Categories