The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has held that insurance premiums collected by a microfinance company from borrowers and remitted in full to an insurer cannot be included in the value of its taxable services under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, for the period April 2009 to March 2012.
The Bench of Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) set aside the service tax demand on the insurance premium component, together with the related interest and penalty. It also rejected invocation of the extended period of limitation, finding no deliberate suppression of facts with intent to evade tax.
Buy Now: Indirect Tax Judgments E-Compilation – October 2026
The tax and interest already paid on administrative charges remained undisturbed.
The appellant/assessee provided loans to lower-income families. It obtained funds from public and private sector banks and lent them to customers, charging interest, service charges and processing fees. Its payment of service tax on service charges and processing fees was not in dispute.
The company also facilitated insurance coverage for borrowers through a group insurance scheme provided by Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited. While the policy was issued to the company, individual certificates of insurance named customers as beneficiaries.
Between April 2009 and May 2011, the company collected premiums from borrowers and remitted the entire amount to Kotak without any mark-up. It separately collected administrative charges to cover the cost of facilitating insurance.
The company stated that these charges were permitted under IRDA’s group insurance guidelines dated July 14, 2005. Following an IRDA circular dated January 4, 2011 withdrawing permission to collect such charges, it discontinued them from June 2011. From June 2011 to March 2012, it collected and remitted only the premium.
During an audit, the Department noticed amounts recorded under the head “Insurance”, comprising both administrative charges and insurance premiums remitted to Kotak.
The Department considered that the company did not satisfy the pure-agent conditions under Rule 5(2) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, because it had collected amounts exceeding the premium payable to the insurer. It consequently sought to tax the entire insurance collection.
During the audit itself, the company accepted liability on administrative charges and paid service tax of ₹2,75,900 and interest of ₹74,711 in August 2012.
Nevertheless, a show cause notice dated October 14, 2014 invoked the extended period of limitation and demanded ₹23,96,449 in service tax for April 2009 to March 2012. The demand covered insurance premiums, service tax charged by Kotak on those premiums, and administrative charges.
The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, appropriated the amounts already paid, and imposed an equal penalty under Section 78, besides ₹10,000 under Section 77. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand and interest but set aside the Section 77 penalty.
The authorities below reasoned that facilitating insurance formed part of the company’s banking and financial services because the insurance also protected its interest in recovering loans.
Applying the composite-service classification principle under Section 65A(2)(b), the adjudicating authority treated banking and financial services as giving the arrangement its essential character. It accordingly included the entire insurance collection in taxable value.
Before the Tribunal, the Revenue supported this reasoning and argued that collecting administrative charges beyond the premium prevented the company from claiming pure-agent treatment.
The company maintained that the receipts had different characters. Administrative charges represented remuneration for its facilitation activity, whereas premiums were collected solely for onward remittance to the insurer. It argued that premiums could not become taxable consideration simply because they passed through its accounts.
The Tribunal examined Section 67(1)(i), which, for the disputed period, measured taxable value by reference to the gross amount charged for the service provided or to be provided by the service provider.
It held that this required a nexus between the amount received and the service actually rendered. Money merely passing through a service provider’s hands for onward payment to a third party, without adding to its remuneration, fell outside that measure.
The Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd., concerning the statutory limits on including reimbursable expenditure in taxable value.
The Tribunal noted that the present dispute concerned a period before the amendment to the Explanation to Section 67 effective May 24, 2015. That amendment operated prospectively.
Consequently, it held that the service tax demand on the insurance premium component could not be sustained.
Having resolved the valuation issue under Section 67, the Tribunal expressly declined to determine whether the company’s transactions satisfied the pure-agent conditions under Rule 5(2).
It also did not decide the company’s separate objection that the show cause notice and orders failed to specify the precise clause of Section 65(105) under which the insurance income was being taxed.
The ruling therefore rests on the statutory limits of taxable value for the period concerned. It does not constitute a definitive finding that the company satisfied every condition for pure-agent treatment.
The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended period required fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or a contravention committed with intent to evade tax.
Referring to Supreme Court decisions including Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, Uniworth Textiles and Northern Operating Systems, the Bench observed that mere non-payment of tax could not be equated with wilful suppression.
A bona fide understanding of tax liability, even if ultimately incorrect, would not by itself justify the extended period.
In the present case, the controversy turned on the interpretation of Section 67 and the Valuation Rules in the context of the insurance arrangement. Neither order below recorded concealment or misstatement distinct from a disagreement about the correct tax treatment.
The notice also did not establish a positive act of deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax. The Tribunal therefore held that the extended period had been wrongly invoked.
The Tribunal found that the ingredients necessary for a Section 78 penalty were absent. The premium-related demand had failed, and no fraud or wilful suppression had been established.
Regarding administrative charges, the company had accepted liability and paid tax with interest before issuance of the show cause notice. No separate basis had been shown for imposing a penalty on that voluntarily discharged liability.
Since the penalty failed on these grounds, the Tribunal did not examine the alternative request for waiver under Section 80. The Section 77 penalty had already been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order insofar as it confirmed service tax on insurance premiums, together with the related interest and penalty. It held that no further interest under Section 75 survived on the premium component.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
