No Service Tax On Payments Made To Protection And Indemnity Club For Mutual Insurance Cover: CESTAT

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that payments made to a Protection and Indemnity (P&I) club for mutual insurance cover cannot be treated as taxable services under the reverse charge mechanism due to the doctrine of mutuality. The Bench of Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that services provided by a club or association to its own members remain outside the ambit of service tax, notwithstanding the amendments introduced in the statute. The other decisions relied on by the Appellant as noted supra, are also on the same lines. The appellant, a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking engaged in shipping operations and registered as a service provider under the category of supply of tangible goods services, had paid Protection and Indemnity fees to Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Limited, a London-based P&I club. These fees were paid to obtain coverage for third-party liabilities arising from shipping operations. During departmental scrutiny, the tax authorities formed the view that the services provided by the overseas P&I club constituted “general insurance services.” Since the service provider was located outside India, the department alleged that the appellant was liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism in terms of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 and later provisions applicable after July 1, 2012. A show cause notice was issued demanding service tax for the period July 2012 to March 2014, along with interest and penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of ₹48,21,639 and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) subsequently upheld the tax demand and penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, though the penalty under Section 77(1) was set aside. Aggrieved by this order, the company approached the Tribunal. The appellant contended that the P&I club operates on the principle of mutuality, where ship owners pool their liabilities and losses collectively. As a member of the club, the appellant argued that the payments made were not consideration for a service rendered by an independent entity but rather contributions towards a mutual protection arrangement. The company also challenged the reasoning adopted by the appellate authority, which relied on Explanation 3 to Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act to treat the club and its members as distinct persons. According to the appellant, this reasoning was flawed because the show cause notice itself did not invoke that explanation, meaning the appellate authority had travelled beyond the scope of the notice. The Tribunal observed that the show cause notice itself acknowledged that the P&I club functions as a mutual association through which ship owners insure each other by pooling risks and liabilities. This factual position was not disputed by the department. It further held that the appellate authority’s reliance on Explanation 3 to Section 65B(44) was legally unsustainable because the provision had not been invoked either in the show cause notice or by the adjudicating authority. By introducing a new basis for confirming the demand, the appellate authority had effectively gone beyond the scope of the original proceedings. The Tribunal also examined documentary evidence produced by the appellant, including certificates of entry and invoices describing the payments as “mutual premium.” These documents confirmed that the arrangement was based on mutual risk-sharing among members rather than a commercial service transaction. A key aspect of the ruling was the Tribunal’s reliance on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India in State of West Bengal v. Calcutta Club Ltd. The apex court held that the doctrine of mutuality prevents taxation where an entity and its members are essentially the same for purposes of transactions within the organization. The Supreme Court clarified that services provided by an incorporated club to its members are not taxable because one cannot provide services to oneself. The Tribunal held that the mutual protection arrangement between the P&I club and its members falls outside the ambit of service tax. The Tribunal held that the demand of service tax, along with interest and penalties, was unsustainable in law. The CESTAT set aside the impugned order confirming the tax demand and penalties, and allowed the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. Case Details Case Title: M/s. Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Limited Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Citation: JURISHOUR-229-CES-2026(CHEN) Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 42399 of 2016 Date: 04.03.2026 Counsel For Appellant: N. Sriprakash, Advocate Counsel For Respondent: M. Selvakumar, Authorised Representative Click Here To Read Order Read More: Service Tax Demand on Commission Paid to Foreign Ship Brokers Quashed Citing Defective SCN: CESTAT

No Service Tax On Payments Made To Protection And Indemnity Club For Mutual Insurance Cover: CESTAT

Membership Required

Latest articles

Supplier’s Subsequent Cancellation Alone Can’t Justify Credit Reversal: Madras High Court Quashes GST ITC Demand

ITAT Clubs 26 Black Money Act Appeals for Joint Hearing to Settle Common Jurisdictional Issues

Calcutta High Court Stays GST Demand After Finding Jurisdictional Conflict, S. 73/74 Mismatch in SCN

Calcutta High Court Directs GSTAT to Conclude Anti-Profiteering Proceedings by August 31 After DGAP Finds No Profiteering

More like this

Supplier’s Subsequent Cancellation Alone Can’t Justify Credit Reversal: Madras High Court Quashes GST ITC Demand

ITAT Clubs 26 Black Money Act Appeals for Joint Hearing to Settle Common Jurisdictional Issues

Calcutta High Court Stays GST Demand After Finding Jurisdictional Conflict, S. 73/74 Mismatch in SCN

About us

Company

Categories