Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(vii), that the activities of the assessee are in the nature of back office support and assistance to M/s.Deloitte Tax LLP, USA and merely because the assessee, in the process of delivering these output services to its clients utilizes Computers and Internet Leased Lines, they cannot be said to be engaged in the business of developing any computer software and it is not appropriate to classify the activities of the assessee as "Export of Computer Software". He held that the nature of service provided by an assessee has to be examined with reference to the explanation provided in Section 65 (19) of the Act to the definition of "Business Auxiliary Service" and only such output services which qualify to be IT Services in terms of the said explanation would remain excluded from taxable service under the heading "Business Auxiliary Service". He also noted that the SOFTEX forms submitted by the assessee to the STPI for certifying the export of services refers to the assessee's exports as "export of services"

18. In our view the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have rightly held that the above activities even though performed by using computer programmes are not in relation to computer systems, that this is supported by the SOFTEX forms submitted by them to STPI wherein they have mentioned that they export "services" only and not "software" and they have declared their exports as "others-Back Office Services". Let us take an illustration where a person is providing a service of analysis of case law/precedents by using software such as Manupatra or SCC online to another. In such a case, the service provider, merely because he is using a computer to provide the said service, cannot be said to be providing "information technology service" to the service receiver. The contention of the Revenue, if accepted, would require this Court to ignore the words "primarily in relation to computer systems/programming" in the explanation in Section 65 (19) of the Act. Such an interpretation cannot be given because it is settled principle of law that effort should be made to give meaning to each and every word used by the legislature in a statute and one cannot brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surplusage, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute as held in Aswini Kumar Ghose Vs. Arabinda Bose 2.