In a significant ruling that clarifies the scope of service tax applicability in the aviation sector, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) against the imposition of service tax on its export cargo handling services. The judgment, delivered on September 23, 2025, in Airports Authority of India v. Commissioner of Service Tax (Civil Appeal No. 17405/2017), reinforces the broad interpretation of “airport services” under the Finance Act, 1994, and holds that such services, even for export cargo, are taxable from September 10, 2004 onwards.
Background of the Case
The AAI, a government entity under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, manages airports across India and is registered for service tax payments. Its operations include handling cargo, particularly export cargo, involving activities such as unloading, carting, X-ray screening, and packing—from acceptance of shipment until loading onto aircraft.
The dispute originated from a 2010 order by the Commissioner (Adjudication), Service Tax, Delhi, which confirmed service tax liability on AAI for the period October 1, 2003, to March 31, 2007. Initially classified under “Storage and Warehousing Service” until September 9, 2004, it shifted to “Airport Services” from September 10, 2004. AAI challenged this before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which upheld the liability under “Airport Services” post-2004. Aggrieved, AAI appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Key Arguments Presented
AAI’s counsel, Y.K. Kapur, argued that export cargo handling is explicitly excluded from the definition of “cargo handling service” under Section 65(23) of the Finance Act, 1994. He emphasized the proviso to this subsection, which states that handling of export cargo does not fall under cargo handling services, thereby exempting it from taxable services as defined in Section 65(105).
The respondent, represented by senior counsel Nisha Bagchi, contended that while Section 65 defines terms, the charging provision is Section 66, which levies service tax on “taxable services” referenced in subclauses of Section 65(105), including subclause (zzm) for airport services. This subclause covers any service provided by AAI or others in airports or civil enclaves, making it broad enough to include export cargo handling.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The bench, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, meticulously dissected the statutory framework. Justice Mithal, authoring the judgment, clarified that Section 65 is definitional, not charging. The exclusion of export cargo from “cargo handling service” in Section 65(23) does not automatically exempt it from service tax.
The Court highlighted Section 66 as the charging section, imposing a 12% tax (as applicable then) on taxable services under Section 65(105)(zzm). This subclause encompasses “any service provided… to any person, by Airports Authority… in any airport or a civil enclave.” The judges noted its wide ambit, capturing all AAI services in airports, regardless of cargo type.
Subclause (zzm) was introduced effective September 10, 2004, post which all AAI airport services became taxable. The Court rejected AAI’s reliance on the cargo handling exclusion, stating it does not override the taxable service definition. Even if export cargo is excluded from one category, it falls under the broader “airport services” umbrella.
The bench dismissed arguments based on departmental circulars, ruling that they cannot supersede statutory provisions. It affirmed CESTAT’s order, finding no error in taxing export cargo handling as airport services from 2004.
Implications for the Aviation and Tax Sectors
This judgment (2025 INSC 1141) sets a precedent for interpreting service tax provisions broadly, especially in public sector undertakings like AAI. It underscores that exemptions must be explicitly statutory, not inferred from definitions alone. For exporters and logistics firms, this could mean continued tax liabilities on airport-related services, potentially increasing operational costs.
Post-GST era (introduced in 2017), such services now fall under GST, but the ruling remains relevant for pre-2017 disputes. It may influence ongoing litigations involving similar classifications under excise or service tax laws.
Lawcutor 