TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of Revenue on service tax liability, directs pre-deposit. Financial hardship plea dismissed.</h1> <h3>LARSEN AND TOUBRO GRAHAK Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-II</h3> LARSEN AND TOUBRO GRAHAK Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-II - 2015 (38) S.T.R. 807 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:- Whether the appellant's services qualify as outdoor catering services for the purpose of service tax liabilityRs.- Whether the appellant's financial difficulty justifies granting a stayRs.Analysis:Issue 1: Outdoor Catering ServicesThe appellant contended that they did not provide outdoor catering services but merely supplied food to employees, arguing that it constituted a sale of food items subject to Maharashtra VAT. They relied on precedents like Rajeev Kumar Gupta vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore vs. LSG Sky Chef India Pvt. Ltd. However, the Revenue argued that the services were provided to the company, not the employees, and cited cases like Raj Kumar Jain vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Assn Vs. Union of India to support their stance. The Tribunal analyzed the transaction nature, emphasizing that the service was rendered to the company, not the employees, and concluded that the appellant's services qualified as outdoor catering services, subject to service tax liability.Issue 2: Financial Hardship and StayThe appellant pleaded financial difficulty, citing a low share capital and substantial losses. However, the Tribunal found that the losses claimed were covered by subsidies from the company, negating the financial hardship argument. Consequently, the plea for a stay based on financial difficulty was dismissed. The Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the service tax demand within eight weeks, with the balance amount waived upon compliance, and recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the service tax liability on the appellant's outdoor catering services, ruling in favor of the Revenue's interpretation. Additionally, the Tribunal rejected the plea for a stay based on financial hardship due to the subsidies covering the claimed losses.
TaxTMI 