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 grants waiver of service tax pre-deposit, interest, and penalties in favor of applicant</h1> <h3>PROMPT PERSONNEL CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-II, MUMBAI</h3> PROMPT PERSONNEL CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-II, MUMBAI - TMI Issues:1. Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax, interest, and penalties2. Applicability of statutory levy on wages for service tax calculation3. Time-barred demand due to alleged suppression of factsAnalysis:1. The judgment revolves around the application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax, interest, and penalties amounting to &8377;1,09,54,803. The demand was confirmed due to the alleged non-payment of appropriate service tax in relation to the Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service provided by the applicants to specific companies. The applicants contended that they were not adding the statutory levy of 41% to the assessable value for service tax calculation, based on how they were paying wages to workers procured from Grocery Markets and Shop Board. Additionally, they argued that certain amounts like gratuity and ex-gratia paid to workers were not included in the assessable value for service tax payment.2. The dispute also centered on the applicability of the statutory levy on wages for service tax calculation. The Revenue argued that the 41% statutory levy and amounts like ex-gratia should be added to the gross receipt for paying service tax, as they were part of the wages received from the service recipients. The lower authority's findings were relied upon by the Revenue to support the demand made.3. Regarding the time-barred demand due to alleged suppression of facts, the applicants contended that they had informed the Revenue about their activities and position regarding the 41% statutory levy and other payments through a letter received on 19.9.2006. They argued that the Show Cause Notice issued in 2012 for the period 2006-7 to 2009-10, invoking the extended period on grounds of suppression, was not sustainable as they had provided information to the Revenue earlier. The Director's statement in 2010 also supported the claim that the Revenue was informed about their activities.In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the applicant had made a strong case for waiver of dues on the grounds of limitation, as they had informed the Revenue about their activities through a letter in 2006, which was produced during investigation in 2011. Consequently, the pre-deposit of dues was waived, and recovery was stayed for the appeal hearing, thereby allowing the stay petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
