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>Service tax appeal partially successful, remanded for reconsideration of liability & penalties</h1> <h3>M/s Suresh Jaiswal Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur</h3> M/s Suresh Jaiswal Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur - 2016 (42) S.T.R. 97 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Service tax demand on management, maintenance, or repair service provided by the appellant.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the order confirming a service tax demand on the appellant for providing management, maintenance, or repair service without paying service tax. The appellant, a contractor, had contracts with authorities for the maintenance of parks and road side plantation, involving various activities like supplying plants, fertilizers, lawn care, security, etc. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand from 1.5.2006 onwards under the scope of management, maintenance, or repair service.The appellant contended that their services did not fall under maintenance and repair of immovable property, there was no suppression of facts, and maintenance of parks being a statutory duty should not attract service tax. The Department argued that statutory duty does not exempt services from service tax, and the appellant's lack of cooperation justified invoking the extended period for demand.The definition of maintenance or repair changed from 16.6.2005 to 30.4.2006 to management, maintenance, or repair from 1.5.2006 onwards. The CESTAT judgment in a similar case was cited, where the demand up to 30.4.2006 was dropped due to the earlier definition. However, the demand from 1.5.2006 was upheld as the new definition included maintenance or repair of properties, whether immovable or not.The appellant's failure to register for service tax, file returns, cooperate during investigation, and provide necessary details indicated suppression of facts. The judgment highlighted that even if certain activities like maintenance of trees and grass were not traditionally considered maintenance of immovable property, they fell under the revised definition from 1.5.2006.The Tribunal remanded the case to reconsider the service tax liability after considering the supply of goods involved in the work orders. It was acknowledged that service tax would not apply to the sale of goods, and the appellant might benefit from a specific notification if conditions were met. The case was directed back to the Commissioner for recomputation of the demand, granting the appellant an opportunity to establish eligibility for the notification's benefit.In conclusion, the impugned service was found liable to service tax under management, maintenance, or repair service, and the appellant was held accountable for suppressing facts. The case was remanded for reconsideration of service tax liability concerning the supply of goods and subsequent penalties.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
