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: Service tax on manpower supply, not recruitment, applicable from 16-6-2005.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD Versus AZUR CYBER PVT. LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD Versus AZUR CYBER PVT. LTD. - 2009 (13) S.T.R. 294 (Tri. - Ahmd.) , [2009] 20 STT 90 (AHD. - CESTAT) Issues:1. Whether services provided by the respondents could be charged to service tax prior to 16-6-2005 under the head 'Manpower Recruitment Agency Services'.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of service tax on services provided by the respondents under the category of manpower recruitment agency. The Department found a shortfall in service tax payment by the appellant, leading to a show cause notice for the balance amount. The respondents contended that they were registered as a manpower recruitment agency since 1997 and provided manpower to various organizations on a temporary basis. The definition of manpower recruitment agency underwent a change w.e.f. 16-6-2005, expanding to include the supply of manpower temporarily or otherwise. The appellants argued that service tax was applicable from 16-6-2005 onwards for manpower supply services provided to clients like M/s. Reliance.The scope of services provided by the appellants to clients like M/s. Reliance involved offering personnel employed by Azure Cyber Pvt. Ltd. to Reliance on deputation, with selected individuals being employees of Azure Cyber Pvt. Ltd. The service was based on the client's requirements at specific locations. The Tribunal analyzed the terms of service and concluded that the nature of the service was manpower supply, not recruitment. The Tribunal upheld the respondent's claim that manpower supply services were included under manpower recruitment agency services only from 16-6-2005, rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue. The decision highlighted the distinction between recruitment and supply of manpower, emphasizing the specific conditions of service provided by the respondents.In conclusion, the judgment clarified the applicability of service tax on manpower recruitment agency services provided by the respondents, emphasizing the distinction between recruitment and supply of manpower. The decision favored the respondents, upholding their claim that service tax was chargeable from 16-6-2005 onwards for the services rendered. The detailed analysis of the service terms and the evolution of the definition of manpower recruitment agency supported the Tribunal's decision to reject the Revenue's appeal.
TaxTMI 