Service provider liable for tax on security agency & manpower recruitment services, appeal dismissed.

The appellant, a service provider, was held liable for tax under sections 65(105)(w) and 65(105)(k) of the Finance Act, 1994 for providing 'security agency service' and 'manpower recruitment or supply service' from February 2005 to December 2008. Despite the appellant's arguments regarding ignorance of tax liability and not being a 'commercial concern,' the tribunal found them responsible for tax payment as they had collected service tax from recipients. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant's claims were not substantiated by the evidence presented.

---

---

Issues:
1. Liability of tax under sections 65(105)(w) and 65(105)(k) of Finance Act, 1994 for 'security agency service' and 'manpower recruitment or supply service'.
2. Applicability of the extended period for demand when interpreting taxable service.
3. Whether the appellant's claim of not being a 'commercial concern' is valid.
4. Discharge of tax liability by the appellant.
5. Collection of service tax by the appellant and its impact on tax liability.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, a service provider, was held liable for tax under sections 65(105)(w) and 65(105)(k) of Finance Act, 1994 for providing 'security agency service' and 'manpower recruitment or supply service' from February 2005 to December 2008.

2. The appellant contended that the extended period for demand should not apply due to their alleged ignorance of the tax liability and interpretation of the taxable service. However, the tribunal found that the appellant had collected service tax from recipients, indicating awareness and compliance with tax obligations.

3. The appellant argued that they were not a 'commercial concern' and hence not liable for tax. The tribunal rejected this claim, stating that a 'commercial concern' includes any entity operating with a profit motive, and the appellant could not be excluded from this definition.

4. The appellant claimed to have discharged a portion of the tax liability and sought to set aside the demand. However, the tribunal found no merit in this argument as the appellant had collected service tax but failed to segregate it while billing recipients.

5. The tribunal concluded that the appellant had indeed collected service tax and was liable for the tax under the specified categories. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant's claims were not acceptable based on the evidence presented during the proceedings.

---