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 allows appeal, exempts transit house income from service tax, and dismisses manpower service supply claim.</h1> <h3>M/s. Anand Automotive Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Service Tax, Delhi</h3> M/s. Anand Automotive Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Service Tax, Delhi - 2022 (59) G. S. T. L. 66 (Tri. - Del.) Issues Involved:1. Service tax under BSS on the transit house income.2. Manpower supply services.3. Difference between ST-3 and balance sheet.4. Wrong availment of credit.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Service Tax under BSS on the Transit House Income:The appellant owns guest houses used by employees of group companies during official tours, charging the group companies accordingly. The appellant contends that the transit house income should not be subject to service tax under Business Support Services (BSS) as it falls under 'short-term accommodation services' taxable only from May 1, 2011. The Commissioner did not accept this argument, maintaining that the services were infrastructural support under BSS. However, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's submission, stating that the provision of housing facilities is specifically covered under 'short-term accommodation services' and taxable only from May 1, 2011. The Tribunal referenced the Bombay High Court's decision in Indian National Shipowners’ Association, which held that new service entries imply no prior coverage under existing categories. Additionally, accommodation or guest house facilities do not form part of infrastructural services as defined under BSS. Therefore, the Commissioner was not justified in confirming the demand under BSS.Manpower Supply Services:The appellant was charged under 'manpower recruitment and supply agency service' for supplying manpower to group companies. The appellant argued that it only deputed employees to group companies, who reimbursed their salaries, and thus did not supply manpower. The Tribunal agreed, citing precedents like Computer Sciences Corporation India P. Ltd. and Lowe’s Services India Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that merely deputing employees does not constitute manpower supply services. Consequently, the appellant was not engaged in rendering supply of manpower service.Difference between ST-3 and Balance Sheet:The Commissioner confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 2,14,001/- due to discrepancies between ST-3 returns and the balance sheet. The appellant explained that the difference arose from reporting the wrong value on a cum-tax basis in ST-3 returns while paying service tax on the correct value. The Tribunal found that the category of taxable service was not specified and the appellant had satisfactorily explained the difference. Therefore, the demand under this head could not be sustained.Wrong Availment of Credit:The Commissioner confirmed a demand of CENVAT credit for April 2006 and April 2008, stating that the closing balance in ST-3 returns was shown as NIL. The appellant argued that the balance was incorrectly reported as NIL and provided supporting documents, including a Chartered Accountant's certificate. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner did not examine these documents and remanded the matter for re-examination in light of the provided evidence.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order dated April 18, 2013, except for the confirmation of CENVAT credit for April 2006 to April 2008, which was remanded for re-examination. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated.
TaxTMI 