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>Security Service Provider Liable for Service Tax with Interest; Extended Tax Demand Period Not Applicable, No Penalty Imposed.</h1> <h3>M/s. Panther Security Service Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata</h3> The Tribunal held that the Appellant, a security service provider, is liable to pay service tax for the normal period of limitation, along with interest, ... Non-payment of service tax - providing security guards to various organizations - intent to evade service tax or not - invocation of extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- Appellant have been registered with Service Tax department w.e.f.14.09.2000 and regularly paying service tax and filing returns. The Appellant submits that they have been providing security agency service mainly to Government agencies and some of the agencies to whom they provided security agency service declined to pay service tax - It is observed that the explanation offered by the Appellant for non payment of service tax is not acceptable. It is the responsibility of the Appellant to collect service tax from their clients on the invoices raised towards rendering of security services. There is no specific exemption available to security services rendered by the Appellant to Government Agencies. Thus, the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the taxable services rendered by them during the period under dispute. The Appellant have been registered with Service Tax department w.e.f.14.09.2000 and regularly paying service tax and filing returns. The department raised the demand based on the service tax paid by the Appellant which have been reflected in the service tax returns. Thus, the returns filed by the Appellant indicate the taxable value of the services rendered by them and the actual service tax paid by them. After the search by the department, they have again raised separate invoices demanding service tax from the organizations who have not paid service tax, but they declined to pay service tax This clearly indicate that the Appellant has not suppressed any information from the department with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Appellant has not suppressed any information from the department and hence extended period cannot be invoked in this case to demand service tax - the demands confirmed in the impugned order by invoking the extended period is not sustainable on the ground of limitation. The Appellant is liable to pay service tax, if any, along with interest, for the normal period of limitation. As suppression with intent to evade payment of tax has not been established, no penalty imposable on the Appellant. The demands confirmed in the impugned order by invoking the extended period is not sustainable. The Appellant is liable to pay service tax, if any, along with interest, for the normal period of limitation. No penalty imposable on the Appellant - Appeal disposed off. Issues involved:The appeal against Service Tax demand upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata.Issue 1: Liability to pay Service TaxThe Appellant, a security service provider, was demanded service tax for the period 2001-02 to 2003-04. The Appellant argued that they have been registered with the Service Tax department, regularly paying service tax, and providing security services mainly to Government agencies. They claimed that they promptly deposited the service tax collected and tried to recover unpaid taxes from clients. The Tribunal held that the Appellant is liable to pay service tax on the taxable services rendered, as there is no specific exemption for security services to Government agencies.Issue 2: Invocation of Extended PeriodThe Appellant contended that the demand made by the department for the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 was barred by limitation as the show cause notice was issued on 11.11.2005. The Tribunal observed that the Appellant had not suppressed any information and had cooperated with the department by raising separate invoices for unpaid service tax. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the extended period cannot be invoked to demand service tax and the demands confirmed based on the extended period were not sustainable.Decision:The Tribunal concluded that the demands confirmed by invoking the extended period were not sustainable. The Appellant was held liable to pay service tax for the normal period of limitation, along with interest, but no penalty was imposed as suppression with intent to evade payment of tax was not established. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
