2024 (10) TMI 1750 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax on works contract upheld without abatement; manpower supply demand barred by N/N.30/2012, extended limitation u/s73

CESTAT (AT), New Delhi partly allowed the appeal. It held that, based on Form 26AS, ST-3 returns and the appellant's non-cooperation in producing records, ... Scope of SCN - no dispute of classification has been raised in the SCN - non-payment of service tax - not negative listed services - suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is observed that after getting the information from the Income-tax Department, the concerned Commissionerate vide their letter dated 10.12.2018 and the reminder dated 07.12.2018 had required the appellant to file the documents as that of profit and loss account, Balance Sheets, the payment particulars/ challans, the work contracts/order, details and copies of bills for the financial year 2014-15 to June 2017. But the appellant did not submit any of those documents. Later also vide letter dated 13.05.2019 and the reminder dated 15.07.2019 the appellant was again asked to submit the documents in their defense vis-à-vis the gross value received by the appellant as was apparent from form 26AS but again nothing was produced by the appellant. In these circumstances the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 07.11.2019 was served upon the appellants solely based on the documents received from Income-tax Department. The period in dispute is the post negative list period. From the form 26AS and the ST-3 Returns of the appellant department concluded that appellant was rendering the declared services as specified under section 66E of Finance Act, 1994, the provision which was made applicable w.e.f. 01.07.2012 vide Notification No.19/2012-ST dated 05.06.2012. For want of any evidence produced by the appellant the activity of the appellant was not opined to fall under the negative list and resultantly the demand in question was confirmed. These observations are sufficient for me to hold that department has no means to arrive at a conclusion about the precise nature of the services rendered by the appellant. No doubt the concept of nomenclature /classification of the services became redundant post 01.07.2012 but for the purposes of exemptions/abatements the same continues to be relevant. It is observed that as per appellant, there is no difference vis-à-vis the figures in the ST-3 Returns when compared to the figures in 26AS Form as is alleged by the Department. The appellant has submitted that amount of Rs.2068898/- and of Rs.2012500/- is not pertaining to them and the amount of Rs.10,06,119/- as received by them, is mentioned to be missing from 26AS Form. These have been the reason for the noticed difference. But the authority below has observed that the appellant has failed to produce any evidence about the said plea taken and Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the findings of the original adjudicating authority in this respect - The invoices vis-à-vis works contracts service have also been perused by the authority and it has been concluded that there is no mention of value of goods, if any, used in rendering WCS. Hence in absence of such evidence there can be no possibility of appreciating /calculating any amount of abatement available to the appellant. To my opinion, the appellant is rightly held liable to pay service tax on WCS without claiming any abatement. With respect to the other activity rendered by appellant i.e. ‘Supply of Manpower’, as per N/N.30/2012 as amended vide Notification No.7/2015-ST dated 01.03.2015, 100% Service Tax liability on ‘Supply of Manpower’ is payable by service receiver and the liability of service provider is ‘Nil’. In the present case service provider is the appellant, hence, his liability for rendering manpower supply service is ‘Nil’. Hence I hold that demand of service tax for this activity has been wrongly confirmed. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is observed from the ST-3 Returns on record that appellant has been silent about nature of services rendered other than supply of semi-skilled personnel despite receiving the amount of consideration against those activities. The said act is opined to be the definite act of suppression of relevant fact. Hence it is held that the extended period of limitation is invokable in the present case in terms of proviso to section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. Thus, the argument of the appellant for Show Cause Notice to be barred by time is also not sustainable. The order under challenge is hereby upheld except with the modification vis-à-vis the amount of service tax on the value received by the appellant for rendering ‘Manpower Supply Services’. The demand thereof is hereby set aside. The quantum of penalty is also modified to be reduced to the proportionate value of the remaining confirmed demand - appeal allowed in part. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether the adjudicating and appellate authorities travelled beyond the show cause notice by examining the nature/classification of services rendered by the assessee post-negative list. 1.2 Whether the service tax demand could be sustained on the basis of difference between figures in Form 26AS (Income Tax) and ST-3 returns in the absence of full supporting documents from the assessee, and what was the proper characterization of the services rendered. 1.3 Whether service tax was correctly demanded on 'works contract services' rendered by the assessee, including the claim of abatements in the absence of evidence of value of goods used. 1.4 Whether service tax liability on 'supply of manpower' services was correctly fastened on the assessee in view of the reverse charge mechanism under Notification No. 30/2012-ST, as amended. 1.5 Whether late fee under Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, for delayed filing of ST-3 returns was sustainable for the period in dispute. 1.6 Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, and penalty under section 78 were correctly invoked on the ground of suppression of facts. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 2.1 Alleged travelling beyond the show cause notice regarding nature/classification of services 2.1.1 Interpretation and reasoning The Court noted that the show cause notice was issued in the post-negative list regime and was based solely on information from the Income Tax Department, particularly Form 26AS, due to the assessee's failure to furnish requested documents (profit and loss account, balance sheet, payment particulars, work orders, bills, etc.) despite repeated letters and reminders. On that basis, the department concluded that the assessee rendered 'declared services' under section 66E and that the activities were not covered by the negative list under section 66D. The Court observed that, although formal 'classification' lost much relevance post 01.07.2012, the nature of the service remained relevant for determining exemptions/abatements. During adjudication, some documents were eventually produced by the assessee, on the basis of which the adjudicating authority identified the services as 'manpower supply services' and 'works contract services.' The Court held that these findings, drawn from the material produced at the adjudication stage, only clarified the nature of the very services forming the subject of the show cause notice and therefore did not go beyond the scope of the notice. 2.1.2 Conclusions The Court held that the authorities did not travel beyond the show cause notice by determining that the assessee provided manpower supply and works contract services; such determination was within the ambit of the allegations of non-payment of service tax on declared services not covered by the negative list. 2.2 Basis of demand from Form 26AS vis-à-vis ST-3 returns and onus to establish taxability; characterization of services 2.2.1 Interpretation and reasoning The Court recorded that the department compared the income reflected in Form 26AS with the taxable value declared in ST-3 returns and found differences for the period 2014-15 to 2016-17. The assessee disputed these differences, asserting that certain amounts in Form 26AS did not pertain to it and that some of its receipts were missing from 26AS. However, the Court noted that the assessee failed to produce any corroborative evidence to substantiate these assertions either during investigation or adjudication, despite repeated opportunities. The Court perused the appellate order and noted that the adjudicating authority had meticulously worked out the demand in the absence of work orders and bills for the disputed period, holding that without such evidence the nature of services, availability of abatement and the rate of service tax could not be ascertained. Some work orders submitted (e.g. with a distribution company) showed engagement of semi-skilled persons, operation/watch & ward and minor maintenance of substations, justifying characterization as manpower supply and works contract services. The Court also accepted that due to the assessee's persistent non-cooperation and non-production of documents, the department had no alternative but to rely on Form 26AS and ST-3 returns as the basis for quantifying the demand. 2.2.2 Conclusions The Court upheld the use of Form 26AS, read with ST-3 returns and limited available records, as a valid basis for raising and confirming the demand in the circumstances created by the assessee's failure to furnish necessary documents. The characterization of the activities as manpower supply and works contract services was affirmed on the existing material. 2.3 Tax liability on works contract services and denial of abatement 2.3.1 Legal framework (as discussed) The Court proceeded on the basis of the post-negative list regime where declared/taxable services, including works contract services, were liable to service tax, and where abatements/exemptions were dependent on proof of value of goods used or other prescribed conditions. 2.3.2 Interpretation and reasoning The adjudicating authority examined invoices pertaining to works contract services and recorded that there was no mention of the value of goods, if any, used in executing such works. The Court agreed that, in the absence of any segregated value of goods or supporting documentary evidence from the assessee, there was no basis to compute or allow any abatement that depended on proof of the value of goods or other specified parameters. 2.3.3 Conclusions The Court upheld the demand of service tax on works contract services without allowing any abatement, holding that the assessee, having failed to furnish necessary documents/evidence, was correctly made liable to pay full service tax on the gross value for works contract services. 2.4 Tax liability on supply of manpower services under reverse charge 2.4.1 Legal framework (as discussed) The Court considered Notification No. 30/2012-ST, as amended by Notification No. 7/2015-ST dated 01.03.2015, governing reverse charge mechanism. For 'supply of manpower' services, the notification placed 100% of the service tax liability on the service receiver, making the service provider's liability 'Nil.' 2.4.2 Interpretation and reasoning It was undisputed from the records that one component of the assessee's activities constituted 'supply of manpower' services. The Court held that, in terms of the above notification, for such services, the liability to pay service tax was entirely on the recipient, with no tax payable by the provider. 2.4.3 Conclusions The Court concluded that the confirmation of service tax demand on the assessee in respect of 'supply of manpower' services was contrary to the applicable reverse charge provisions. The demand of service tax on the value attributable to manpower supply services was set aside in toto. 2.5 Late fee under Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 2.5.1 Interpretation and reasoning The assessee argued that it was not an 'assessee' liable to pay service tax for the period October 2016 to March 2017 and hence was not obliged to file ST-3 returns, making late fee for that period unsustainable. The department, however, contended that ST-3 returns had been filed belatedly and that no evidence had been produced to establish absence of tax liability for that period. The Court noted that before the original authority the assessee had merely asserted non-liability for that period without producing any evidence, and this deficiency remained. Consequently, the authorities treated the returns as delayed and invoked Rule 7C for late fee. 2.5.2 Conclusions The Court upheld the levy of late fee of Rs. 20,900/- under Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, for delayed filing of ST-3 returns, as the assessee failed to substantiate its plea of non-liability for the relevant period. 2.6 Invocation of extended period under section 73 and penalty under section 78 2.6.1 Interpretation and reasoning The Court examined the ST-3 returns and found that, apart from mentioning supply of semi-skilled personnel, the assessee remained silent regarding the nature of other services rendered, despite having received substantial consideration for them. This omission persisted even when the department sought details and documents, which the assessee did not supply. The Court considered such non-disclosure and non-cooperation as a definite act of suppression of relevant facts concerning taxable services and their value. Since the demand was partly confirmed (excluding manpower supply services), the Court held that the conditions for invoking the extended period under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, stood satisfied. Accordingly, penalty under section 78 was also attracted, though liable to be commensurate with the finally sustained demand. 2.6.2 Conclusions The extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 73(1) was rightly invoked, and the plea of time-bar was rejected. Penalty under section 78 was upheld but directed to be reduced proportionately to correspond with the reduced quantum of demand confirming only the tax on works contract and other taxable services (excluding manpower supply). 2.7 Overall result 2.7.1 The demand of service tax on works contract and other taxable services (excluding 'supply of manpower') was upheld, along with interest, extended limitation, late fee, and penalty proportionate to the sustained demand. 2.7.2 The demand of service tax on the portion of value attributable to 'supply of manpower' services was set aside in view of the reverse charge mechanism making the assessee's liability nil for such services. The appeal was thus partly allowed with modification of demand and corresponding penalty.