Service tax liability cannot rest on Form 26AS alone; reverse-charge notifications can shift tax burden to the recipient.

Service tax demand cannot be sustained solely on CBDT data or Form 26AS entries unless the Department independently proves rendition of taxable service, the recipient, and the consideration. Income-tax return information by itself does not establish service tax liability without corroborative service tax records or other evidence linking the receipts to taxable services. The document also notes that, after the relevant exemption and reverse-charge notifications, liability for security service and manpower supply service shifted to the service recipient rather than the service provider, so no demand lay against the provider for those covered services. On that basis, the demand, interest, and penalty were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a service tax demand can be sustained solely on the basis of CBDT and Form 26AS data without corroborative evidence; (ii) Whether, after the relevant exemption and reverse-charge notifications, the liability to pay service tax on security service and manpower supply service fell on the service recipient and not on the service provider.

Issue (i): Whether a service tax demand can be sustained solely on the basis of CBDT and Form 26AS data without corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The demand was founded only on income-tax department data, without independent verification from service tax records or proof of actual taxable service rendition. Mere entries in income-tax returns or Form 26AS do not, by themselves, establish service tax liability unless supported by evidence connecting the receipts with taxable services rendered.

Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained on the sole basis of CBDT or Form 26AS data.

Issue (ii): Whether, after the relevant exemption and reverse-charge notifications, the liability to pay service tax on security service and manpower supply service fell on the service recipient and not on the service provider.

Analysis: Notification No. 30/2012-Service Tax was amended by Notification No. 45/2012-Service Tax to include security service, and Notification No. 7/2015-Service Tax substituted the tax burden so that, from 01.04.2015, 100% service tax on the specified services was payable by the person liable to pay service tax other than the service provider. The services in dispute fell within this regime, so the appellant was not the person liable to discharge the tax.

Conclusion: The service tax liability on the disputed services lay on the recipients, not on the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The demand, interest, and penalty were set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A service tax demand cannot be confirmed merely on third-party income-tax data or Form 26AS entries unless the Department independently establishes rendition of taxable service, the recipient, and the consideration; where reverse-charge notifications place the liability on the service recipient, no tax demand lies against the provider for such covered services.

---