TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 483
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arrated as under ;- 2. The respondent is a private limited company, who entered into a contract with one M/s. Kopargaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Kolpewadi , Tq . Kopargaon , District Ahmednagar , for providing certain services. The agreement between these two parties was in essence to harvest the sugarcane of the members of the Karkhana from their fields, load them in various vehicles and deliver them at factory site. For these services, the respondent was to get charges on tonnage basis. This work, on the face of it, clearly involves manpower. The respondent, admittedly, engaged number of labour for harvesting the sugarcane , loading it in vehicle and unloading it at factory site. During the course of work, the respondent on one ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rson." 4. Having regard to the nature of contract between the respondent and sugar factory and the scope of the definitions mentioned above, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the respondent's work, though provided service to the sugar factory, did not come within the mischief of the term "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency". 5. The learned counsel for the appellant tried quite hard to convince this Court that looking to the nature of work undertaken by the respondent, it would come within the definition of manpower recruitment. She placed reliance on the words "supply of manpower" used in the definition of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency, quoted above. She tried to suggest that the respondent admittedly supplied manpower....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be read as a whole. The purport and object with which the parties thereto entered into a contract ought to be ascertained only from the terms and conditions thereof. Neither the nomenclature of the document nor any particular activity undertaken by the parties to the contract would be decisive." 7. In any case, the agreement itself is eloquent enough to draw the above conclusion. In this background, we must look at the show cause notice dated 16.10.2008. On that date, whether the Revenue was in a position to levy tax on services provided by the respondent? The answer has to be in negative. Having regard to the history of service tax in our country, it becomes clear that when the State was in the process of including various types of se....