TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [DB] Service Tax Appeal No. 52018 of 2016 [DB] Service Tax Appeal No. 52019 of 2016 [DB] Service Tax Appeal No. 52020 of 2016 [DB] - FINAL ORDER Nos. 51206-51209/2021<br>Service Tax<br>HON'BLE MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON'BLE MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Alok Kothari, Advocate for the Appellants Shri K. Poddar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER RACHNA GUPTA Present order disposes of four appeals arising out of same Show Cause Notice adjudicated by common order that is the order under challenge bearing No.0042-15-16 dated 23.03.2016. The facts in brief for disposal of the impugned appeals are as follows:- That the appellant is registered and engaged in rendering services covered under the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observed that the assessee has failed to pay the Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,15,16,673/- for rendering the taxable service. Accordingly, vide a Show Cause Notice No.128 of 21st April, 2015 the Demand of the aforesaid amount alongwith the proportionate penalty and the interest was proposed to be recovered from the appellant. The said proposal was confirmed vide the Order-in-Original bearing No.0042/2015-16 dated 23rd March, 2016. Being aggrieved of the said order, the appellants are before this Tribunal. 2. We have heard Shri Alok Kothari, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri K. Poddar, learned Departmental Representative for the Department. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that appellants Society is a non-profitab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. While rebutting these arguments, learned Departmental Representative has placed reliance upon para 24.2 of the Order-in-Original as far as the submissions about the suppression of facts is concerned wherein it has been held that since the appellants have withheld the required information and have also failed to file the ST-3 Returns, the appellant cannot take plea of no malafide and no suppression of facts on their part. The extended time limit for issuing Show Cause Notice is very much available with the Department. Learned D.R. has also emphasised upon para No.3 of the Order under challenge, wherein it has clearly been observed that despite taking registration under Service Tax the appellants were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Superintendents or control. Further, Manpower Recruitment of Supply Agency has been defined under Section 65-68 of Finance Act to mean "any person" engaged in providing any service, directly or indirectly, in any manner for recruitment or supply of man-power, temporarily of otherwise, to any other person. The bare perusal of the above provisions make it abundantly clear that there is no exclusion for any category of service providers from the ambit of the tax liability with respect to manpower recruitment and supply agency service the use of word "any person" in the afore mentioned definitions is sufficient to form the above opinion. Hence, the argument of the appellant that they being a welfare organisation working upon no profit fundament....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Department that liability only for an amount of Rs. 1100940 has been discharged by the appellants Society and they are still liable to pay an amount of Rs. 11516673/-. These observations which have nowhere been denied by the appellant corroborate the appellants knowledge about their liability but suppression of discharge thereof. Resultantly, the circumstances of present case are held to have an element of wilful concealment or suppression of liability which under Section 77 entitles the Department to have a period of 5 years instead of one year to serve a show cause notice. Hence, this argument of appellant also is held to be not sustainable. 8. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant that amount of Rs. 1.12 Lakh is the S....