TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1547
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he demand of interest at the appropriate rate for the relevant period ill the actual payment of Service Tax as confirmed here-in-above under Section 75 of the Act read with section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017; (iii) I impose a penalty of Rs.19,03,682/- (Rs Ninteen Lac Three Thousands Six Hundred Eighty Two Only) upon the Noticee under section 78(1) of the Act ibid read with section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. However the Noticee are at option to pay service tax confirmed along with applicable interest and penalty equal to 25% only of service tax confirmed within 30 days of receipt of this order-in-original under section 78 of the Act of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017; (iv) I also confirm a late fee of Rs.4,500.00 (Rupees four Thousand Five only) upon the Noticee for delayed filing of ST-3 returns under Section 70 of the Act read with Rule 7C ibid and section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017 (v) I do not impose any penalty under section 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017." 2.1 The appellant registered with the department vide Service Tax and is engaged in rendering taxable services not covered in the negative lis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant learned counsel submits that The appellant has provided services of man power supply and recruitment agency and therefore the amount received as re-imbursement cannot be treated the value of taxable service. Prior to May14, 2015, Section 67 of the Finance Act there was no such statutory provision existed at the relevant time to include all the expenses for other activities as reimbursed by the principal Clause (a) which deals with consideration has been suitably amended to include reimbursable expenditure or cost incurred by the service provider and charged in the course of providing or agreeing to provide a taxable service. Appellant have in their balance sheet for 2015-16 disclosed these amounts under expenses head and as per settled law reimbursable expenses could not have been included in value of taxable services provided. Extended period of limitation is not invokable. Reliance is placed on the following decisions. Citi Bank N A [Hon‟ble Supreme Court Order dated 09.12.2021 in civil Appeal No 8228 of 2019] T S Motors India Private Ltd [Final Order No 70112/2022 dated 17.06.2022] Dinesh Chandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt. Ltd. [Final Order No 12431/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expense head in the Balance sheet. However, there is no documentary evidence on record to establish that they had entered into any agreement with the service recipient that the employees would be paid expense through the appellant without any add on value thereby establishing that appellant is acting as pure agent. Further, in Balance Sheet for the F.Y 2014-15, I find the appellant has shown Revenue from HR services" as Rs. 2,44,74,682/- and there is no trace to establish from the Balance sheet that out of this gross receipt Rs, 1,54,01,820/- was in capacity of pure agent. Even after the introduction of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006, these reimbursements cannot be considered as pertaining to reimbursement as a pure agent as supply of man power is integral part of service and all charges pertaining to him will form part of the value. It is settled law that service tax is to be charged on the full consideration for the supply of manpower whether full time or part time. The value includes staff salary and contributions, if any, as held by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of M/s Security Agencies Association v/s UOI reported at 2012 (28) STR 03 (Ker.) Theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he category of cleaning services. In respect of the remaining services they have paid service tax on the margin money i.e the value of the service provided after deducting the expenses made by them towards the provision of such service. This fact has been reflected in the profit and loss account of the appellant. Commissioner (Appeal) has siught to disallow the expenses incurred for provision of this service by stating that the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence to the effect that they have not received any amount over and above the value shown as receipt for provision of this service. We have perused the order issued by the various government agencies during the said period and reproduce one of such orders on sample basis : From the perusal of the above order no other amount other than that specified in the order was payable/ paid to the appellant by the service recipient. In the balance sheet also appellant has reflected "Revenue From HR Services" as Rs 2,44,74,682/- which is exactly the amount which is shown in the table above. They have shown under the head "Employee Benefit Expenses" an amount of Rs 2,20,78,246/- towards "Operating Wages to staff". 4.4 Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tax. The show cause notice records as follows: 5. And whereas, it has been noticed that the party did not inform to the department about their actual taxable value received from their service recipients. If the information was not received from the income tax as a third party information, the fact of providing the said service and the fact of receiving of the amount by the Noticee from their customer recipient of services and the service tax evaded thereon would have remained unnoticed by the department. Thus the Noticee suppressed the facts of receiving the amount in lieu of providing taxable services, from the department with intent to evade payment of service tax. Therefore, the Service Tax along with cess amounting to Rs. 19,03,682/- against the service provided appears to be recoverable from the Noticee by invoking extended period of five years under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act. They also appear liable for payment of late fee Rs 4,500/- for late/non fling of ST-3 Returns. Interest for delay in payment of service tax till actual dale of deposit is also demandable from the Noticee under Section 75 of the Act. The Noticee have also rendered themselves liable for penal....