2024 (9) TMI 1547

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....Maruti Plaza 703 Sanjay Place, Agra. (ii) I confirm the 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 Ser....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....Nitin Sharma, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Sandeep Pandey, Authorized Representative for the revenue. 3.2 Arguing for the 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 App....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....e appellant has claimed that said amount is being recovered by them from the service receiver in addition to their own service charges for rendering manpower supply service and accordingly they have shown the said amount under 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 wheth....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....i 15 10000 12 1800000 9 Data Entry Operator- Mainpuri 9 9952 12 1074816 10 Data Entry Operator- Kanpur 10 10000 12 1200000 11 Data Entry Operator- Firozabad 9 10000 12 1080000 12 Driver Ambulance Mainpuri 27 8550 12 2770200 13 Driver Ambulance Mainpuri 33 8550 12 3385800 14 Others       97784   Total       17168600   Grand Total       24474682 4.4 Undisputedly appellant has paid service tax on the entire value of the service provided under the 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 s....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....lkata bench has observed as follows: "10. In this case, the appellant has contended that the demand has been raised on the basis of Form-26AS supplied by the Income Tax department. Although summons were issued to the appellant and the appellant did not join the proceedings, therefore, the demand has been raised on the basis of Form-26AS. Admittedly, no investigation has been conducted in this case at the end of the appellant by the adjudicating authority. Being the appellant a registered service provider and filing their Service Tax returns, in that circumstances, the demand cannot be raised on the basis of Form-26AS obtained from the Income Tax Department. Further, the adjudication order has been passed ex parte." 4.7 In the impugned order or order in original/ show cause notice, nothing has been stated as to how the mere fact of not disclosure of certain amounts in the ST-3 return would have constituted suppression with the intention to evade payment of service 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 recipient....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....Thus we do not find any reason put forth in the show cause notice or the orders of lower authorities for holding that the appellant has suppressed the facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. 4.10 We do not find any merits in the impugned order to the extent it uphold the demand by invoking extended period of limitation. As entire demand has been made by invoking the extended period of limitation we are unable to uphold the demand. 4.11 However as we find that appellant had filed the ST-3 return after delay of about 65 days for which late payment fees has been imposed. The fact of delay in filing the ST-3 return has not be countered by the appellant. Imposition of late payment fees is a legal obligation and has no relation with the evasion of tax. We uphold the demand made towards the late payment fees as prescribed by statute. 5.1 Thus the appeal is partly allowed to the extent of setting aside the demand of service tax, interest and penalties imposed under Section 78 on the ground of limitation. However, the penalty imposed for late filing of return is upheld. ( Order pronounced in open court on - 25 September , 2024 ) ============= Document 1 CONTRACT-....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Previous Next

Contact Us At :

FAQs :

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

2024 (9) TMI 1547