2025 (9) TMI 812

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al demand of service tax of Rs 1,97,64,927/- has been confirmed against them, along with interest and equal amount of tax as penalty, under the categories of 'Security Service' and 'Manpower Supply Service'. 2. It is the submission of the appellant that the demand has been raised and confirmed on the basis of CBDT data without adducing any corroborative evidence, which is impermissible. Accordingly, the appellant contends that the demand confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable. In support of this view, the appellant relied on the following decisions: - i. M/s. Rishu Enterprise v. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & C.Ex., Dibrugarh [Service Tax Appeal No.75509 of 2022 - CESTAT, Kolkata]. ii. M/s. Quest Engineers & Consultant Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & C.Ex., Allahabad [2022 (58) G.S.T.L. 345 (Tri-All)] iii. M/s. GopiChenna v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal - GST [Final Order No. A/30078-30079/2024 dated 26.02.2024 in Service Tax Appeal No. 30412 of 2023 & anr. - CESTAT, Hyderabad] iv. M/s. Indian Machine Tools Manufacturers Association v. The Commissioner of C.Ex., Panchkula [Final Order No. 60403 of 2023 dated 18.09.2023 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....recipients. 2.5. In view of the above submissions, the appellant contends that the demand confirmed against them in the impugned order, along with interest and penalty thereon, is not sustainable and accordingly, have prayed for setting aside the same. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterates the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. In the present case, a demand of service tax of Rs. 1,97,64,927/- along with interest and equal amount of tax as penalty has been confirmed in the impugned order under the categories of "Security Service" and "Manpower Supply Service" 5.1. We find that the present demand has been raised and confirmed on the basis of data provided by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), without adducing any corroborative evidence. A perusal of Paragraphs 1.3 and 1.6 of the Order-in-Original reveal that the entire basis for raising the impugned demand rests solely on CBDT (Income Tax) data for the Financial Year 2016-17. It is observed that the said demand has been confirmed without the support of any independent or corroborative evidence from the Service Tax rec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....relevant observation of the Tribunal in the aforesaid case is reproduced below: - "7. On going through the records of the case, it is clear that the cases are made on the basis of third party data i.e., amounts reflected in Income Tax Returns and in Form 26AS. Revenue takes the stand that in the Negative List regime, Department is not obliged to prove the provision of a particular service to demand service tax and further, the Appellants could not explain that the difference satisfactorily. I find that this is not the correct approach; exigibility to service tax depends on the service provider, service rendered, service recipient and the consideration thereof. Unless these four elements have been connected logically, demand of service tax cannot be confirmed merely on the basis of figures reflected in other statutory records." 5.5. Further, in the case of M/s. Indian Machine Tools Manufacturers Association v. The Commissioner of C.Ex., Panchkula [Final Order No. 60403 of 2023 dated 18.09.2023 in Service Tax Appeal No. 4174 of 2012 - CESTAT, Chandigarh], the Tribunal, Chandigarh has held as under: "11. Coming to third and final issue as to whether any demand can....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ined. Thus, we observe that the demand confirmed in the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground itself. 6. Regarding the merits of the case, the submission of the appellant is that as per Notification No. 30/2012-Service Tax, dated 20th June, 2012, (item 8 of the TABLE) as amended by Notification No. 45/2012-Service Tax dated 07.08.2012 (inserting Security Service) and Notification No. 07/2015-Service Tax dated 1st March, 2015, 100% service tax is to be paid by the recipients of the services in respect of "Security Service" and "Manpower Supply Service". The appellant has claimed the benefit of these notifications and contended that as per these notifications, the liability of payment of service tax is on the recipients of service. For ready reference, the relevant parts of the said notifications are reproduced below: - • Notification No. 30/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012 ....... (II) The extent of service tax payable thereon by the person who provides the service and the person who receives the service for the taxable services specified in (I) shall be as specified in the following Table, namely :- TABLE Sl. No. Description of....