TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 645
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period January, 14 to December, 2014 (ii) Service tax of Rs. 2,96,640/- towards Director's renumeration paid for the period 2012-13 to 2014-15. (iii) Service tax of Rs. 79,847/- under Manpower service for the period January, 2014 to December, 2014. 1.1 Thus a total service tax of Rs. 12,30,360/- was alleged not paid by the appellant under RCM. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 29.11.2016 was issued to the appellant demanding aforesaid amount of service tax along with interest and penalty. Further late fee of Rs. one lac has also been proposed for non-filing of Returns. The said SCN was adjudicated vide Order-In-Original bearing No. 04/2018-19 dated 23.05.2018 wherein demand was confirmed along with interest and penalty. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, however, reduced the penalty to Rs. 6,15,180/- [50% of demand of service tax of Rs. 12,30,360/-]. Still being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed before this Tribunal. 2. We have heard Shri Jitin Singhal, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri S.K. Meena, learned Authorized Representative for the department. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that demand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... work completed by the contractor under his own supervision and control as is mentioned in the contract. Ld. Counsel emphasized that it is written in the agreement that all the labour will work under supervision and control of the contractor itself and not under control of the Appellant and therefore, the contract will not get covered under the definition of manpower supply services. The appellant relied upon judgement of Ritesh Enterprises Vs CCE, Banaglore, 2010 (18) STR 17 (Tri-Bang.) wherein it was held that lump sum work is not covered under Manpower Recruitment or supply agency service. Further reliance is placed on the decision this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Fitweld Enterprise Vs CST, Ahmedabad, (2024) 17 Centax 446 (Tri-Ahmd.). The entire situation is mentioned to be revenue neutral. 3.3 Finally, it is submitted that extended period cannot be invoked in present case inasmuch firstly the entire situation is revenue neutral and secondly there is no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant to evade payment of tax. Reliance is placed on the judgement passed by the Hon'ble CESTAT in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs CCE&ST, LTU, Mumbai, reported as, 2016 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he fact of non-payment of appropriate service tax was never brought to the knowledge of department by the appellant till the audit was initiated. Also in a self-assessment regime it is the responsibility of the appellant to assess the service tax himself and make payment thereof and also, to file the ST-3 returns with full & correct information. But in this case, the appellant had not filed the ST-3 returns within due dates as discussed earlier and also, had failed to deposit the service tax dues in dispute voluntarily. It was a clear case of suppression of material facts with intent to evade payment of service tax warranting invocation of extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. Having heard the rival contention s and perusing the record it is observed that three different activities of the appellant have been alleged to be the 'Service" taxable under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. It is alleged as follows: a) Appellant has received GTA Service b) Appellant has paid renumeration to its independent directors c) Appellant has received Manpower supply service 4.1 All of these are alleg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "Whether the appellant is a Goods Transport Agency (taxable), as alleged by the department or appellant was just transporting goods by Road (activity covered under negative list)., as asserted by the appellant?" 4.4 For the purpose, foremost, we need to know both the concepts. Section 65(50b) of the Act defines 'Goods Transport Agency' as under: "goods transport agency" means any [person who] provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note by whatever name called; Section 65(105)(zzp) of the Act defines the said taxable service as under: (zzp) to any person, by a goods transport agency, in relation to transport of goods by road in a goods carriage; 4.5 It is clear that to be called "Goods Transport Agency" a person should fulfill two conditions, namely: a) It should provide service in relation to transport of goods by road b) It should issue consignment note, by whatever name called. Also that the vehicle used has to be Goods Carriage which is defined under section "65(16) to have same meaning as assigned to it in clause (14) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....service:.. Explanation.- For the purposes of this rule and the second proviso to rule 4A, "consignment note" means a document, issued by a goods transport agency against the receipt of goods for the purpose of transport of goods by road in a goods carriage, which is serially numbered, and contains the name of the consignor and consignee, registration number of the goods carriage in which the goods are transported, details of the goods transported, details of the place of origin and destination, person liable for paying service tax whether consignor, consignee or the goods transport agency." 4.8 We also observe that the definition of GTA remained the same even after introduction of negative list regime. Service being determined by issuance of consignment note under the statute, it is not within the ambit of a subordinate legislation to create the class of taxable persons by imposing a condition that would, perforce, bring such persons within the tax net. 4.9 Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of above discussion, there is observed no apparent denial to the following facts: (i) Appellant is not registered under Carriage by Road Act, 2007 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, under the terms of his employment, the employer exercises a supervisory control in respect of the work entrusted to him. We find that every power which is given to the Director emanates from the articles of association which prescribes the limits of the exercise of that power. The powers have to be exercised within the terms and limitations prescribed thereunder and subject to the control and supervision of the Board of Directors of the company which in our view is indicative of director being employed as a servant of the company. Whole-time director is, otherwise, essentially an employee of the company and accordingly, whatever remuneration is being paid in conformity with the provisions of the Companies Act, is pursuant to employer-employee relationship. We also observe that the appellant has mentioned to have duly deducted tax under Section 192 of the Income-tax Act which is the applicable provisions for TDS on payments to employees. There is no apparent denial to this fact also. The director of appellant, in these circumstances, is held to be the employee of the appellant. The relationship of employer employee is out of the ambit of being called as service as defined under ....