TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Tax Demand Must Stay Within Charge, Value and Notice
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Demand Must Stay Within Charge, Value and Notice<br>By: - Raj Jaggi<br>Service Tax<br>Dated:- 17-8-2026<br>Taxability Must Begin With the Real Nature of the Activity The CESTAT New Delhi decision in M/s Sun Bright Manpower Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner Central Goods & Service Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate, Commissioner Central Goods & Service Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate, New Delhi - 2026 (8) TMI 792 - CESTAT NEW DELHI, is a useful Service Tax ruling on three practical areas of litigation. It addresses the boundary between manufacture and service, the inclusion of reimbursable expenses in taxable value, and the legality of appropriating amounts deposited during investigation for a period not covered by the show cause notice. The appellant was engaged in manpower supply services. In many contracts, it recovered actual wage-related costs such as wages, PF, ESI, and the Labour Welfare Fund, and separately charged a service charge of 5% to 10%. Service Tax was paid on the service charge component. The dispute arose because the Department sought to tax the reimbursable expenses as well. In other contracts, the appellant was not merely supplying manpow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er. It undertook the manufacture of goods on a job-work basis and was paid on a per-piece basis. The appellant argued that such activity amounted to manufacture and not a taxable service. The show cause notice dated 06.01.2020 proposed a demand of Rs.5,99,99,689/-. The Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs.2,71,24,723/- with interest and penalties. The appellant had also deposited amounts during the investigation. Part of those deposits was appropriated in the adjudication order. A separate refund claim of Rs.1,29,04,999/- was rejected on the ground that the amount had already been appropriated. Both matters travelled to the Tribunal. Manufacture Cannot Be Taxed as Service Merely Because Manpower Is Used The first important issue was whether Service Tax could be demanded on an activity that amounted to manufacture on a job-work basis. The Commissioner had accepted, as a matter of fact, that certain activities undertaken by the appellant amounted to manufacture. This factual finding was crucial. Once an activity is found to be manufacture, it cannot be treated as a taxable service merely because the assessee is also engaged in manpower supply in other contracts. The Trib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal referred to Notification No.25/2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012, particularly Serial No.30(i), which exempted carrying out an intermediate production process as job work in relation to specified goods where the process amounted to manufacture or production of goods. The principle is simple. Manufacture of goods and provision of a taxable service are distinct taxable events. If the agreement, billing pattern and performance show that the appellant manufactured goods on a job-work basis and received per-piece charges, the demand cannot proceed as if the appellant had supplied manpower. This distinction is important for senior professionals because many contracts involve the use of labour, machines, supervision and output-linked payment. Merely because manpower is deployed does not mean that the supply is a manpower supply service. If the obligation is to produce or manufacture goods and payment is linked to output, the nature of the contract must be examined with care. The Department cannot pick one element of performance and ignore the true commercial character of the arrangement. Wrong Collection Does Not Create a Charge of Service Tax A key aspect of the ruling conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erns the distinction between Service Tax legally payable and an amount wrongly collected as Service Tax. In respect of one client, M/s Sandhar Automach, the Commissioner had confirmed a demand because the appellant had collected Service Tax from the client. The Tribunal clarified that collecting an amount as Service Tax does not create a levy if the activity itself is not taxable. This distinction brings Section 73A of the Finance Act, 1994 into focus. Section 73A is a special provision. It provides that where any person collects an amount as representing Service Tax, even if such amount is not legally required to be collected, the amount must be deposited with the Central Government. The provision prevents a person from retaining money collected from another person in the name of tax. Its purpose is not to create a new levy, but to ensure that wrongly collected tax-like amounts are not retained privately. Section 73 operates in a different field. It deals with the recovery of Service Tax not levied, not paid, short levied or short paid. Therefore, Section 73 can be invoked only where Service Tax is legally payable in the first place. If the activity is not taxable or is exem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pt, there is no unpaid Service Tax to recover under Section 73. The Department may insist on deposit of the amount actually collected as tax under Section 73A, but it cannot demand an additional amount as Service Tax under Section 73 when the levy itself does not exist. A Wrong Invoice Practice Cannot Enlarge the Statute The ruling also rejects a common administrative temptation. If an assessee has wrongly charged or paid tax on some invoices, the Department may sometimes seek to treat that conduct as proof that the same tax is payable in all similar cases. The Tribunal refused to permit such reasoning. A mistake by the assessee cannot enlarge the charging provision. This principle is especially important in indirect tax. Taxpayers may sometimes pay tax out of caution, under pressure, due to system limitations, or due to a misunderstanding of the law. Such payment may have consequences depending on the statute, but it cannot create taxability where none exists. The question is not whether the assessee once paid tax. The question is whether tax was legally payable. Therefore, wrong collection may invite deposit under Section 73A. Wrong self-assessment may require correct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. But neither wrong collection nor wrong self-assessment can form the legal basis for a fresh demand under Section 73. The levy must flow from law. Reimbursable Expenses Before the Amendment Could Not Be Added to Taxable Value The second major issue concerned reimbursable expenses for the period up to 13.05.2015. The appellant provided manpower to clients and recovered actual wages, PF, ESI, and other statutory or employment-related costs, apart from service charges. Service Tax was paid on the service charge component, but the Department sought to include reimbursable expenses in the taxable value. This issue was governed by Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, as it stood during the relevant period. Section 67 is the valuation provision for Service Tax. It determines the value on which Service Tax is to be calculated once a taxable service exists. In Union of India And Anr. Versus M/s. Intercontinental Consultants And Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (3) TMI 357 - Supreme Court, the Supreme Court held that reimbursable expenses could not be included in the value of taxable services under the unamended Section 67. The Court treated valuation as a matter of statutory author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity, not administrative convenience. The Tribunal applied this principle. Merely because the appellant had wrongly paid Service Tax on reimbursable expenses in some invoices, the Department could not demand the same tax on other reimbursable expenses. A mistaken self-assessment does not enlarge the statute. The later amendment to Section 67 could not be used to justify a demand for the earlier period. Therefore, the demand on reimbursable expenses for the period prior to 14.05.2015 was not sustainable. Valuation Power Cannot Expand the Charging Provision The issue of reimbursable expenses also highlights a deeper principle. Service Tax is first imposed by the charging provision. Valuation provisions determine the measure of tax only after taxability is established. Valuation cannot expand the charging provision. It cannot bring into tax what the statute did not charge. Before the amendment, Section 67 did not permit the inclusion of reimbursable expenses in the manner attempted by the Department. The Supreme Court in Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. therefore protected the boundary between charge and valuation. The later amendment changed the legal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... position prospectively, but it could not be used to support demands for the earlier period. This approach is important for all indirect tax disputes. A valuation provision is not a substitute for a charging provision. The Department must first identify a taxable service. Thereafter, it must value that service in the manner permitted by law. Where the valuation provision does not include a particular amount for the relevant period, tax cannot be demanded by reference to administrative convenience or past self-assessment. Payments and Adjustments Required Factual Verification The appellant also claimed that an amount of Rs.10,36,367/- paid between June and August 2014 was not reflected in the ST-3 return and should be adjusted. It also claimed an adjustment for excess Service Tax of Rs.10,14,332/- paid between April and June 2017. These issues were factual in nature and required verification of returns, challans, accounts and computation. The Tribunal did not finally decide these issues on assumptions. It remanded these limited aspects to the Commissioner for verification and recalculation. This part of the ruling is modest but important. Where the dispute is whether a p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayment has actually been made or whether an excess payment exists, the authority must verify records and make the proper adjustment if the claim is found correct. Such directions preserve fairness on both sides. The assessee does not get automatic credit without verification. The Department also cannot ignore payments merely because they were not reflected in one return or were not correctly adjusted earlier. Tax computation must ultimately match verified records. Appropriation Cannot Travel Beyond the Show Cause Notice The most practical aspect of the decision concerns the appropriation of Rs.1,38,00,000/- deposited during the investigation for the period April, 2014 to September, 2014. The show cause notice dated 06.01.2020 covered the periods April, 2013 to September, 2013 and October, 2014 to June, 2017. It did not propose any demand for April, 2014 to September, 2014, nor did it propose appropriation of the amount deposited for that period. A show cause notice is the foundation of adjudication. It gives the assessee notice of the exact case to be met. It must indicate the period, the demand, the grounds, the statutory provisions and the proposed consequences. The a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....djudication order cannot travel beyond this foundation. If the notice does not propose a demand or appropriation for a particular period, the final order cannot introduce that demand or appropriation for the first time. The limitation aspect strengthened the case. Since the show cause notice was issued on 06.01.2020, even the extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) could go back only up to January, 2015. The period April, 2014 to September 2014 was beyond even that extended period. Therefore, appropriation of the investigation deposit for that period was beyond the show cause notice as well as beyond limitation. Investigation Deposit Is Not Revenue Unless Lawfully Appropriated Amounts deposited during an investigation often lead to disputes. The Department may treat such deposits as tax paid, while the assessee may later claim that the deposit was made under pressure or before final liability was determined. The key point is that an investigation deposit does not become government revenue merely because it was deposited. If the Department seeks to appropriate such amount towards a demand, the demand and the proposed appropriation must be legally raised in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... show cause notice. The assessee must be informed that the amount deposited is proposed to be adjusted against a specific liability. Without such a proposal, appropriation in the final order exceeds the limits of adjudication. In this case, no demand was proposed for April 2014 to September 2014, and no appropriation was proposed for that period. The Commissioner's appropriation was therefore beyond the scope of the notice. This principle is extremely useful because it reinforces that adjudication is not an open-ended exercise. The authority must remain within the case made out in the notice. Refund Could Not Be Rejected Once Appropriation Failed The appellant's second appeal concerned a refund of Rs.1,29,04,999/-. The refund was rejected by the lower authorities mainly because the amount had already been appropriated in the adjudication order. Once the Tribunal found that the appropriation itself was beyond the show cause notice, the basis for rejecting the refund disappeared. The Revenue was bound to refund the amount deposited. No show cause notice had been issued demanding Service Tax for April, 2014 to September, 2014. No proposal had been made to appropria....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te the amount deposited during the investigation. In such circumstances, retention of the amount could not be justified. The direction to refund the amount with interest as per law is important. It confirms that amounts deposited during the investigation are not beyond judicial scrutiny. If the Department cannot connect the deposit to a valid demand raised within limitation and within the show cause notice, the amount must go back to the assessee. The GST Lesson Is Immediate and Practical Although this is a Service Tax decision, its underlying principles are highly relevant under the GST regime. Under GST as well, taxability must arise from the charging provision and the real nature of the transaction. If an activity is not taxable or falls outside the scope of supply, tax cannot be created merely because an amount was wrongly collected, wrongly paid, or wrongly described. The valuation principle is equally important. GST valuation is governed by Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the relevant valuation rules from Rules 27 to 35 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Department cannot include any amount in taxable value unless the statute and rules permit such inclusion. If a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....particular recovery is merely a reimbursement or pass-through in a legally recognised situation, the valuation analysis must be made in accordance with GST law, not by assumption. The show cause notice principle is perhaps even more important under GST. Proceedings under Sections 73, 74, and now Section 74A, as applicable, must remain within the notice. If a notice does not propose a demand for a particular period or issue, the final order cannot enlarge the case. Similarly, amounts deposited during investigation through DRC-03 or otherwise cannot be retained or appropriated without a clear statutory basis, proper notice, and opportunity of hearing. The Demand Must Stay Within Law and Notice Sun Bright Manpower Solutions ultimately reinforces a single, disciplined rule: tax can be demanded only when the activity is taxable, the value is computed as the law permits, the demand is within the limitation, and the final order remains within the scope of the show cause notice. This principle is equally applicable under GST, where wrong collection, valuation error, or an investigation deposit cannot substitute statutory authority. *** =============<br> Scholarly articles fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r knowledge sharing by authors, experts, professionals ....