TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecruitment or Supply agency service" as alleged by the Ld. Adjudicating authority. The Appellant referred the definitions of 'manpower recruitment and supply agency service' and 'Cleaning Services' and contended that Manpower recruitment or Supply agency service ends at the threshold of the recipient of the service as the service is recruitment and supply of manpower without having any relation to the work done by the manpower so recruited. 2.1. In support of their claim that the services rendered by them would not fall within the definition of 'manpower recruitment and supply agency service', the Appellant cited the Board Circular No.190/9/2015-Service Tax dated 15.12.2015 where the scope of 'manpower recruitment and supply agency service' was discussed in detail. As per the said clarification, the services rendered by them does not fall within the ambit of Manpower Supply Service. 2.3. The Appellant submits that, in order to determine the nature of the service provide the work orders entered by the Appellant has to be perused to analyse the scope of the service i.e., whether the services provided by the Appellant is only limited to recruiting and providing manpower to the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laced their reliance on the decision in the case of Naresh K Solnaki Vs C.C.E. & S.T (CESTAT Ahmedabad) dated 12.09.2023 passed in Service Tax Appeal No. 10255 of 2015 wherein the CESTAT Ahmedabad held that where the agreement between the service provider and recipient is for a particular job and not for the supply of manpower the activity cannot be classified as 'Manpower, recruitment or Supply Services'. 2.6. In the light of the above decisions, the Appellant submits that the service provided by them in this case is in the nature of cleaning services and not manpower recruitment and supply agency service as alleged by the department. 2.7. Further, the Appellant submits that the SCN was issued levying service tax by classifying the services as manpower supply services whereas the Ld. Adjudicating authority has not confirmed the demand under manpower supply services but has accepted the fact in para 5.4 of the OIO internal page 34 that the Appellants were providing cleaning services. Thus, the Appellant states that the change of classification of services cannot be done at the adjudication stage and therefore the entire demand being confirmed on the said ground is liable to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice" rendered. There is nothing to show from the records that the appellant was not properly maintaining the books of account or had not recorded the various transactions. The department has nothing to substantiate its case, except for some bland statements that are essentially presumptive in nature. Moreover, 26 AS is not a prescribed statement/document for purpose of determination of service tax liability. It was for the department to lead its case with cogent evidence. The said 26 AS statement is maintained in respect of various receipts as applicable for the Income Tax Department for purpose of tax deducted TDS as relevant under the Income Tax Act. Service Tax would have to essentially depend on the value of the taxable service rendered and is unlike the taxability under the IT laws. The issuance of the show cause notice solely on the basis of the figures indicated in 26 AS cannot be sustained". 2.10. The Appellant further relies on the decision in the case of M/s Rishu Enterprise V. Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Dibrugarh ST No: 75509/2022 dated 08.02.2024 wherein the issued raised before the Kolkata Tribunal was whether demand for service tax can be raised on the basis o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngly, they have not paid service tax on the said services. The department was of the view that the services provided by the Appellant are appropriately classifiable under the category of "Manpower recruitment or Supply agency service". As the Appellant has not aid service tax under the said category, the demand of service tax has been raised and confirmed. 6.1. In this regard, we have perused the work orders issued by the Government of WB. On perusal, we find that in most of the cases, the Appellant has been rendering cleaning, sanitation and House Keeping Service to the Government and medical colleges and Hospitals which is essential for patient care and hygiene. Therefore, the scope of work involves providing cleaning services only. The scope of work does not involve recruitment or providing of any manpower. 6.2. For better appreciation, the definition of the said services are extracted below: Supply of manpower service is defined under Section Rule 2(g) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 to mean- "supply of manpower" means supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise, to another person to work under his superintendence or control." The definition for Cleaning Servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der the temporary control of the service recipient. Therefore, the scope of such services is limited to hiring and proving manpower. (ii) The accountability of the service provider is only limited to the quality of the manpower. (iii) The value of service has a direct correlation to manpower deployed, i.e., the number of people deployed multiplied by the rate per person. 6.5. We find that, in order to determine the nature of the service provided, the work orders entered by the Appellant has to be perused to analyse the scope of the service i.e., whether the services provided by the Appellant is only limited to recruiting and providing manpower to the client or involves provision of some other services in the course of which manpower is recruited by the Appellant. 6.6. The work orders issued by the Government of WB in most of the cases establishes that the Appellant has rendered cleaning, sanitation and House Keeping Service to the Government and medical colleges and Hospitals which is essential for patient care and hygiene. Thus, we find that the scope of work involves providing cleaning services only. The scope of work does not involve recruitment or provid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....types of payment namely payment towards labour charges and payment towards service charges but no invoice was inspected or verified to substantiate that the amount was collected in the same form/manner which was attributed by the lower authorities to the failure on the part of appellant to produce such document though during hearing of appeal in the second ground of litigation, appellant had voluntarily produced some sample invoice copies. Therefore primarily the issue is not concerning bundle of services provided by the appellant which is also found absent in the show cause notice but the same is concerned with provision for manpower engagement to provide cleaning service or else supply of manpower service. Going by the work contract, it is apparently clear that appellant was providing cleaning service through manpower engaged under its control and supervision and not supplied manpower to the service receiver to undertake cleaning service under the control and supervision of the service receiver....." 6.8. The Appellant also placed their reliance on the decision in the case of Naresh K Solnaki Vs C.C.E. & S.T (CESTAT Ahmedabad) dated 12.09.2023 passed in Service Tax Appeal No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er various scenarios such as different norms adopted for revenue recognition, difference in the principles of levy, determination of value, methodology under income tax and service tax, abatement provisions under service tax etc. In the present case, the mismatch between the documents is because cleaning services provided to non-commercial building are exempt from service tax. We observe that service tax liability cannot be determined solely on the basis of mismatch between ITR and ST-3 has been upheld by various judgements. (i) Luit Developers Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Dibrugarh MANU/CK/0017/2022 (ii) M/s Rishu Enterprise V. Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Dibrugarh ST No: 75509/2022 dated 08.02.2024 (iii) M/S Jamwant Pandey & Sons V. Commissioner Appeal Central Goods and Service Tax And Central Excise, Bhopal dated 06.03.2024 in ST No. 54785 OF 2023 7.1. By relying on the decisions cited supra, we hold that the demand of service tax confirmed in the impugned order on the basis of the information availed from ITR return and ST-3 returns furnished by the Appellant, without any further corroboration regarding the taxabili....