2009 (10) TMI 671 - Commissioner - Service Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to service tax liability of a charitable trust providing Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency's Services, the applicability of penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994, and the interpretation of the definition of "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency."

Service Tax Liability Issue:
The appellant, a charitable trust, was issued a show cause notice for alleged service tax liability amounting to Rs. 48,81,728/- for providing Manpower Recruitment services. The trust contended that they became liable to pay service tax only after 1-5-06 due to a change in the definition of the term "commercial concern." The Additional Commissioner confirmed the tax demand, interest, and imposed penalties under relevant sections of the Act.

Penalty Imposition Issue:
The appellant, being a charitable trust, argued that there was no mala fide intention to evade payment of service tax and that they accepted the tax liability from 1-5-06 onwards. They paid the tax along with interest before the show cause notice was issued. The trust sought relief from the penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Act.

Interpretation of "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency" Issue:
The Commissioner analyzed the activities of the trust in engaging a workforce through sub-contractors for specific tasks like harvesting and transportation of sugar cane. It was found that the trust was not directly supplying workers but receiving payments from the sugar factory and paying the sub-contractors. The Commissioner concluded that the trust's activities did not fall under the definition of "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency," and hence, were not taxable under that category.

The Commissioner set aside the order confirming the service tax demand and penalties, ruling in favor of the appellants. The judgment highlighted that the trust's activities did not constitute taxable services under the definition of "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency." The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellants.