2013 (9) TMI 516 - AT - Service Tax

Manpower Supply Service - Duty Demand Interest and Penalty waiver of pre deposit - Assesse were a co-operative society and manufacturers of sugar - Revenue was of the view that the arrangement was a service of Manpower Supply undertaken by the assesse and the assesse should have paid service tax on it under entry at Section 65 (105) (k) r.w 65 (68) - Held that - Assesse had not got any consideration for doing the activity labourers were not the employees of the assesse - For putting the labourers in contact with the farmers who need the services of labourers they had not received any consideration They had not charged any extra consideration other than what was paid to the labourers. Their only job was to route the payments from farmers to the labourers - The fact that they were maintaining a data base of persons who may be available for cane cutting and putting them in contact with the farmers who were in need of such labourers and routing payments to the labourers would not amount to Man Power Supply because they did not have such manpower to supply waiver of pre deposit allowed Decided in favor of assesse.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the arrangement between a co-operative society and farmers for sugar cane procurement constitutes a taxable service of Manpower Supply under the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Whether the co-operative society is liable to pay service tax on the service provided.
3. Whether the co-operative society should make a pre-deposit of dues as demanded by the Revenue.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a co-operative society engaged in sugar manufacturing, which had an arrangement with farmers for sugar cane procurement in Tamil Nadu. The Revenue contended that this arrangement amounted to a service of Manpower Supply under the Finance Act, 1994. The Revenue demanded service tax for the period April '06 to March '11, which was confirmed against the co-operative society. The society appealed the order, arguing that they merely facilitated payments from farmers to labourers and did not receive any extra consideration for the service. The society maintained that the labourers were not their employees, and they did not have the manpower to supply. The Tribunal considered the lack of established consideration for the service and granted a waiver of pre-deposit of dues for the admission of the appeal, following a precedent order.

2. The co-operative society contended that they did not receive any consideration for the activity of facilitating sugar cane harvesting between farmers and labourers. They clarified that their role was limited to routing payments from farmers to labourers and that they did not charge any additional fees for the service. The society highlighted that they were not directly involved in the employment or management of the labourers, and the farmers authorized them to deduct charges from payments due to the labourers. The Tribunal, considering the absence of established consideration for the service provided, granted a waiver of pre-deposit of dues for the admission of the appeal, in line with a previous order.

3. The Revenue argued that the co-operative society organized the service of cane cutters for farmers and made payments to the labourers, thereby asserting that the society should be liable to pay service tax on this service. Despite the Revenue's contention, the Tribunal observed that there was a lack of established consideration for the service provided by the society. The Tribunal noted that the society did not receive any direct consideration for the activity and granted a waiver of pre-deposit of dues for the admission of the appeal, following a similar precedent order. As a result, the Tribunal stayed the collection of dues during the pendency of the appeal, considering the prima facie lack of consideration for the service provided by the co-operative society.