2014 (11) TMI 972 - HC - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax - Discrepancies in the ST-3 returns and the balance sheet submitted by the petitioner - Security agency and manpower supply services - Held that - Adjudicating authority contemplates that service tax under the services of Security Agency and Manpower Supply Services have not been paid as shown in the balance sheet which attracts violation of the provisions of Sections 67, 68, 69 and 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority cannot travel beyond the show cause notice and should have confined its consideration within the compass thereof. The Tribunal ought to have taken into account the above aspect and should not have shirked its responsibility by mere saying that the aforesaid services were culled out from the balance sheets submitted by the petitioner before the adjudicating authority. - Tribunal ought to have given a total waiver of pre-deposit of the service tax relating to the Cleaning Services, Supply of Tangible Goods Services, Business Auxiliary Services and Consulting Engineers Services amounting to ₹ 29.44 lakhs. The adjudicating authority has given the dictionary meaning of the word Watch and Ward ; and the meaning attribute to the security services and has held that those cannot stand on a separate pedestal. The finding does not appear, prima facie, to be perverse and without any basis. Once the Tribunal found that the petitioner should be directed to deposit 25% of the service tax, the petitioner shall deposit the same on the Security Service component, excluding the said sum of ₹ 29.44 lakhs. - stay order modified.

Issues:
1. Tribunal's direction on waiver of pre-deposit of service tax.
2. Discrepancies in ST-3 returns and balance sheet.
3. Imposition of penalties and demand of service tax.
4. Liability for non-payment of service tax on various services.
5. Interpretation of Watch and Ward Services vs. Security Services.
6. Scope of show cause notice regarding imposed liabilities.
7. Tribunal's consideration of defence and show cause notice.
8. Violation of provisions of Finance Act, 1994.
9. Tribunal's responsibility in considering aspects.
10. Total waiver of pre-deposit on specific services.
11. Meaning of 'Watch and Ward' and security services.
12. Direction for depositing 25% of service tax.
13. Timeline for deposit and consequences of default.
14. Timely disposal of appeal post deposit.
15. Disposal of the writ petition without costs.

Analysis:
1. The High Court analyzed the Tribunal's decision on the waiver of pre-deposit of service tax. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the total service tax confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The Court found that the Tribunal should have granted a total waiver of pre-deposit for specific services amounting to a particular sum.

2. The Court noted discrepancies in the ST-3 returns and balance sheet submitted by the petitioner. The show cause notice highlighted violations based on these discrepancies, leading to penalties and demands for service tax on various services like security agency and manpower supply services.

3. The authorities identified additional services such as Cleaning Services, Supply of Tangible Goods Services, Business Auxiliary Services, Consulting Engineers Services, and Security Agency Services for non-payment of service tax. The petitioner's attempt to distinguish Watch and Ward Services from Security Services was not accepted by the authorities, who imposed both service tax and penalties.

4. An issue raised was whether the imposed liabilities were within the scope of the show cause notice. The Tribunal considered the balance sheets and the petitioner's defense, concluding that the demands were not beyond the notice's scope.

5. The Court emphasized that the adjudicating authority should have confined its consideration to the show cause notice's scope and not exceeded it. The Tribunal's failure to do so was highlighted, along with the need to account for specific aspects in its decision-making process.

6. Regarding the interpretation of 'Watch and Ward' and security services, the Court found the authorities' findings reasonable and not baseless. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the service tax, excluding a specific sum related to certain services.

7. The Court set a timeline for the deposit and warned of consequences in case of default. It also instructed the Tribunal to expedite the appeal process post deposit, aiming for a resolution within four months.

8. Finally, the writ petition was disposed of without any costs, with directions for providing certified copies to the parties upon request.

← Previous Next →