2017 (6) TMI 1387 - HC - Service Tax

Demand of Service tax alongwith interest - Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services - word recruitment and supply in Section 65(68) of the Finance Act, 1994, referred to same services or then services of different nature? - HELD THAT - It is agreed position between the parties that issues arising in the present appeal stand concluded against the Revenue and in favour of respondent-assessee by virtue of decision of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX VERSUS M/S. SHRI SAMARTH SEVABHAVI TRUST, M/S. AMRIT SANJIVANI SUGARCANE TRANSPORT CO. PVT. LTD., M/S. GODAVARI KHORE CANE TRANSPORT COMPANY (P) LTD. AND M/S. GANESH ARPIT SUGARCANE TRANSPORT PVT. LTD. 2015 (3) TMI 1170 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT where it was held that it appears that the Appellate Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent's work, though provided services to the sugar factory, did not come within the mischief of the term Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency . All the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of respondent-assessee and against the appellant-Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal challenging the Order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Finance Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal raised substantial questions of law related to the interpretation of specific provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. The first issue revolved around determining whether the terms "recruitment" and "supply" in Section 65(68) of the Finance Act referred to the same services or services of a different nature. The second issue focused on whether the arrangement between the parties fell under the purview of Section 65(68) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 65(105K) as added in 2005. The third issue addressed whether the respondent's agreement with its clients included a "manpower supply" component. Lastly, the fourth issue inquired whether, if the answer to the third question was affirmative, the said component could be subjected to service tax.

It was acknowledged that the issues raised in the appeal had already been settled in favor of the respondent-assessee in a previous decision by the Court. The decision in C.C., C. Ex. & S.T., Aurangabad v. Shri Samarth Sevabhavi Trust, 2016 (41) S.T.R. 806 (Bom.) had resolved the matters against the Revenue and in favor of the respondent. Consequently, all the substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant-Revenue. As a result, the appeal was disposed of accordingly, affirming the decision in favor of the respondent.