9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 1186 - AT - Service TaxExemption from service tax - Cleaning Services - Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services - Housekeeping services - Rent-a-cab service - Solid Waste Management services to various government offices, government hospitals, community health centers, medical colleges, municipal corporation, Government Educational Institutes - failure to show the amount of taxable value and Service tax payable thereon in their ST-3 returns filed with the department - Sr. No. 25(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 - Time Limitation. Service tax demand of service tax dropped by the Ld. Commissioner in impugned order - it has been alleged in the show cause notice dated 20.11.2017 that the respondent has collected the Service tax but not paid to the Government ex-chequer - HELD THAT - The Ld. Commissioner after verifying the CA Certificate dated 09.07.2019, ledger of Service tax liability, ST-3 returns and other documents etc., found that the difference of Service tax collected and not paid is of Rs. 2,15,195/- only. Ld. Commissioner has therefore held the demand of Rs. 2,15,195/- is sustainable and remaining amount is not sustainable - as regard the said dropped demand revenue in the present appeal nowhere rely upon any details/ documents or any evidence by which it can be concluded that the demand dropped by the Ld. Adjudicating authority is not correct. Services provided by the respondent to the Government Hospitals, Medical Colleges, Primary Health Centres, Community Health centres, etc. - manpower recruitment or supply agency services or not - Sr. No. 25(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended by Notification No. 6/2014-ST dated 11.07.2014 - HELD THAT - In the impugned matter revenue nowhere dispute the fact that Government Hospital, Health Centres are engaged in providing services related to public health. The para medic personnel, etc. provided by the respondent to said Hospitals / Health Centre have worked under the supervision of authorized Medical Practitioner i.e Medical Superintendent, Medical Officers of the Hospital, health centres etc. Thus the Medical Superintendent, Medical Officers of the Hospital and Health centres have provided service by way of public health to the said government hospital and health centre run by the government in the capacity of government employee. The para-medics, etc., who worked in the same hospitals/ health centres are their subordinates and carried out their instructions in connection with public health and they were all providing the services to government with a common goal of public health. From the above exemption entry it is clear that the intention of the legislature is clear that services contributing in the public health is required to be exempted from payment of Service tax. Further the said entry of above Notification supra is for providing public health services to Government and not by government . There are strength in the finding of Ld. Adjudicating authority that any services provided to government in relation to water supply, public health, sanitation conservancy solid waste management or slum improvement etc, are exempted from payment of service tax in terms of above mentioned Notification - no reason exist for interfering in the conclusion reached by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order. The impugned order is correct, legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. The revenue for denying the claim of above exemption also take the ground that the para medics and other staff provided by the respondent do not have any direct contract with the patients and do not raise any invoices on the patients and also do not have any legal responsibility to provide public health services on his own account - There is no requirement that such para-medics and personnel must issue invoices in the name of patients. In such circumstance, it is not permissible to insert such a requirement with a view to deny the exemption. The requirement of the said above exemption entry is only that services must be provided to Government in relation to public health. Once it is the requirements of exemption only, any further condition of contract or invoice between the service provider and patients that is nowhere specified in the above notification cannot be read into it - the services provided by the respondent to Government Hospitals/ Medical offices/ Health Centres etc. for providing public health related services are eligible for exemption under Sr. No. 25(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended vide Notification No. 06/2012-ST dated 11.07.2014. Demand dropped by the Ld. Commissioner on services provided to the Education Institution i.e Government Arts Commerce College, Government Medical College, Government college, Nursing College, Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, Gujarat Vidhyapith Ashram Road, training Centers, etc. - HELD THAT - In the impugned matter there is no dispute on the facts that the service recipients are educational institutions. As per the revenue the activity of respondent are not covered under the Sr. No. 9 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST - Serial No. 9 of the Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-S.T., dated 20-06-2012 exempted from service tax the services by way of (a) auxiliary education services to an educational institution . Further, vide Notification No. 06/2014, dated 11-07-2014 , Entry 9 came to be substituted. From the above Notification and Clarification issued by the Board in Circular No. 172/7/2013-S.T., dated 19-9-2013, it is clear that all the Services provided to education institution such a transport services, hostels, housekeeping, security, canteen services and any other type of services provided to education institution are covered under the above entry of exemption notification and exempted from payment of service tax. In the disputed matter it is on record that respondent supply the manpower to educational institutions and said staff supplied by the respondent have supported the educational institutions for performing their works/activities related to education. Therefore, respondent is eligible for exemption from payment of Service Tax for supply of manpower to above mentioned educational institutions under Sr. No. 9 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Cleaning and housekeeping services provided by the respondent to Government offices, Courts, government undertakings - HELD THAT - As per Sr. No. 25(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended vide Notification No. 6/2014-ST dated 11.07.2014, service provided to Government, Local Authority or a Government authority by way of carrying out any activity in relation to public health, sanitation conservancy, solid waste management etc. are exempted from service tax - in the present matter revenue demanded the services tax from the respondent for providing cleaning services to Government Hospitals, courts, local authorities, government undertakings etc. The cleaning and housekeeping services are an essential parts of sanitation conservancy and waste management and respondent are eligible for exemption under Sr. No. 25(a) of the Mega Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 for cleaning and Housekeeping service provided to Government Hospitals and other government entities. Accordingly the demand of service tax with respect to cleaning services provided to Government entities cannot be sustained and rightly dropped by the Ld. Adjudicating authority. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - There are no proof of intent to evade either from the show cause notice or from the grounds of appeals of revenue in the present matter. The department nowhere allege that respondent had deliberately interpreted the Exemption Notification and its clause in a wrongly manner with intent to evade payment of Service tax. In the instant case, there are no wilful or deliberate suppression of the fact with intent to evade payment of service tax. It is opined that whether the respondent is entitled for the benefit of the exemption notification or not depends on the interpretation of the exemption notification and on the contrary, to a very large extent, their interpretation is found correct. Thus, it is evident that there is not even an iota of evidence to even suggest that there was any willful misstatement or suppression of facts on the part of the Respondent. Consequently, extended period is not invokable in this case. The impugned order is upheld. Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Service tax exemption on manpower supply to government hospitals and health centers. 2. Service tax exemption on cleaning and housekeeping services to government entities. 3. Service tax demand dropped based on CA certificate. 4. Service tax applicability on services to educational institutions. 5. Invocation of the extended period of limitation for service tax demand. Summary of Judgment: 1. Service Tax Exemption on Manpower Supply to Government Hospitals and Health Centers: The Revenue contended that the respondent's supply of manpower to government hospitals and health centers does not qualify for exemption under Sr. No. 25(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST as amended. The Adjudicating authority allowed the exemption, concluding that the services were provided under the supervision of authorized medical officers of government-run hospitals and health centers, thus qualifying for exemption as public health services. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing that the services provided to government hospitals contribute to public health, satisfying the conditions for exemption. 2. Service Tax Exemption on Cleaning and Housekeeping Services to Government Entities: The Revenue argued that cleaning and housekeeping services provided by the respondent to various government entities do not qualify for exemption under Sr. No. 25(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The Adjudicating authority found that these services form an essential part of sanitation conservancy and waste management, necessary for public health, and thus exempt. The Tribunal agreed, stating that cleaning services provided to government entities are integral to public health and sanitation conservancy, qualifying for exemption. 3. Service Tax Demand Dropped Based on CA Certificate: The Revenue challenged the dropping of a service tax demand of Rs. 46,71,866/- based on a CA certificate. The Adjudicating authority verified the CA certificate, ledger of service tax liability, ST-3 returns, and other documents, finding only Rs. 2,15,195/- as sustainable demand. The Tribunal found no evidence from the Revenue to contradict the Adjudicating authority's findings and upheld the decision. 4. Service Tax Applicability on Services to Educational Institutions: The Revenue contended that services provided to educational institutions are not exempt under Sr. No. 9 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The Adjudicating authority found that the services provided by the respondent, such as housekeeping and security, are auxiliary educational services and thus exempt. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing that services supporting educational institutions' activities are covered under the exemption. 5. Invocation of the Extended Period of Limitation for Service Tax Demand: The Revenue argued for the invocation of the extended period of limitation due to willful suppression of facts by the respondent. The Tribunal found no evidence of intent to evade payment of service tax, concluding that the issue involved interpretation of the exemption notification. Therefore, the extended period of limitation was not applicable. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating authority's order, finding no infirmity in the conclusions reached. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
|
