2024 (5) TMI 809 - AT - Service Tax

Non-payment of Service Tax on various services provided - providing manpower supply and recruitment agency service to various parties - no proper findings given by Adjudicating Authority - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is found that while confirming the service tax demand the Adjudicating Authority has not indicated any work order to prove that the activity undertaken by the appellant is in fact that of supply of manpower and recruitment agency service while the appellant is claiming that they were engaged by various parties for completion of the various job works and construction of road etc. - The Adjudicating Authority has not given his finding whether the appellant has been providing the services in the SEZ area or not or whether they are entitled for the exemption from payment of Service Tax for the services provided by them to SEZ developer or SEZ unit. The Adjudicating Authority should give a fresh opportunity of hearing including the opportunity of presenting all the relevant papers/documents/evidences to the appellant and re-decide the matter afresh. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Service Tax liability on manpower supply and recruitment agency services, applicability of Point of Taxation Rules, deliberate suppression of material facts, confirmation of Service Tax demand by Adjudicating Authority without considering submissions.

Summary:
The case involved a firm providing various services such as erection commissioning, construction activities, port services, manpower supply, and recruitment agency services. The Department initiated an inquiry into non-payment of Service Tax on services provided by the firm. The show cause notice alleged non-payment of service tax on taxable services under the category of 'Manpower supply and recruitment agency.' The notice highlighted the provisions of Section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994, regarding best judgment assessment. The Department contended that the firm deliberately suppressed material facts to evade service tax payment, invoking the extended period of five years for recovery under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.

The matter was adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority, who confirmed the Service Tax demand. The appellant contended that they were engaged in specific work like piping fabrication and road construction, not just manpower supply. They argued that services provided to SEZ units were exempt from Service Tax, which the Authority did not consider. The appellant also raised concerns about the calculation of Service Tax based on Income Tax Department's Form 26AS and the allocation of tax liability post-July 2012.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider crucial aspects of the case. The Tribunal ordered a re-adjudication, directing the Authority to examine work orders, verify if the firm provided services in SEZ areas, and allow the appellant to present all relevant documents for a fresh decision. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for further proceedings.