2010 (3) TMI 482 - AT - Service Tax

Stay Security Agency Service- Demand has been confirmed on the basis of name of the assessee and the registration with Provident Fund department. No verification with the service receiver has been made as regards the type of service provided by the appellant. Held that- department not discharged obligation to show that taxable event took place so as to justify levy of tax. Fit case for the waiver of pre deposit.

Summary

Issues:
Service tax demand on security agency services; Penalties under Sections 75A, 76, 77 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994 imposed.

Analysis:

Service Tax Demand on Security Agency Services:
The case involved a demand for Service tax of Rs. 20,818/- and interest on the appellant for allegedly providing security agency services during the year 2003-2004. The appellant's Chartered Accountant argued that the demand was based on the firm's registration with the Provident Fund department as a security agency, and the presence of the term 'Security Service' in the firm's name. However, he highlighted that the invoices did not specify the type of service provided, and there was no concrete evidence presented by the department to prove that security agency services were rendered. The appellant also cited financial difficulties, stating that the business had been closed due to lack of profitability, and the appellant was now employed on a monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/-.

Penalties Imposed:
In addition to the Service tax demand, penalties under Sections 75A, 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were imposed on the appellant. The department argued that the demand was justified as the appellant had registered the firm with the Provident Fund department as a security agency, and the firm's name implied involvement in security agency services. They pointed out that while the invoices generally specified the type of service provided, the specific services related to the demand lacked such details. The department concluded that the appellant indeed provided security agency services based on these factors.

Judgment:
After considering the arguments from both sides, the Member (T) observed that the demand was primarily based on the firm's name and registration with the Provident Fund department, without verification from the service receiver regarding the actual services provided. The Member noted that in cases of Service tax evasion, it was crucial for the department to investigate and establish the taxable events to justify the levy of Service tax. Finding that the department had not fulfilled this obligation and acknowledging the appellant's financial situation, the Member deemed it appropriate to waive the pre-deposit and grant a stay during the appeal process. Consequently, the stay petition was allowed unconditionally for the duration of the appeal.