2018 (9) TMI 387 - AT - Service Tax

Manpower recruitment and supply service - engaging labourers for harvesting sugarcane - Contention of the department is that the charges towards supply of cane harvesting labourers are recovered from the farmers at the rate accepted by the farmers and therefore the said activity would be covered within the definition of manpower recruitment or supply agency service - Held that - It is explained by the appellant that there is no employer and employee relationship between the cutting labourers and the appellant. The appellant company has no say in the rate for cutting demanded by the labourers and the labourers have got every right to deny to cut for a particular sugarcane grower. The mill simply manufactures the sugar with regard to the availability of the cutting labourers only. Being a Government undertaking, it can be seen that all appointments are to be made in the muster roll of the sugar mill - it cannot be said that the appellants have provided harvesting labourers to the sugarcane growers for harvesting the sugarcane. Tribunal on identical set of facts had considered the issue and held that the sugarcane growers themselves are encouraging the harvesting labourers and as a mere facilitation, the amount to be paid to these harvesters are deducted from the price of the sugarcane that is to be paid to the farmers. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellants were providing taxable services on manpower recruitment or supply agency service without registration and payment of service tax?
2. Whether the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellants for the period in question is justified?

Issue 1:
The judgment revolves around the allegation that the appellants, engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses, were providing taxable services on manpower recruitment or supply agency service without proper registration and payment of service tax. The department conducted investigations based on intelligence received, revealing that the appellants had allotted agricultural areas for sugarcane procurement and mandated farmers to register with their factory. The farmers were bound to sell sugarcane exclusively to the appellant, who arranged for manpower to harvest the sugarcane. Show cause notices were issued, leading to the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
The appellant argued that as a government-controlled entity, they were mandated to manufacture sugar at prices fixed by the government and could not engage in activities beyond those prescribed. They contended that the arrangement with farmers was to ensure consistent sugarcane supply during the seasonal period, with farmers registering themselves for supply. The appellant emphasized that they did not control the cutting charges for sugarcane, which were negotiated between farmers and laborers. They asserted that the facilitation of identifying laborers did not constitute manpower supply service. The Tribunal considered similar cases and found that the appellant's activities did not fall within the scope of manpower supply service, ultimately setting aside the demand.

Issue 2:
The second issue pertains to the justification of the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellants for the specified period. The department alleged that the charges for cane harvesting laborers, recovered from farmers at agreed rates, fell under the definition of manpower recruitment or supply agency service. The appellant argued that there was no employer-employee relationship with the laborers, and they merely facilitated the availability of laborers for sugarcane cutting. The Tribunal, after reviewing the facts and previous decisions, concluded that the demand could not be sustained. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief.

Analysis:
The Tribunal scrutinized the nature of the relationship between the appellants, farmers, and laborers involved in sugarcane harvesting. It was established that the appellants' role was primarily to ensure a consistent supply of sugarcane for their manufacturing process, rather than providing manpower recruitment or supply agency services. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the demand was based on the lack of evidence supporting the characterization of the appellants' activities as falling within the ambit of manpower supply services, as defined under the Finance Act. The judgment underscored the importance of examining the specific arrangements and responsibilities of the parties involved to determine the applicability of service tax obligations accurately.