9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iability, 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 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, ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - HON BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Mihir G Rayka, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the Appellant -Revenue Shri Vikas Mehta, Consultant for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR : The present appeals have been filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original No. BVR-EXCUS-000-COMM-03 to 04 2020-21 dated 27.04.2020 passed by the Learned Commissioner, Central GST, Bhavnagar, wherein out of total demand of Service tax of Rs. 16,36,81,158/-, demand of Rs. 88,82,663/- has been confirmed and demand of Rs. 15,47,98,495 has been dropped. Since both the appeals are arising out of the above adjudication order dated 27-04-2020, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y/ Public Health Centres etc. the respondent has supplied Paramedics and other Class 4 category manpower to these Hospitals, health centers etc. The Adjudicating authority has allowed the exemption from payment of Service tax under Sr. No. 25(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-as amended vide Notification No. 6/2014-ST dated 11.07.2014 in respect of the said supply of Manpower to Organizations/institutions by observing that by way of supply of Manpower Services, the respondent providing public health services under the supervision and authorized medical officers of the Government run hospitals and Government health centers. Adjudicating authority has not appraised the fact that to get qualified for availing the exemption provided under Sr. No. 25(a) of Notification No. 25/2012, all condition specified therein must be fulfilled. First condition is that the services should be provided to Government, a Local authority or a Governmental authority. Adjudicating authority has not examined and not discussed about the primary condition as to whether the organizations/institution are coming under the purview of Government , Local Authority , or Government Authority . 4. He also submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee has provided Manpower Supply Agency Services only which do not have any responsibility of their own to provide services in relation to public health. Further municipality has not assigned any works relating to public health to the assessee. Supply of Para medical and administrative staff to any hospital as manpower supply agency service cannot be considered as supply of service by way of Public Health . The service provider i.e. the assessee is therefore not entitled for any exemption under Sl. No. 25(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST as amended. 6. He further submits that adjudicating authority has allowed the exemption from service tax claimed by the assessee for providing Cleaning Housekeeping services to various organizations under Sr. No. 25(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended. Adjudicating authority in this area also repeated the mistake of non verifying the fact that the first condition of the Notification i.e. whether the service is provided to Government, a local authority or a government authority or otherwise. The nature of activity of the assessee i.e. cleaning of the premises of various institutions is squarely falls under the cat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon a CA certificate, which is not proper. 8. He further submits that cleaning services and supply of manpower services provided to educational institution is not exempted and respondent is liable to pay the service tax on such supply of services. 9. He also submits that the assessee had failed to declare the collection of amounts for providing taxable services in the ST-3 returns filed by them. Consequently, this amount to mis-declaration and willful suppression of facts with the deliberate intent to evade payment of Service tax. The non-payment of service tax on the amounts so collected by assessee which appeared to be consideration for providing taxable services viz. Supply of Manpower or cleaning services to various Community Health Centers etc. came to the knowledge of the DGGI only due to specific investigation carried out. Therefore, the extended period of limitation as envisaged under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994 is rightly invokable in respect of demand of Service tax for the period April 2012 to March 2016. The findings of the adjudicating authority that extended period of limitation is not invocable in this case is not proper and legal. 10. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, the appeals ignore the fact that what is exempted is the service provided to Government, etc., and not by Government. In this case, the services provided by the Respondent, by itself, is an output service. Consequently, Section 66F(1) of Finance Act, 1994 is not applicable. 15. He also argued that inasmuch as there is no challenge to the basic facts that the service recipients are all government institutions/ bodies/ centre etc. and there is also no dispute over the fact that the paramedics and other personnel provided by respondent to these entities engaged themselves in providing public health service through the former, the appeals filed by department proposing to deny the exemption under Sl. No. 25(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, is not tenable on merit. 16. He also submits that the cleaning and house-keeping services provided by Respondent to government offices, court, educational institutions, etc, are essential and integral part of public sanitation and solid waste management for achieving the goal of public health. Hence, these services are exempted under Sl. No. 25 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 12.06.2012 as amended by Notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only. Ld. Commissioner has therefore held the demand of Rs. 2,15,195/- is sustainable and remaining amount is not sustainable. We find that 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. 21. Now we deal with services provided by the respondent to the Government Hospitals, Medical Colleges, Primary Health Centres, Community Health centres, etc. As per the revenue the nature of activity of respondent i.e. supply of manpower to above service recipient is squarely fall under the category of manpower recruitment or supply agency services and liable to service tax. However, Respondent have countered the allegation of revenue by inter alia citing 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 and claimed the service tax exemption on the ground that they have provided services to hospitals, health centres etc. run by government. The paramedic personnel and other staff provided by them to the said hospitals have worked under the Medical Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 . The words any activity and by way of employed by the legislature in above exemption entry of Notification No. 25//2012-ST would make it abundantly clear that all the activity involved in relation to public health are covered under the said entry. We find the 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. We also noticed that the concept of categorization of services under Section 65 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, Government college, Nursing College, Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, Gujarat Vidhyapith Ashram Road, training Centers, etc. we find that the Revenue has contended that services provided by the respondent are not covered under the Sr. No. 9 of the Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. We find 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. The relevant portion of Sr. No. 9 of the Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 is reproduced below. 9. Services provided to or by an educational institution in respect of education exempted from service tax, by way of,- (a) auxiliary educational services; or (b) renting of immovable property; Further Notification No. 6/2014-ST dated 11.07.2014 substituted entry No. 25 of above mentioned Notification as under : (iii) for entry 9, the following entry shall be substituted, namely :- 9. Services provided, - (a) by an educational institution to its students, faculty and staff; (b) to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es relating to admission to such institution, conduct of examination, catering for the students under any mid-day meals scheme sponsored by Government, or transportation of students, faculty or staff of such institution. 3. By virtue of the entry in the negative list and by virtue of the portion of the exemption notification, it will be clear that all services relating to education are exempt from service tax. There are many services provided to an educational institution. These have been described as auxiliary educational services and they have been defined in the exemption notification. Such services provided to an educational institution are exempt from Service Tax. For example, if a school hires a bus from a transport operator in order to ferry students to and from school, the transport services provided by the transport operator to the school are exempt by virtue of the exemption notification From the above Notification and Clarification issued by the Board 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 ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... normal period of limitation only unless the elements of fraud or collusion or willful statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions of the Act or Rules with an intent to evade payment of service tax is established. If any of these elements are established in any case, the demand can be raised within an extended period of limitation of 5 years. 29. We are unable to find any 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, we do not see any such wilful or deliberate suppression of the fact with intent to evade payment of service tax. We are of the opinion 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 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
