9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Processors und Packers Ltd., Ahmadabad in which scope of work was mentioned as "Supply of contract Farm labour/workers for agricultural operations and agricultural produce" and contract period was mentioned as 1st April 2015 to 31 March 2017. The impugned order has established that during the period 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 (up to June, 2017), the appellant had rendered taxable services which was deliberately suppressed resulting in the evasion of service tax of Rs. 19,81,97,629/-(including cess). We find that in their grounds of appeal, the appellant has stated that as per audited accounts, gross receipts for 2015-16 is Rs. 15,67,08,892/-, for 2016-17 is Rs. 62,16,63,588/- and for first quarter of 2017-18 is Rs. 10,83,21,412/- - apart from merely stating that the impugned order has added the amount shown in 26AS statement with the amount shown in Books of Accounts no evidence has been adduced by the appellant in support of their contention. No one even appeared on the day this case was posted for hearing, nor any written submissions have been filed. It has been clearly established that the services provided by the appellant are covered under the definition of Taxable Servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... YA The present appeal has been filed by M/s Saisun Outsourcing Services Private Limited the appellant to assail the Order-in-Original No. 42- 43/Commr/ST/JBP/2022-23 dated 28.02.2023 wherein the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 19,62,41,273/- along with interest and equal penalty. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was registered under Service Tax for providing services under Manpower Recruitment/Supply agency Services. Audit of the unit was conducted for the period from April, 2015 to June, 2017. During the audit, the appellant submitted copies of agreements and some sample invoices and copies of 26AS and Balance Sheet/Trial Balance for the period 2015-16 to June, 2017. On perusal of the agreements submitted by the appellant, the Department found that none of the agreements was registered. The Department also noted that language in almost all the agreements was same, and the nature of work mentioned therein was farm labour, business facilitator and distribution of SIM and Man Power Supply. The maximum services mentioned in these agreements were exempted services under the Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012. Similarly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94 along with interest and equal amount of penalty. The Commissioner also confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 31,800/- in respect of legal & consultancy services under RCM under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest. Penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on Shri Shailesh Rajpal under Section 78A of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred this appeal before this Tribunal. 3. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. We find that despite several opportunities, the appellant failed to appear. A perusal of the daily order sheets, reveals as follows:- "DATE OF HEARING: 09.08.2024 The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition 12552 of 2024 filed by the appellant observed, while dismissing the petition, that if the petitioner fulfills the requirement of pre deposit within a period of 60 days from the date of order, the Tribunal shall make an endeavour to decide the appeal within a further period of 120 days. There is nothing on the record to indicate that pre deposit has been made. Learned counsel for the appellant has also not appeared. List on Augu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as placed a letter dated 26.10.2024 sent by the appellant seeking an adjournment. The letter mentions that the appellant did not receive any prior mail regarding the next date. It is only because of the order dated 09.10.2024, that a communication was sent to the appellant regarding the date fixed otherwise as all orders are uploaded on the website, information is not sent. 2. The appellant has been absolutely casual even though there is a direction by the High Court to decide the matter. 3. List the appeal for hearing on 05.11.2024. It is made clear that the appeal may be decided on merits even if the appellant does not appear. The report submitted by the Registrar of the Tribunal may be placed before the President on the administrative side. As no one appeared for hearing on 05.11.2024, the Bench decided to proceed to hear the learned AR for the Department. The appellant's submissions in their Grounds of Appeal are noted. 3.1 The appellant has submitted that the Commissioner has grossly erred in determining wrong taxable value as the amount so determined is almost double of the actual taxable value. The appellant has further submitted that the Commissioner has erred in comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cilitator etc. However, as per the copies of Agreements provided by the clients of the appellant, the services related to manpower supply services and other taxable service. The impugned order goes on to note that the appellant had submitted agreement dated NIL of farm labour supply with Gujrat Tea Processors und Packers Ltd., Ahmadabad in which scope of work was mentioned as "Supply of contract Farm labour/workers for agricultural operations and agricultural produce" and contract period was mentioned as 1st April 2015 to 31 March 2017. However, M/s Gujrat Tea processors & Packers Ltd. provided the copy of original work order dated 03.12.2012 for period 2013-14 to 2017-18 (Jun-17) wherein the scope of work mentioned, read as "you shall place the manpower for all position matching to our job specs and selection process". Upon comparison of both work orders, the impugned order notes that the appellant had deliberately forged the Agreement/work order of M/s Gujrat Tea Processors & Packers Ltd. in order to avoid payment of service tax. Further, the sample bill no. 529 dated 16/09/2015 issued by the appellant to M/s Gujrat Tea Processors and Packers Ltd. showed the amount as Rs. 42,733/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered taxable services which was deliberately suppressed resulting in the evasion of service tax of Rs. 19,81,97,629/-(including cess). We find that in their grounds of appeal, the appellant has stated that as per audited accounts, gross receipts for 2015-16 is Rs. 15,67,08,892/-, for 2016-17 is Rs. 62,16,63,588/- and for first quarter of 2017-18 is Rs. 10,83,21,412- The appellant has stated that the main reason for the difference is because the same receipt has been taken twice in show cause notice. The appellant stated that while calculating service tax liability, the gross receipts taken from 26AS was already included in gross receipts in books i.e. balance sheet. Consequently, their service tax liability has been more than doubled. We note that apart from merely stating that the impugned order has added the amount shown in 26AS statement with the amount shown in Books of Accounts no evidence has been adduced by the appellant in support of their contention. No one even appeared on the day this case was posted for hearing, nor any written submissions have been filed. 8. We note that it has been clearly established that the services provided by the appellant are covered under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
