Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/1951

Security services provided by commercial concerns only liable to service tax prior to 18.04.2006.

Case:-RAJPUTANA EX-SERVICEMEN CO-OP. SOCIETY Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., JAIPUR-I

Citation:-2013 (31) S.T.R. 248 (Tri.- Del.)

Brief facts:- The facts of the case are that Service tax of Rs. 3,39,680/- stands confirmed against the appellants on the finding that during the period October 2000 to March 2006, they have provided taxable service of Security Agency. In addition, penalty of identical amount stands imposed under Section 76 as also under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Penalty of Rs. 1,000/- stands imposed under Section 77 of the Act. Appellant is a co-operative society registered under Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and is a society approved by Sainik Kalyan Vibhag, Government of Rajasthan, engaged in the welfare of ex-servicemen and their family members. They undertake contracts for providing security personnel and other jobs to pro­vide re-employment to ex-servicemen. They provide security guards to various State Government Organisations like Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., RTO Kota, Rajasthan State Transport Corporation etc. As per the guidelines issued by Sainik Kalyan Vibhag, they were collecting the minimum wages + 5% service charges during 2000-2006. Show cause notice dated 19-4-2006 was issued to the appellant proposing confirmation of demand of service tax under the category of Security Agency Services.
 
Appellant’s contention:-The appellant contested the said demand on the ground that the security agency services are required to be rendered by a commercial concern and in as much as they were not commercial concern engaged in providing the said service, the appellant cannot be held liable to pay service tax. The definition of Security Agency was changed w.e.f. 18-4-2006 referring "any person" engaged in the business of rendering services instead of 'commercial concern'. With effect from 18-4-2006, they have started paying service tax. Inasmuch as the period in the present appeal is prior to 18-4-2006, they cannot be held liable to pay any ser­vice tax as they are not commercial concern engaged in the business of rendering services relating to the security service.
 
Respondent’s contention:-The respondent reiterated the findings and submissions of the lower authorities.

Reasoning of Judgment:- After considering the records and hearing the submissions, the tribunal  finds that an identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Bhootpurva Sainik Society and Others vide Final Order No. ST/457-67/2001 -CU(DB), dated 8-9-2011 [2012 (25) S.T.R. 39 (Tribunal)]. It was held that the soci­ety of ex-servicemen engaged in providing security services so as to provide re­-employment of ex-servicemen, cannot be held to be a commercial concern. Inas­much as during the relevant period, the security agency services rendered by commercial concern was liable to pay service tax and the appellant not being a commercial concern, cannot be held to be liable to pay tax. As such, by following the above decision, the adjudicating authority set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.

Decision:-Appeal allowed.

Comment:-The crux of the case is that as the definition of taxable service with respect to security services was amended w.e.f. 18.04.2006 so as to levy service tax provided by ‘any person’ with respect to security services, service tax for the period prior to 18.04.2006 cannot be leviable if the said service has been provided by non-commercial concern. Consequently, the service tax demand for the period prior to 18.04.2006 with respect to non-commercial concerns was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com