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 Laws/ 2012-13/ 1190

Whether contract manufacturing will be considered as supply of manpower and security service?

CASE: - RAMESHCHANDRA C. PATEL v. COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD

CITATION: - 2012 (25) S.T.R. 471 (Tn. - Ahmd.) 

ISSUE: Whether contract manufacturing will be considered as supply of manpower and security service?

BRIEF FACTS: Appellant is a labour contractor and was doing conversion of tin plate to containers or granules to jars/pet bottles in the factory premises of M/s. N.K. Proteins Ltd. (NKPL). The machinery, space and all other facilities were provided by NKPL. The appellant was required to take the required labour to the factory of NKPL and was required to undertake the conversion of tin plate to containers or granules to jars/pet bottles depending upon the requirement of NKPL. According to the agreement between NKPL and the agreement, the appellant was to pay specific amounts determined on the basis of number of containers/jars/pet bottles produced by the appellant. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant on the ground that the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to providing manpower recruitment or supply agency service which has resulted in confirmation of demand for service tax of Rs. 3,93,905/- with interest and penalties under various sections of Finance Act, 1994. 

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:- The appellant contended that according to the contract, the appellant was doing only contract manufacturing work and there was no question of any labour supply or man-power supply or manpower recruitment agency. Nowhere in the agreement there is any mention with regard to manpower supply or recruitment and the agreement specifically talks about the products to be manufactured and payments to be made. Appellant is also registered with the labour department as a contract manufacturer and not as a labour supply or man-power supply or manpower recruitment agency. The activity undertaken by the appellant is not liable to service tax at all.

 RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:- The appellant contended that the appellant was supplying manpower for conversion of raw materials to finished products and in view of the fact that plant & machinery, space and all other facilities are provided by the principal, the activity under-taken by the appellant is nothing but supply of manpower only and therefore the department is justified in demanding the service tax with interest and imposing penalty. 

REASONING OF JUDGEMENT:-  According to Section 105(k) of Finance Act, 1994, manpower recruitment or supply agency service is a taxable service provided by a manpower recruitment or supply agency to any person in relation to the recruitment or supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise in any manner, Manpower recruitment or supply agency means any person engaged in providing any service, directly or indirectly, in any manner for recruitment or supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise to any other person. Thus it can be seen that there are two requirements for determining whether a service is taxable service under the category of manpower recruitment or supply agency. First of all, it should be provided by a manpower recruitment or supply agency and secondly it should be in relation to manpower supply or recruitment. In this case, whether it is in the agreement entered into between the two parties or in the activity undertaken by the appellant which is contract manufacturing, looked into, it is seen that no where the question of supply of manpower or recruitment arises. In fact the agreement is totally silent as regards the manpower. It does not have any provision relating to the number of men or labour to be used or the manner in which they have to be used or the quantum of payment to be made to them etc. The department has totally failed to show in which manner the service provided by the appellant can be categorized under manpower recruitment or supply. In the Order-in-Original, the adjudicating authority proceeded on the ground that there was no challenge to the liability of tax at all since the appellant had deposited the amount during investigation.

Further Hon’ble Tribunal said that both the authorities have not at all discusses how the service provided by the appellant amounts to service of manpower recruitment or supply.

DECISION:- The appellant succeeded and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.

Comment:- It normally happens when a particular work is given to the contractor on piece rate basis like of packing, loading and unloading etc. then the same is not chargeable to service tax under manpower recruitment agency. This decision is equally important as the service tax is payable on reverse charge under new regime of service tax based on negative list. The 75% service tax is to be paid by service recipient and 25% by service provider in case service provided by manpower recruitment agency. 

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