Service Tax : Proprietary organisation is also a "concern" and if it is engaged in commercial activity of security services, it is a commercial concern liable to service tax.
■■■
[2014] 50 taxmann.com 432 (New Delhi - CESTAT)
CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH
World Wide Security Organization
v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal*
JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT
AND R.K. SINGH, TECHNICAL MEMBER
FINAL ORDER NO. 53491/2014
ST/55/2009-CU
AUGUST 28, 2014
Section 65(94) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Taxable Services - Security Agency's Services -Period from 1-4-2002 to 31-3-2003 - Assessee, a proprietorship firm, was providing security services - Department sought levy of service tax - Assessee argued that, being a proprietary firm, they were not a "concern" and hence, they were not a commercial concern - HELD : It is totally untenable to claim that proprietary organisation is not a "concern" - They were clearly engaged in commercial activity - Hence, assessee was a commercial concern liable to service tax [Para 3] [In favour of revenue]
Section 73, read with sections 76, 77, 78 and 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Recovery - Of duty or tax not levied/paid or short-levied/paid or erroneously refunded - Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation - During search on 17-1-2006, department found that assessee Mr. VPS, a proprietor, was providing security agency services but was not paying service tax - Assessee was also a director in a company, which had taken registration for paying service tax on security agency services in year 2005 - Department invoked extended period alleging charge of suppression - HELD : Since company, in which assessee was director, had taken registration in 2005, it is evident that assessee was aware about service tax leviability on security services way before search operation - Thus, it was not a case of ignorance on part of assessee but a deliberate act on their part to evade service tax - In fact, in his statement, assessee-proprietor admitted that his service tax liabilities were pending - Hence, extended period was invokabkle and penalties were leviable [Para 3] [In favour of revenue]
Words and Phrases : 'Concern' and 'Commercial Concern' as generally defined
Manjit Singh Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant. Sanjay Jain for the Respondent.
■■■
[2014] 50 taxmann.com 432 (New Delhi - CESTAT)
CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH
World Wide Security Organization
v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal*
JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT
AND R.K. SINGH, TECHNICAL MEMBER
FINAL ORDER NO. 53491/2014
ST/55/2009-CU
AUGUST 28, 2014
Section 65(94) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Taxable Services - Security Agency's Services -Period from 1-4-2002 to 31-3-2003 - Assessee, a proprietorship firm, was providing security services - Department sought levy of service tax - Assessee argued that, being a proprietary firm, they were not a "concern" and hence, they were not a commercial concern - HELD : It is totally untenable to claim that proprietary organisation is not a "concern" - They were clearly engaged in commercial activity - Hence, assessee was a commercial concern liable to service tax [Para 3] [In favour of revenue]
Section 73, read with sections 76, 77, 78 and 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Recovery - Of duty or tax not levied/paid or short-levied/paid or erroneously refunded - Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation - During search on 17-1-2006, department found that assessee Mr. VPS, a proprietor, was providing security agency services but was not paying service tax - Assessee was also a director in a company, which had taken registration for paying service tax on security agency services in year 2005 - Department invoked extended period alleging charge of suppression - HELD : Since company, in which assessee was director, had taken registration in 2005, it is evident that assessee was aware about service tax leviability on security services way before search operation - Thus, it was not a case of ignorance on part of assessee but a deliberate act on their part to evade service tax - In fact, in his statement, assessee-proprietor admitted that his service tax liabilities were pending - Hence, extended period was invokabkle and penalties were leviable [Para 3] [In favour of revenue]
Words and Phrases : 'Concern' and 'Commercial Concern' as generally defined
Manjit Singh Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant. Sanjay Jain for the Respondent.
No comments:
Post a Comment