AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harish Tandon, J.—The Tribunal disposed of the application, seeking waiver of pre-deposit of service tax, by directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the total service tax confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The show cause notice would reveal that the authorities found discrepancies in the ST-3 returns and the balance sheet submitted by the petitioner. Paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 thereof clearly indicate the violation committed by the petitioner on the basis of the balance sheet submitted with the authority.
It would reveal from para 2.2 that the authorities contemplated to impose penalties and the demand of service tax for the services rendered by the petitioner on security agency and manpower supply services.
At the time of making final adjudication, the authorities found certain other services viz. Cleaning Services, Supply of Tangible Goods Services, Business Auxiliary Services, Consulting Engineers Services and Security Agency Services which attracts service tax to be paid and imposed the liability for nonpayment of the service tax thereupon.
The petitioner tried to impress that Watch and Ward Services is district and different from the Security Services. But the authorities, after recording the findings thereupon, refused to accept such interpretation sought to be made by the petitioner. The adjudicating authority further proceeded to impose not only the service tax but also the penalty upon the petitioner.
Before the Tribunal, apart from other issues, one of the issues raised was that certain services, for which liabilities have been imposed upon the petitioner, were outside the scope of the show cause notice.
The Tribunal simply records that the demands have been raised on the basis of the balance sheets and the findings have been arrived upon consideration of the defence taken by the petitioner and it cannot be said that it is beyond the scope of the show cause notice.
As I have already indicated that in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 the adjudicating authority contemplates that service tax under the services of Security Agency and Manpower Supply Services have not been paid as shown in the balance sheet which attracts violation of the provisions of Sections 67, 68, 69 and 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority cannot travel beyond the show cause notice and should have confined its consideration within the compass thereof.
The Tribunal ought to have taken into account the above aspect and should not have shirked its responsibility by mere saying that the aforesaid services were culled out from the balance sheets submitted by the petitioner before the adjudicating authority.
This Court, therefore, finds that the Tribunal ought to have given a total waiver of pre-deposit of the service tax relating to the Cleaning Services, Supply of Tangible Goods Services, Business Auxiliary Services and Consulting Engineers Services amounting to Rs. 29.44 lakhs. The adjudicating authority has given the dictionary meaning of the word ''Watch and Ward''; and the meaning attribute to the security services and has held that those cannot stand on a separate pedestal.
The finding does not appear, prima facie, to be perverse and without any basis.
This Court, therefore, finds that once the Tribunal found that the petitioner should be directed to deposit 25% of the service tax, the petitioner shall deposit the same on the Security Service component, excluding the said sum of Rs. 29.44 lakhs.
Such deposit shall be made within four weeks from date; in default, the authorities would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
On deposit of the said amount, the Tribunal shall see that the appeal is disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from the date of such deposit.
The writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy be supplied to the parties, if applied for, on priority basis.