Anil Choudhary DECISION
Anil Choudhary, Member (J)
1. The issue in this case is whether demand of service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism has been rightly raised on the appellant.
2. The brief facts are that the appellant is having service tax registration and is engaged in providing taxable services under the category of "Renting of Immovable Properties, Manpower Supply Services, Legal professional & Consultancy & Rent-a-Cab Services etc. In the course of audit for the period 2012-2013 to 2015-2016, it appeared to Revenue that as per the balance sheet the taxable value of legal, professional and consultancy expenses comes to Rs. 8,09,07,952/-whereas as per ST-3 Returns, it is shown at Rs. 25,57,721/-. Hence, it appeared that the appellant have suppressed taxable value of Rs. 7,81,50,231/-on which service tax under RCM comes to Rs. 1,01,44,126/-.
3. Similarly, as per balance sheet, the taxable value of security expenses comes to Rs. 8,83,28,081/-. Whereas as per ST-3 Returns, there is no mention of security services by the appellant. Hence, it appeared that the appellant have suppressed taxable value of Rs. 8,83,28,081/-on account of security expenses on which service tax under RCM comes to Rs. 1,16,25,922/-. Thus, totaling to Rs. 2,17,70,048/-. The Range Superintendent issued letter No. 216 dated 4th May 2016 to Appellant to pay service tax on expenses incurred (service received) as hereinabove mentioned under reverse charge mechanism (RCM). The appellant vide its letter No. 2854 dated 1st June, 2016 and other letters replied that legal & professional head is not purely of legal services, it is containing other professional services also, which are not covered under RCM. As regards security services, the appellant submitted that the notification, under which liability for paying service tax on recipient was imposed vide notification No. 30/2012-ST : MANU/DSTX/0070/2012 dated 20th June, 2012 is effective from 1st July, 2012. Further, security service was clubbed with manpower service vide notification No. 45/2012 : MANU/DSTX/0100/2012 dated 7th August, 2012. Further, it was pointed out that liability under RCM is applicable only where service provider is having status as individual/HUF/partnership firm, which have been ignored. It was also pointed out that out of full amount of security service for the entire financial year 2012-13 and for the rest amount, service tax already paid to the service provider and hence, they are not liable to pay ser........