In a recent legal case, the court delved into the intricate differences between contract labor and job work to determine service tax liability. The analysis focused on the nature of services provided and the classification under relevant laws. Understanding these distinctions is essential for businesses to comply with tax regulations and contractual obligations.
Facts
- The appellant entered into an agreement with Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd. on 1 January 2012, later known as Sigma Electric Manufacturing Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
- The appellant provided personnel for activities such as felting, material handling, pouring, and supply of material to furnace at Sigma’s premises.
- The adjudicating authority found that the appellant habitually delayed paying service tax from April 2012 to March 2014.
- The appellant did not have its own machinery and used Sigma’s equipment and machinery.
- Supplying labour on a ‘piecemeal basis’ did not alter the characteristics of the manpower services provided by the appellant to Sigma.
- The show cause notice alleged non-payment of service tax dues, failure to assess and discharge service tax liability on service value, misrepresentation in filed returns, and late filing of returns.
- The notice was based on an investigation showing the appellant’s registration as a ‘Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service’, monthly billing for manpower supply services with charged service tax, compliance with Contract Labour Act, and change in service classification from August 2012 claiming exemption under Notification No.25/2012-Service Tax.
- The adjudicating authority confirmed demand for service tax, interest, and imposed a penalty.
- The nature of services provided by the appellant remained similar before and after August 2012 according to the investigation.
- The appellant’s claim of job work and absence of service tax registration under business auxiliary services category for a specific period were not substantiated.
- The Tribunal held that the service provided by the appellant to Sigma was not in the nature of job work services exempted under Notification No.25/2012-Service Tax dated 20 June 2012.
- The Tribunal considered the terms of the agreement between the appellant and Sigma along with the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970.
- The services provided by the appellant were determined to be in the nature of contract labour and not job work.
- The agreement required the appellant to obtain a license under the CLRA, and also imposed responsibilities such as payment of wages, payment under Employees’ State Insurance Act 1948, and Provident Fund contributions on the appellant.
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Arguments
- Mr. Tarun Gulati, senior counsel for the appellant, challenged the Tribunal’s decision.
- The Tribunal concluded that the appellant met the definition of ‘contractor’ as per Section 2(c) of the CLRA.
- According to the CLRA, a ‘contractor’ is defined as a person who either undertakes to produce a specified result for the establishment through contract labor or supplies contract labor for any work.
- Entry 30(c) of Notification 25/2012-Service Tax dated 20 June 2012 covers the carrying out of intermediate production process as job-work in relation to goods with duty payable by the principal manufacturer.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Analysis
- Section 21(4) of the CLRA allows the principal employer to recover amounts paid from the contractor in case of default.
- Para 30(c) of the notification outlines provisions related to carrying out intermediate production processes as job work for goods on which duty is payable by the principal manufacturer.
- The definition of ‘contractor’ under the CLRA includes a job worker, not just a supplier of manpower.
- Agreements executed by the appellant included provisions for payment of wages, statutory dues, and indemnity to the principal employer in case of default.
- The definition of ‘contractor’ under the CLRA includes a person producing a given result for the establishment and a person supplying contract labor for the establishment’s work.
- The agreements executed by the appellant with Sigma do not reflect a genuine contract for job work but rather camouflage the supply of manpower services.
- The agreements require the appellant to provide specialized manpower services such as felting, material handling, assembly, pouring, supply of machine parts, and painting.
- The agreements are considered pure labor contracts with a lack of details regarding the work to be performed, output generated, and delivery schedules typical of a job work contract.
- The appellant, under the agreements, acts as a supplier of contract labor rather than a job worker as defined in the exemption notification.
- The appellant would have declared the services as ‘business auxiliary services’ if they were categorized as such or claimed exemption under Notification No 25/2012-Service Tax.
- CESTAT held that when a contractor carries out a process work and charges the principal employer on rate per piece, the nature of work would be considered as job work and not manpower supply.
- CESTAT has rendered similar findings in several other cases where it refused to consider piece rate work as manpower supply, holding it to be job work.
- The judgment of the Tribunal does not have any error of reasoning.
- The contract was camouflaged as a contract for job work to avoid paying service tax.
- The appeal has no merit based on the above reasons.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Decision
- The appeal has been dismissed
- Any pending applications have been disposed of
Case Title: ADIRAJ MANPOWER SERVICES PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE PUNE II (2022 INSC 201)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000313 / 2021
