Page 58 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

384 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
65(105)(r) of the Finance Act (for short, referred to as ‘the Act’) which is a taxable
service and same had not been paid. Said show cause notice was duly replied
denying the claim. The adjudicating authority i.e., Commissioner of Service Tax,
after considering the reply and hearing the respondent-assessee, held that ser-
vices provided by the respondent would fall under the category of taxable ser-
vice namely ‘management or business consultancy service’ as defined under Sec-
tion 65(105)(r) of the Act vide Annexure-C Order-in-Original No. 14/2013, dated
20-12-2013 and confirmed the demand for Rs. 2,58,40,805/- along with interest
and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each imposed under Section 77(1)(e) and Section
77(1)(b) as well as equal penalty was levied under Section 78 of the Act. Being
aggrieved by the said order, respondent filed an appeal before the CESTAT con-
tending it being a Government organization and the possibility of two views be-
ing available to it with regard to activity carried by it, may not come under the
category of “Management or Business Consultancy”, invoking of extended peri-
od of limitation is erroneous, inasmuch as, it is self contradictory. Respondent
would also contend that order of CESTAT is not clear and the very fact that de-
mand raised by the appellant resulting in confirmation of it thereof by the
CESTAT is negative of the fact that respondent rendering management or busi-
ness consultancy service.
5. Learned Counsel for appellant-revenue would elaborate his submis-
sion by contending that there cannot be any distinction in law between the pri-
vate individual and Government undertaking so as to extend the relief and limit-
ing the demand for the normal period only. Hence, contending that liability of
the respondent ought to have been confirmed for the extended period also and as
such, seeks for answering substantial question of law in the negative i.e., against
the respondent and in favour of the appellant-revenue. Respondent though
served and represented, none have appeared.
6. Having heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and
in the absence of Learned Counsel appearing for respondent, we have perused
the case papers and find that Tribunal, after examining the Order-in-Original,
has rightly arrived at a conclusion that services rendered by the respondent
would fall within the definition of Section 65(105)(r) of the Act inasmuch as the
services rendered by the respondent is a business consultancy service which
would partake its character from the definition as per definition clause. Since
respondent is engaged in providing service either directly or indirectly in con-
nection with the management of any organization or business, said activity
would fall within the four corners of ‘management or business consultancy ser-
vice’. Hence, it is taxable service as per the provisions of the Act. It is because of
this activity carried out by the respondent, Tribunal has rightly held that the def-
inition is to be construed as inclusive definition and any service provided in con-
nection with the management or business consultancy is liable to tax. Finding
recorded by the Tribunal [2015 (38) S.T.R. 839 (Tri. - Bang.)] in this regard reads
as under :
“4. It was the submission of the learned counsel xxx xx xxx Man-
agement or Business Consultancy Service. The inclusive portion coming the
thereafter can be considered as an expansion of the definition and therefore
any service provided in connection with the management or business is lia-
ble to tax. Management of business no doubt would start [right] from iden-
tification of a place to set up business and it cannot be said that manage-
ment will start only after everything is done. Therefore when the appellant
collects processing fee for various services which are required for setting up
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  178