The above definitions show that the supply of personnel/crew for a vessel can be classified as both „recruitment or procurement of personnel“ and „ship management service.“ The ship management service is much more comprehensive, as it covers, in addition to the provision of crews, a number of activities involving a ship. The supply of labour is therefore the genus, the crew of a ship is a „species“. The applicant himself classified his activities as a „Recruitment or Delivery Agency“ and partially took over the tax obligation in this category. In the case of Jetlite (India) Ltd. [2011 (21) S.T.R. 119], this court found that „the introduction of a specific reference does not mean that the subject covered by the specific entry was not covered by the general entry prior to the introduction of the specific entry.“ In addition, in Circular No. 334/1/2008-TRU of 29.2.2008, C.B.E. C. had specified that the introduction of a subsequent registration under the services tax did not ipso facto mean that this activity was not within the previous entry, although it was explicitly included in the definition of taxable services. Section 65A of the Service Classification Finance Act imposes the „better before“ principle, i.e.

the service is classified according to the sub-clause, which is first and foremost one of the sub-clauses that also merit consideration. In this case, sub-clause (68) relating to the acquisition of personnel or the provision of subcontracting services takes place initially in relation to the sub-clause (96a) relating to the ship management service. Therefore, the classification sought in this case by the tax authorities under the „Recruitment or Outsourcing“ service cannot be challenged, and we hold it accordingly. Agent activity plays a crucial role in today`s business world, and this article discusses the purely GST agent concept. No mens rea is required to impose Section 76 penalties and the mere non-payment of the service tax and interest will attract the provisions. The penalty rate is also shown and there is no margin of appreciation in the amount of the penalty, which is subject only to the maximum/maximum service tax payable. Therefore, the relationship between the provider and the recipient with respect to the main service is based on the principle-to-principle relationship. The relationship between them in relation to other ancillary benefits is that of a pure agent. In the first four decisions, it was determined that the evaluable value included the salary paid to the available labour/staff and the final decision established that, prior to the introduction of the „ship management service,“ the provision of personnel/crew on board vessels would be the responsibility of staff recruitment or procurement services.

In light of these decisions, the State Of Addition Authority (AR) argues that the offending order is not legally viable and that the respondent must also pay the service tax on the reimbursement of seafarers` wages. 5.1 It will be useful and relevant at this stage to understand the relevant clauses of the agreement between the respondent and M/s. TIPL. (d) the respondent acts as TIPL`s „simple agent“ within the meaning of Rule 5, paragraph 2, of the evaluation rules. In paying the salaries to the sailors on behalf of TIPL, the respondent acted as a pure agent, as indicated in circular b1/4/2006-TRU of 19.4.2006 by the Board.