Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

SCRUTINY OF ITR/ TDS RETURNS VS SERVICE TAX RETURNS

SCRUTINY OF ITR/ TDS RETURNS VS SERVICE TAX RETURNS
SCRUTINY OF ITR/ TDS RETURNS VS SERVICE TAX RETURNS
Recently, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has alarmed the tax officials to take into consideration the high magnitude of the mismatch arising between the service tax returns and income tax returns filedfor the financial year 2015-16 and 2016-2017. It could indicate the possibility of revenue leakage which cannot be ignored from the end of revenue department.
The reasons for the mismatch are Permanent Account Numbers (PANs) that are either not at all registered in Service Tax or PAN’s that are so registered but have not filed the Service Tax returns. Also there is mismatch between the turnover declared in the ITR/TDS and the Service Tax returns which can be attributed to a number of valid reasons such as exempted or exported services not being declared in the Service Tax returns, missing Service Tax returns, RCM, services outside the scope of service tax etc.
For example, say as per provisions of Finance Act, 1994, loading, unloading, storage or warehousing of agriculture produce is exempted from payment of service tax. However, if rent is being collected on storage of such produce, TDS is being deducted as per section 194I if it exceeds prescribed limit.Since TDS is deducted on such income and no service tax is paid or he is not liable to get registered under service tax, this will be a reason of mismatch between the returns.
A numerable reasons exist which can be a reason of difference like services provided falls under RCM, service provider is providing exempt services, service tax was paid on receipt basis but TDS was deducted on accrual basis etc.
As per the officials, a considerable gap of Rs 12 lakhs crore between the turnover on account of services as per the ITR/TDS data and the value of services declared in the the corresponding service tax returns for fiscal 2015-16 was found.
Net service tax collections during 2016-17 stood at Rs 2.54 lakhs crore as compared with Rs 2.11 lakhs crore in 2015-16. 
Even this exercise took place in 2011-12 also when data was shifted from income tax department to service tax department. Number of reasons was noticed for such mismatch. Even the department does not have machinery to conduct inquiry in such cases and reach to a conclusion. Every time the officer was changed then the letter was issued to the all the assesses though they have already replied the earlier letter. This was due to the fact that hundreds of letters was issued from each range and two employees in a range does not find to file such reply and conclude the matter. Whenever a new officer comes, he will issue a fresh letter to each assesse as he cannot see all the correspondence. This also gave a impression to genuine assesses that such type of letters were being issued by the department. Hence they also stopped replying the same. Even if a sincere officer started analyzing the Balance Sheet then all the issues like payment of tax on GTA and legal services under reverse charge mechanism, other incomes like commission, job work were raised and the inquiry was not fixed on such mismatch. Hence, the poor assesses were afraid of giving details. Even these notices were issued to those assesses whose accounts are regularly audited by the department. Hence, earlier notices have not reached to a desirable conclusion and department and assesees are feed up of this inquiries then these inquiries will add fuel to the fire.

Service tax was subsumed GST with effect from July 1, 2017, and the period under scrutiny is the last two financial years before the new indirect tax regime was rolled out. This raises the burden of the assessee financially as well as mentally even he is not guilty in the eyes of law. This cost a lot of time to both the tax officials as well the assessee to which such notice is issued.

This is solely for the educational purpose.
 
You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com, at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/as well as follow us on Twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21
 
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com