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

UPDATE REGARDING REFUND OF SERVICE TAX FOR CANCELLATION OF FLAT IN GST ERA:- 136/2020-21

UPDATE REGARDING REFUND OF SERVICE TAX FOR CANCELLATION OF FLAT IN GST ERA:- 136/202
As we all know that construction of flats involve considerable time and it is possible that there is cancellation of the flat after implementation of GST regime which was booked in a project for construction of flats that started in service tax regime. The question arises is whether the prospective flat buyer cancelling the booking in GST regime will be eligible to claim refund of service tax from the department? This issue was considered recently by the Commissioner Appeals, Mumbai in the case of HARESH V KAGRANA (HUF) while passing Order in Appeal No. NA/GST/A-III/MUM/84/2020-21 dated 06.12.2019 which is the subject matter of discussion in our present update.
 
This appeal was filed by the prospective flat buyer who had cancelled his booking on 19.02.2019 and has filed refund claim on 19.08.2019 as the service tax amount was not refunded to him by the builder. The refund claim was filed under section 142(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 by the flat buyer which was rejected on the grounds of limitation under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 also made applicable to service tax vide section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 by contending that the booking date was 28.12.2015 whereas the time limit for filing refund claim is 1 year from the date of payment of tax to the government. The learned Commissioner Appeals held that refund claim cannot be rejected merely on the grounds that the assessment has become final, particularly when it is clear that no service was provided to the appellant by the builder. The provision contained in section 142(5) of CGST Act, 2017 was minutely analysed which reads as follows:-
(5) Every claim filed by a person after the appointed day for refund of tax paid under the existing law in respect of services not provided shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law and any amount eventually accruing to him shall be paid in cash, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the provisions of existing law other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 
 
The learned Commissioner Appeals concluded that the non-obstante clause is very crucial in the provision as it frees the refund claims filed under section 142(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 from the fetters of limitation which is provided under sub-section (1) of section 11B. The only thing that is not overridden is the requirement of fulfilment of unjust enrichment clause as provided in sub-section (2) of section 11B.
 
It was further held that as no service was provided to the appellant, the service tax paid is in the nature of deposit and so the provision regarding time limit of one year is not applicable. The learned Commissioner Appeals also held that even if the payment is in the nature of service tax, the date of cancellation of flat will be considered as the relevant date for calculating the time limit of one year as the event that lead to refund of taxes is the cancellation by the buyer. In this context, reliance was placed on the decisions given in the following cases:-
 
·        CCE, PUNE VERSUS ISPAT PROFILES INDIA LTD. [2007 (220) E.L.T. 218 (TRI.-MUMBAI)]
 
·        SS AGRO INDUSTRIES VS C. CUS, AIR CARGO (EXPORT), NEW DELHI [2014 (309) E.L.T. 334 (TRI.-DEL)]
 
Therefore, it was held that refund is admissible and the appeal was allowed.
 
The above decision will be very helpful for all the service receivers who have cancelled their contracts in the GST era and have paid service tax for which they wish to obtain refund as it was held that limitation of section 11B does not apply in cases where refund claim is filed under section 142(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. It is worth mentioning that we have also received favourable order in case of our client, M/s Ridhi Sidhi Developer by Final Order No. 51209-51210/2019 dated 02.08.2019 passed by Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal wherein refund of service tax on project which was subsequently closed was granted by considering the limitation to start from the cause of action for filing refund being the date when the project was abandoned. 
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