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

Publish Date: 14 Jul, 2014
Print   |    |  Comment

A CLOSE WATCH ON SERVICE TAX DEFAULTERS

A CLOSE WATCH ON SERVICE TAX DEFAULTERS

An article by:-
CA PRADEEP JAIN,
CA NEETU SUKHWANI &
ANKIT PALGUATA

 
The Government has enhanced the rate of interest to be charged on delayed payment of Service tax under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994. This increase in the rate is based on period of delay rather a single increased rate for any period of delay. Thus, due to this change in the marginal difference in the rate of interest, interest recovered by the government will be high as compared to interest recovered before amendment. The increased rates according to the period of delay will be effective from 01.10.2014. It seems as if the government wishes to catch hold the service tax defaulters tightly because the service sector contributes to a substantial share in the overall revenue of the government. After giving the service tax assessees an opportunity to come clear by filing declarations in VCES and come clean, this enhancement in the interest rate for delayed payment of service tax depicts the intention of the government to keep a close eye on the service tax assessees.  
Glance at the erstwhile provision:
The Govt. had prescribed Interest rate as 18% for delayed payment of service tax after due date under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994. Every person, liable to pay the tax in accordance with the provisions of the charging section or the Service Tax Rules made thereunder, and who fails to credit the tax or any part thereof to the account of the Central Government within the period prescribed, shall pay simple interest at the rate of 18% per annum, for the period by which such crediting of the tax or any part thereof is delayed.
 
Provided that in the case of a service provider, whose value of taxable services provided in a financial year does not exceed sixty lakhs rupees

  • during any of the financial years covered by the notice or
  • during the last preceding financial year, as the case may be,

 
such rate of interest, shall be reduced by three per cent per annum i.e. effective rate of interest will be, in this case, 15%.
 
Amended Provision:
The Government has amended the rate of Interest to be charged on delayed payment of Service Tax. The Government has increased interest rate vide Notification no. 12/2014-ST dt. 11.07.2014 which is tabulated as under-
 

S. No. Period of Delay Rate of Interest
1 Up to six months 18% per annum
2 More than six months &  upto one year
 
18% for first six months of delay, and  24% for the period of delay beyond six months
3 For more than 1 year 18% for the first six months of delay,  24% for the period beyond six months upto one year, and 30% for the period of delay beyond one year.
 

 
 
Further, this amendment relating to variable rates of Interest will come into effect from 1st October 2014. Also the benefit of 3% concession in interest rate is available to small service providers.
 
Conclusion:-
This amendment, of increasing rate of interest on payment of Service tax after due date, is definitely not good from view point of assessee because of the high rate of interest which will prove to be extra burden to the assessee. Further, as the Government has increased rate on the basis of period of delay rather than flat increase in the rate irrespective of the time period, it will ultimately increase the burden of interest on the assessee. It appears that this measure has been taken by the Government to speed up the receipts of service tax payments within due course of time. But if an analysis is made on impact of this change, then amount of Interest on delayed payment of interest that will be charged from the service tax defaulters will be much higher than that charged before. This will be clear from an illustration as given below:-
 
Assume a case where service tax amounting to Rs. 10, 00,000/- became due, say, on the 6th of July, 2012 and the assessee pays the dues on 6th of December, 2014. In such a case, the interest to be charged would be as below:

  1. 18% simple interest upto September, 30th, 2014.
  2. For the period from 1st October, 2014 to 6th December, 2014, the rate of interest will be 30% since the period of delay is beyond one year.

 

Period Delay Amended Interest Prior to Amendment
For period from 6.07.2012 to 30.09.2014 816 days 1000000*18%*816/365 =  402411/- 1000000*18%*883/365 = 435452/-
For period from 1.10.2014 to 06.12.2014 67 days 1000000*30%*67/365 =  55068/-
Total 457479/- 435452/-

 
Therefore, all we can say is that the service tax assessees should not think to delay the payment of service tax and beware because the extent of delay would determine their interest liability. However, it is appreciated that the proviso to section 75 granting three per cent concession on the applicable rate of interest will continue to be available to the small service providers. This fact is even clarified in the TRU letter issued by the government on 10.07.2014.
 
Before Parting:-
 
It is observed that the government is making every attempt to focus on its key source of revenue and making efforts to maximize the same. This is also reflected from the other amendments made in the Service Tax Laws wherein certain exemptions have been withdrawn and the scope of service tax has been expanded. Well, all that we can say to the Service Tax Assessees is BEWARE!!!
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
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