Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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