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: 11 Dec, 2015
Print   |    |  Comment

Accumulated Education Cess Balance: All Hopes in Vain!

Accumulated Education Cess Balance: All Hopes in Vain!

 

An Article By:-
CA PRADEEP JAIN
CA NEETU SUKHWANI

 
Introduction:- Since the announcement of the exemption being granted to the levy of Education Cess and SHE Cess by the Finance Minister in Budget 2015-16, the issue as regards the utilisation of the accumulated balance of Education Cess and SHE Cess has been a sensational issue and a topic for discussion among the assessees and the consultants. This is also evidenced by a number of articles, write ups, representations being made on this issue. Moreover, recent amendments in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permitting utilisation of the inputs/capital goods/input services received on or after 01.03.2015/01.06.2015 against payment of excise duty/service tax added a ray of hope that probably the amendment as regards utilisation of accumulated cenvat credit is on the way. However, the hopes of the assessees were shattered in the Tariff Conference of Central Excise on technical matters organised by the Board on 28th and 29th October, 2015. Recently, CBEC has released the minutes of the meeting for circulation among the departmental officers wherein it has been stated that the utilisation of accumulated balance of education cess is not available for utilisation and shall stand lapse. This article is an attempt to analyse the justification given for denial of utilisation of cenvat credit balance of education cess and SHE Cess.

Extracts from the Minutes:- As per provisions contained in sub-rule 7(b) of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it is specified that cenvat credit of specified duties shall be utilized for payment of those specified duties only. Accordingly, the Cenvat Credit of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess can be utilized only for payment of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess, respectively. Consequent upon grant of exemption, there is issue of utilization of the accumulated credit of the past. It was suggested that an amendment to sub-rule 7(b) of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 may be made to allow the utilization of balance CENVAT Credit of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess towards payment of either duty of excise or Service Tax.
The conference after discussion and briefing from the officers from the Board noted that it was Government’s conscious policy decision to withdraw the Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess. It is a policy decision to not allow utilization of accumulated credit of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess after these Cesses have been phased out. As these Cesses have been phased out and no new liability to pay such Cess arises, no vested right can be said to exist in relation to the accumulated credit of the past. The rule and notifications as they exist need to be followed and do not need any amendment.

Whether conclusion arrived at justifiable? The outcome of the discussion in meeting was that as the government purposely decided to scrap off the levy of cess in excise and service tax, and since the credit of Education Cess and SHE cess could be utilised only for payment of Education Cess and SHE Cess respectively; there was no intention to permit utilisation of the accumulated balance of education cess and SHE Cess. The justification given was that since there was no new liability for such cess, the accumulated balance shall lapse. However, the fact that the recent amendments made in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 vide Notification no. 12/2015-C.E. (N.T.) dated 30.04.2015 and Notification no. 22/2015-C.E. (N.T.) dated 29.10.2015 permitting utilisation of the credit of education cess and SHE Cess against payment of excise duty and service tax respectively has not been brought into picture. If at all the government’s intention was not to allow the utilisation of the credit of education cess and SHE Cess towards payment of excise duty or service tax, the said amendments would not have been made by them. On the contrary, the reason and justification given in the meeting for restricting the utilisation of the accumulated balance of education cess and SHE Cess appears to be a mere lame excuse.  

Look at the judicial pronouncements on the issue:-In this context, we may also refer to the judgment given by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Shankeshwar Fabrics Private Ltd Vs Union of India [2002 (142)  E.L.T. 42 (Raj.)] wherein it was concluded that the right to Modvat Credit accrues to assessee on the date he pays tax on raw materials or inputs and if the credit has been validly earned, the same cannot be denied to him. This decision was given by placing reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs Union of India [1999 (106) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] wherein it was held that the modvat credit cannot be declared as lapsed because provision of facility of credit is as good as tax paid till it is adjusted for future liability.  It is submitted that although, the minutes of the meeting do not specifically state that the credit balance of education cess would be lapsed but putting restriction as regards utilisation tantamounts to treating the accumulated education cess credit as lapsed because the said credit can be utilised only for payment of education cess itself and not for other duties like excise duty, service tax etc. Accordingly, the conclusion of the meeting renders the analogy of the above cited decision as futile and meaningless. Furthermore, in the opinion of the authors, when the education cess credit for inputs/input services/capital goods received on or after 01.03.2015/01.06.2015 can be permitted for payment of excise duty and service tax, then there should be no embargo in permitting utilisation of accumulated education cess balance. Such a decision indicates adopting two different stands on the same issue as on one hand, the accumulated credit is denied for utilisation on the ground that cess do not exist while on the other hand, for the credit earned after a particular date, the said cess are permitted for utilisation against payment of excise duty and service tax. Such a discriminatory approach is not understandable.

Before parting:-Inspite of repeated representations made by the assessees, there is no clear cut amendment or circular issued with respect to utilisation of the accumulated balance of cenvat credit of education cess and SHE cess. Furthermore, the above minutes released by CBEC merely represent the view of the departmental officers and cannot be said to have binding effect on the assessees. This is first time that the minutes of a meeting and the discussion thereon is being released by the Board for reference of the departmental officers but the precedential value of the discussion is highly doubtful. Moreover, if the discussion and conclusion arrived by the departmental officers on technical matters is considered to have binding effect, then what is the significance of Tribunals and Courts established for interpreting the statutory provisions. It is pertinent to note that as far as the accumulated balance of education cess is concerned, the amount would not be substantial in case of individual assessees and so it is not feasible to go in for litigation for such small amounts to the appellate authorities. Furthermore, even monetary limits fixed for admission of appeals would serve as a barrior for the assessees, even if the assessees are willing to litigate the matter. Not only this, if the above conclusion arrived at the meeting is implemented by the field formations, it will only lead to treating the tax paid in the form of cess as cost by the assessees and lead to cascading effect, which is definitely not the intention of the government.  Furthermore, this will also lead to doubts raised in the minds of the assessees as regards the fate of their cenvat balance after implementation of the unified tax reform, GST. This is for the reason that when the government is not willing to permit utilisation of accumulated education cess balance, which is insignificant amount and which is validly earned by them, then there is far possibility that the cenvat credit balance of service tax, excise duty etc. would be allowed to be utilised post GST tax regime. If the above conclusion reflects the tax policy of the government, the hapless assessees definitely have a strong cause to worry in the near future. Lets hope, the above conclusion of the meeting does not turns into a bitter reality for the assessees!
 
 

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