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: 17 Mar, 2012
Print   |    |  Comment

Aligning Service Tax Procedures & Provisions with Central Excise

Aligning Service Tax procedures & provisions with Central Excise

 

Prepared By:
CA Pradeep Jain
Sukhvinder Kaur, LLB [FYIC]

The Budget, 2012 has brought many changes in the Service Tax provisions in an attempt to align the same with provisions of Central Excise Rules. This is clearly being done to pave the way for later when GST will be introduced. Lets see how far this is successful.
 
- Changes in filing of Returns of Service tax and Central Excise
 
In case of services, the Service Tax return is mandated to be filed half yearly i.e. in April and October of every financial year although payment of service tax is done by the service provider on monthly or quarterly basis.
 
On the other hand, under Central Excise Rules, 2002 an assessee registered with the department files return on monthly basis in case of a Non-SSI unit and on quarterly basis in case of an SSI unit. Even the format of returns is different in service tax and in excise.
 
Thus, payment of service tax and filing of return are different procedures and are not linked to each other.
 
Now, in the Budget, 2011 this is being changed. A new simplified one page common return with Central Excise is being introduced. It will be called as Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
 
It is provided that an assessee whose service tax liability was Rs. 25 lakhs or more in the previous year and in case of a newly registered service provider other than individual or firms, will have to file return “Monthly”.
 
And in other cases i.e. Individuals and partnership firm or proprietary firms having paid service tax of less than Rs. 25 lakhs in previous year, will have to file return ‘Quarterly’.
 
Thus, the system of filing of returns under service tax is brought at par with the filing of returns in central excise. Now, payment of service tax will coincide with filing of service tax returns.
 
The filing of monthly returns by Service tax assesses will be very difficult. Small assessee will find it very difficult to cope up with this condition. It will consume the time and energy of assessee as well as that of the department. 
 
And introduction of single return for both service tax and excise duty is one more step introduced by Government in their move towards implementing GST. However, there was hoped that there will be annual return in GST but the monthly return filing will be very tedious.    
 
- Format of new Excise & Service Tax Registration Form     
 
Government has also introduced a common simplified Registration format for both Central Excise and Service tax. But still there is some information which seems to be irrelevant for both the assessees. In the said Registration form, the details of Investment in land, plant and machinery has been asked to be furnished. The other information sought is about the details of bank account of the assessees. These set of information is irrelevant and have no bearing for grant of registration. Therefore, why these details have been incorporated in Registration format is not clear. This was asked in the earlier registration application. It seems that the cut and paste approach has been followed by the department and it is not seen whether these details are relevant or not?
 
- Demand provisions:
 
Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 is proposed to be amended to increase the time limit for issuing of show cause notice from one year to 18 months. The reason given for this is to take care of the shorter period available due to the periodicity of the new return EST-1 which is monthly/quarterly.
 
This step does not appear to be a move towards aligning the service tax provisions with that of Central Excise Provisions. If that was so then, the period for issuing demand notice should have remained 1 year only instead of being increased. When the time limit of issue of show cause notice is one year then why it is increased to one and half year in service tax.
 
On the other side, the time for filing of appeal has been reduced from three months to two months to align the same with the Central Excise provisions. But the increasing of time limit of SCN is also not at par with this step.
 
- Issue of Statement for Demand on same grounds for subsequent periods:  
 
Another change made is that by virtue of sub-section (1A) in Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 the Central Excise officer has been empowered to give only a statement in case the grounds are same as for the previous period, and that statement will be deemed as service of notice on such person.
 
Moreover, no time limit has been prescribed within which this statement is to be filed. Therefore, they can give a statement at any time or after a considerable delay. This provision gives a lot of power to the Department which may remain unchecked and may be misused.
 
Also, no such provision exists in the counter provisions of the Central Excise Provisions. This is not in any way amounts to aligning the provisions of Service with that of Central Excise. And in the road towards GST, this will prove contrary to achieving the said goal.

It seems that the Government does not want to align the provisions of service tax with Central Excise but wants to do the things against the assessee. But when it wants to give more powers to the department officer then it ignores this objective. Nobody can question the Board. 

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