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: 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