Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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