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: 01 Mar, 2011
Print   |    |  Comment

Change in Rate of Service Tax on Money Changers

Change in Rate of Service Tax on Money Changers

 

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

 

With effect from 16.05.2008, the services pertaining to purchase or sale of foreign currency, including money changing was brought under service tax. The authorised dealers in foreign exchange or authorized changers were also covered. The Authorised money exchanger was required to be authorised under Section 10(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 to deal in foreign exchange or foreign securities. Thus, the authority from Reserve Bank of India was a pre-condition for treating a foreign exchange broker as an authorised dealer of foreign exchange.
 
Method of computation of service:- prior to budget:-Earlier under this service, the service tax was payable on commission if shown in the invoice of Money changers. If the services are not shown then the service tax was chargeable on the same. But if the service tax
is not shown in the invoice then the service provider has option to pay the service tax @0.25% of gross amount of currency exchanged. This was cleared with the help of example in CBEC circular no.  334/1/2008-TRU dated 29.2.2008:-
 
 
Illustration
 
Buying rate $US 1 = Rs.38, selling rate $US 1 = Rs.40
 
(i) Person exchanged $100 for equivalent rupees
Transaction value = Rs.3800 (Rs.38 x 100)
Service tax payable =Rs.9.5 (0.25% x 3800)
 
(ii) Person exchanged equivalent rupees for $100
Transaction value = Rs.4000 (40 x 100)
Service tax payable = Rs.10 (0.25% x 4000).
 
Most of assessee were following this easy formula and paying service tax @ 0.25% of gross amount of currency exchanged.
 
Method of computation- After Budget:-
 
But this year budget, the following method has been prescribed for determining the value of service. For a currency, when exchanged from, or to, Indian Rupees (INR), the value shall be equal to the difference in the buying rate or the selling rate, as the case may be, and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) reference rate for that currency for that day, multiplied by the total units of currency.
 
Example I:        US$100 are sold by a customer at the rate of Rupees 45 per US$.
RBI reference rate for US$ is Rupees 45.50 for that day.
The taxable value shall be Rupees 500.
 
Example II:      INR70000 is changed into Great Britain Pound (GBP) and the exchange rate offered is Rupees 70, thereby giving GBP 1000.
RBI reference rate for that day for GBP is Rupees 69.
The taxable value shall be Rupees 1000.
 
 
 
 
Provided that in case where the RBI reference rate for a currency is not available, the value shall be 1% of the gross amount of Indian Rupees provided or received, by the person changing the money:
 
Provided further that in case where neither of the currencies exchanged is Indian Rupee, the value shall be equal to 1% of the lesser of the two amounts the person changing the money would have received by converting any of the two currencies into Indian Rupee on that day at the reference rate provided by RBI;”
 
 
Now, vide Budget 2010-11, the sub-rule 7B of Rule 6 has been amended. The composition rate in relation to purchase or sale of foreign currency, including money changing, has been lowered from 0.25% to 0.1%..
 
Thus, now the money changer will have to pay the service tax @ 0.1% of the gross amount of currency exchanged.
 
The TRU letter has explained the said change as under:
 
b) The rate of composition under rule 6(7B) has been lowered from 0.25% to 0.1% of the gross amount of money exchanged. However, the proviso relating to paying tax on billed charges has been deleted. Thus now the assessee will have the option to pay tax @ 0.1% of gross amount exchanged or else at standard rated on the value of service in terms of rule 2B, as mentioned above.
 

************

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