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: 28 Feb, 2011
Print   |    |  Comment

Changes in Service Tax Refund Scheme

Change in Service Tax Refund Scheme

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

The scheme of refund of service tax paid on specified services which were utilised for export of goods was given effect in 2007 vide Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007. The exemption was granted by way of refund. However, announcing the grant of exemption and actual granting of refund of service tax paid proved to be two different scenarios. The exporter claiming refund of service tax was not granted refund claim on various issues. Like for Port services, the ground taken for rejecting the refund was that the Authorisation from the Port Authorities was not obtained by the service provider providing Port and other port services. The issue that a particular service would fall under the Port services was also disputed. For example the Terminal Handling Charges and Repo charges were alleged to be not falling under the Port services.
 
The refund claim of services provided by Customs House Agent services was being rejected on the various grounds. The refund was not granted if exporters invoice no and date was not mentioned in the service provider’s invoice.  That the licence number of the CHA was not mentioned on the invoice of the CHA.
 
For fumigation (specialized cleaning services) the refund claim was being denied on the ground that the exporter had not produced a written agreement with the buyer for carrying out the cleaning activity of export cargo.
 
Service tax paid on Insurance service availed regarding export goods was being denied on the ground that the  document issued by the insurer for payment of insurance premium was not specific to the export goods. These are only few of the grounds for denying refund claim. These issues were not the conditions which the claimant-exporter were not fulfilling intentionally. But these were technical issues which were existing and could not be addressed.
 
Thereafter, to remove the anomalies existing in Refund scheme contained in Notification No. 41/2007-ST, the Government had introduced an improved scheme vide Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009. The said Notification removed certain anomalies existing in Notification No. 41/2007-ST but gave birth to new issues. We have written a series of articles titled “Johnny and service tax refund- Part-I” to bring about the problems faced by the exporters.
 
The refund claims under Notification No. 17/2009-ST were being denied on newer grounds. The use of the word that no refund claim less than Rs. 500/- will be entertained was interpreted by the Department to the effect that the each invoice/shipping bill was to be treated as an individual refund claim instead of the entire refund claim filed for one consignment/period.
 
Another issue was that the documents were not certified in the manner provided in the Notification. It was being insisted that the certification was to be done on the original invoice and if done afterwards, was not accepted. The refund claim of service tax paid on CHA services was being denied on the ground that the CHA licences numbers were not present in the invoices or the CHA was not holding valid licences. The refund of Terminal handling charges was denied saying that it is claimed under port charges. Instead it should be claimed under that category only. But there was no category like Terminal handling charges in the service tax. In nutshell the refund was not provided to the exporters. We once again continued with article series “Johnny and service tax refund- Part-II” to highlight the problems of exporters. Further, it was demanded through series of representation from all associations that the straight forward exemption should be granted in place of exemption by way of refund.
 
Now, in the Budget 2011-12, the Finance Minister has proposed to introduce a scheme for the refund of service tax paid on specified services used in export of goods on the lines of drawback of duties in a far more simplified and expeditious manner. This has been proposed to reduce the considerable difficulties in the sanction of refunds.
 
This may reduce the difficulties faced by the exporter in claiming refund. The technical issues may be redressed and fewer conditions would be required to be fulfilled. Thus, this is a welcome step on behalf of the Government which will help the exporters.
 
The Government has not agreed to demands of exporters of straight forward refund but has allowed the refund only. But it should be formulated in such a way that the exporters get the refund and it is not stuck up again as in old schemes. Hope for the best.  

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

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