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: 25 Nov, 2015
Print   |    |  Comment

Credit Balance of Ed Cess & SHE Cess-Never Ending Story!

Credit Balance of Ed Cess & SHE Cess-Never Ending Story

An Article By:-
CA PRADEEP JAIN
CA NEETU SUKHWANI

Introduction:-The announcement of the exemption to the levy of Education Cess and SHE Cess levied on Excise duty with effect from 01.03.2015 and that levied on service tax with effect from 01.06.2015 created new hopes in the minds of the assessees as regards ‘Ease of doing business’ with reduction in the compliance procedure for maintaining separate accounting records for Education Cess and SHE Cess. However, the assessees forgot that everything comes for a cost. The hapeless assessees did not realise that the exemption brought the inbuilt cost in the form of unutilised balance of Education Cess and SHE Cess for which there was no amendment or clarification. This article is an attempt to highlight the probable difficulties faced by the assessees on account of no clarification as regards utilisation of the balance of Education Cess and SHE Cess available as on 01.03.2015 and 01.06.2015.  
 
Backdrop of recent amendments made by government:-Inspite of the much hype created as regards the fate of the balance of Education Cess & SHE Cess available with the assessees, the government has not responded in the correct perspective. The summarized version of the two notifications issued by the government is presented as follows:-
 
 

In-depth analysis of the scenario:-The assessees were waiting for the confirmation from the side of the government as regards utilisation of balance of Education Cess and SHE Cess as on 01.03.2015 and 01.06.2015 but on the contrary, the amendments were made for permitting utilisation of Education Cess & SHE cess on ‘Transit goods and services’. Anyways, following points are worth noting:-
ØThe government took around 5 months to amend Cenvat Credit Rules so as to enable service providers to utilise the education cess and SHE cess levied on transit goods and services whose invoices were issued after 01.06.2015. Furthermore, in author’s opinion, as exemption was granted to levy of education cess and SHE cess with effect from 01.03.2015, it is a very remote possibility that service provider would receive inputs/capital goods with education cess and SHE cess on or after 01.06.2015. But, as it is in favour of the assessee, we may appreciate the government’s action.
ØThe delay in making the amendment vide notification no. 22/2015-CE (NT) dated 29.10.2015 has also lead to inability to utilise the cenvat credit of education cess and SHE cess of inputs/capital goods/invoices of input services received on or after 01.06.2015 in the months of June, July, August and September, 2015 itself because the amendment is prospectively applicable with effect from 29.10.2015 whereas the last date of filing service tax return for the half year ending 30.09.2015 was 25.10.2015. Furthermore, even assessees revising returns are unable to utilise the said credit and reflect it in their service tax returns. The government should have released this amendment timely. Furthermore, there must have been certain assessees who have already availed and utilised cenvat credit of education cess and SHE cess on invoices received after 01.06.2015 on the presumption that similar amendment was made for manufacturers also and they might be probably receiving show cause notice for the same soon. 
ØThe government’s silence on utilisation of Education Cess and SHE Cess balance will also lead to complications in computing the quantum of cenvat credit wrongly availed under amended Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. This is for the reason that Rule 14 presupposes that the opening balance of the month has been utilised first, thereafter the credit taken during the month is utilised next. However, as per above amendments, the balance of education cess and SHE cess as on 01.03.2015 and 01.06.2015 are intact while the education cess and SHE cess on inputs/capital goods/input services whose invoices are received after 01.06.2015 are in reality utilised first than the prevalent balance. If there is a case of wrong availment of cenvat credit after 01.03.2015, the calculations under Rule 14 will definitely be complicated.
ØApart from this, there is no restriction under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 that the balance 50% cenvat credit of capital goods is to be availed in the next year itself. However, express provisions as regards utilisation of balance cenvat credit of capital goods are being made for capital goods received in the financial year 2014-15 only.
ØIt may also be noted that while manufacturers were permitted to utilise the education cess and SHE cess on input services received by them on or after 01.03.2015 against payment of excise duty, the service providers were continued to follow the restriction of utilising cenvat credit of education cess and SHE cess towards payment of Education cess and SHE cess only. This definitely placed service providers under a disadvantageous position and they should also have been permitted to utilise the education cess and SHE cess against payment of service tax on or after 01.03.2015.

Winding up:-The government is not clarifying what the assessees want and rather is making situations more complicated. When the government can permit utilisation of Education Cess and SHE Cess on transit goods received on or after 01.03.2015 by manufacturer and transit goods received on or after 01.06.2015 by service providers and services for which invoices are received after 01.06.2015, that too towards payment of excise duty and service tax, then there is no loss in permitting utilisation of the balance of education cess and SHE cess available with assessees as on 01.03.2015 and 01.06.2015. Well, all assessees are waiting a simple YES for utilising the balance of Education Cess and SHE Cess available with them as on 01.03.2015 and 01.06.2015.

 
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