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: 02 Mar, 2013
Print   |    |  Comment

Critical reasoning of Notification no. 03/2013 ST dated 01.03.2013


An article by:-
 
CA. Pradeep Jain
CA. Preeti Parihar
CA. Shubham Sancheti
 
Introduction:-
In previous budget, service tax law was shifted to negative list regime. Mega exemption notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012 was issued to prescribe the list of exempted services. In the current year budget, nominal changes have been done in this list. One such change has been done in the serial no. 21 of this notification which exempts certain services provided by a Goods transport agency. This article has tried to look into the implications of this amendment.
Previous Provisions:
As per the previous provision as contained in serial no. 21 of mega exemption notification, the transport of following goods by Goods transport agency was exempted:-
(a)  fruits, vegetables, eggs, milk, food grains or pulses in a goods carriage;
(b)  goods where gross amount charged for the transportation of goods on a consignment transported in a single goods carriage does not exceed one thousand five hundred rupees; or
(c)   goods, where gross amount charged for transportation of all such goods for a single consignee in the goods carriage does not exceed rupees seven hundred fifty;
Amended Provision:
Union budget, 2013 has issued Notification no. 03/2013-ST dated 1.3.2013 to amend the above notification. The amended provision under serial no. 21 reads as follows:-
21. Services provided by a goods transport agency, by way of transport in a goods carriage of,-
(a) agricultural produce;
(b) goods, where gross amount charged for the transportation of goods on a consignment transported in a single carriage does not exceed one thousand five hundred rupees;
(c) goods, where gross amount charged for transportation of all such goods for a single consignee does not exceed rupees seven hundred fifty;
(d) foodstuff including flours, tea, coffee, jaggery, sugar, milk products, salt and edible oil, excluding alcoholic beverages;
(e) chemical fertilizer and oilcakes;
(f) newspaper or magazines registered with the Registrar of Newspapers;
(g) relief materials meant for victims of natural or man-made disasters, calamities, accidents or mishap; or
(h) defense or military equipments;”;
These above services by GTA in relation to transportation of the specified goods shall be exempted.
Analysis of amendment:-
·        The new exemptions added to material listed in serial no. (e) to (h) viz, chemical fertilizers, newspaper-magazines, relief materials, defense equipments, etc. were already there in this notification if these products were transported through rail or vessel. Now, budget, 2013 has also extended the exemption if these materials are transported through road by a goods transport agency. This has been done to ensure the uniformity in exemption in case of same material whether it is transported by road, or by rail or by vessel.
·        The exemption contained in serial no. (b) and (c) as pertaining to the limit of Rs. 750/- and Rs. 1500/- are kept intact.
·        The agricultural produces have been added to this list. The term“agriculture produce” has been defined in section 65B of the Finance Act which reads as follows:-
(5) "agricultural produce" means any produce of agriculture on which either no further processing is done or such processing is done as is usually done by a cultivator or producer which does not alter its essential characteristics but makes it marketable for primary market;
Thus, as per above definition, any produce of agriculture on which minimum processing is done by cultivator which does not alter its essential characteristics but makes it marketable for the primary market.
·        In place of the previous entry consisting of “fruits, vegetables, eggs, milk, food grains or pulses”, a new entry consisting of “foodstuff including flours, tea, coffee, jaggery, sugar, milk products, salt and edible oil, excluding alcoholic beverages” have been inserted. The fruits, vegetables, eggs as contained in previous entry will remain included in the term foodstuff. Food grains and pulses as stood previously under this entry will now be included in the term “agricultural produces”.
 
Some probable points of dispute:-
The new entry related to the foodstuffs is going to be the centre of dispute in this amendment. The foodstuffs include the “flours”. However, a question arises whether the flours that are not directly eatable like guar flour will also be included and exemption will be allowed? The answer lies in the analysis of the term “food stuff” which is defined as follows:-
·        As per Collinsdictionery.com – “Any material, substance, etc, that can be used as food”
·        As per wordwebonline.com – “consumer goods sold by a grocer” or “a substance that can be used or prepared for use as food.
Thus, as per above definitions, the food stuff is any item that can be used or prepared for use as food. The exemption includes the flours, thus any type of flour which can be prepared for use as food will be included herein. However, some of the interesting uses of the guar flour/ guar gum powder are that it is used in the processed cheese, in bakery, in soups, in noodles and also in preparation of beverages. On the other hand, it is also used for industrial purposes like in chemical industry, paper industry, cosmetics, etc. Similar is the case with salt. Besides a foodstuff, it is also used in the aluminium purification, caustic/chlorine manufacture, pottery production, soap and glycerine manufacture, etc. The divergent uses of the products are definite indicators of probable litigation as the department will deny the exemption by saying that it is not a foodstuff, rather it is used for industrial purpose. Also, it will not be possible to correlate the item always with its end use in order to claim the exemption. Thus, some sort of clarification is required on this aspect.
Further, there was no need of adding the tea, coffee and jaggery as these were already included in the definition of “agricultural produces”. This fact is already clarified in the education guide dated 20.6.2012. These clarifications say that plantation crops like rubber, tea or coffee will be covered in the definition of agricultural produce. Further as per explanation given in para 4.4.7 of education guide, cereals, pulses, copra and jaggery will also be covered in the definition of agricultural produce. However, jaggery, tea and coffee have been covered in the new entry of food stuff.
 
While parting:-
Despite the ambiguities referred hereabove, the additions made in the list of goods to be transported by GTA will always be appreciated. There was discrimination previously in respect of the same goods when transported by rail/vessel and when the same are transported by road.  It is good on part of government who has taken steps to bridge this gap by amending the mega exemption notification.

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