Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments

Publish Date: 17 Mar, 2012
Print   |    |  Comment

'Date of Payment' in case of Rate Change/New Levy

 “Date of Payment” in case of Rate change/New Levy

Prepared By:
CA Pradeep jain
CA Preeti Parihar
Ankit Palgauta

Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 have been reviewed in Budget, 2012. A new rule has been inserted after rule 2, namely rule 2A which specifies the date of payment. This rule says that for the purpose of these rules, the date of payment will be EARLIER of the following:-
 
     i.             Date of entering payment in the books of accounts; or
     ii.            Date of credit in bank account of person liable to pay service tax.
 
Normally, date of receipt of cheque is the date when the payment is recognised in books of accounts. However, in the cases where the date of credit in bank account is before, for eg., in case of direct credit via internet banking, that date will be considered as date of payment irrespective of the fact that this is recognised later on in the books of accounts.
 
However, as per proviso to this section, the date of payment will be the “date of credit in bank account” in the following cases –
 
(i) If there is a change in effective rate of tax or when a service is taxed for the first time during the period between such entry in books of accounts and its credit in the bank account; and
 
(ii) If the credit in the bank account is after four working days from the date when there is change in effective rate of tax or a service is taxed for the first time; and
 
(iii) The payment is made by way of an instrument which is credited to a bank account,
 
Further, if any rule requires determination of the time or date of payment received, the expression “date of payment” shall be mean such date on which the payment is received. This rule have major implications in case of export of services and eight specified services provided by the individual or firms where the POT is the date of payment.
 
The point of taxation in such cases has been determined as date of payment, as such rate applicable on that date will be applied. This creates problems in the cases where the invoice is already raised and payment is received after a lapse of certain time. Since the point of taxation is receipt of payment, the rate applicable on that date will be considered and service tax will be paid accordingly.
 
Now, what about the fact that the bill is already raised and service tax has been recovered at the rate prevalent at the time of raising the invoice. However, at the time when the payment was received, the service tax rate is increased. Service provider will be required to pay service tax at the increased rate. But who will bear the incidence of this increased tax rate? Obviously the service provider as the transaction was already over from the side of service recipient when he issued the cheque/ made the payment. Now he will not bother about the increase in rate of tax, as such, ultimately the service provider will have to bear the loss.
 
Now, government has inserted rule 2A according to which date of credit in bank account will be seen if there is rate change. This has made the situation even more complicated. Suppose, the services were provided and invoice was raised in the month of February when the rate of service tax was 10%. As such, bill was raised with this rate. However, the cheque is received on March, 31. However, the date when the cheque is cleared is falling in the month of April when the service tax rate has gone up to 12%. According to Point of Taxation Rules, the service tax is to be paid @ 12% as point of taxation in this case is date of credit in bank account. Now who will bear the incidence of additional 2%? The service provider will suffer because he doesn’t have power to rectify the anomalies in the rules.
 
It is worthwhile to mention here that determining the point of taxation on the basis of receipt of payment is itself not justified. It has been held by hon’ble High Court in the case of COMMR. OF C. EX. & CUS., VADODARA-II Versus SCHOTT GLASS INDIA PVT. LTD. [2009 (14) S.T.R. 146 (Guj.)] that under service tax law, the taxable event is always linked to providing of service. The verdicts of hon’ble High Court are as under:-
 
“Import of Services - Liability of recipient - Taxable service rendered between November 2001 and March 2002 - Liability cannot be fastened on recipient of service merely because invoiceraised and payment made after 16-8-2002- Taxable event occurred already and raising of invoicesand/or making payment cannot be considered as taxable event - Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service TaxRules, 1994 not applicable retrospectively to services rendered prior to 16-8-2002 - Impugned Tribunal order sustainable - Substantial question of law absent - Sections 65(105) and 66 of Finance Act, 1994 - Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) ibid. [paras 2, 4, 5]
 
Taxable event - Service tax- Taxable event is whether realization of payment for taxable services rendered or rendering of services - Service taxlevied on all taxable services provided on or after commencement of relevant chapter of Finance Act, 1994 - Taxable event is providing taxable services as defined in Section 65(105) ibid - Raising invoiceand/or making payment cannot be considered taxable event- Neither Section nor Rule suggest that taxable event is raising of an invoicefor making payment - Sections 65(105) and 66 ibid - Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service TaxRules, 1994. [paras 1, 4]”
 
Therefore, the linking the taxable event to the date of receipt of payment or date of credit of payment in the bank account is against the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. This analogy is reiterated by hon’ble Tribunal in the following case –
 
·   CCE, Trichy Vs Sri Ramajayam Transport [2011-TIOL-920-CESTAT-MAD]
 
Service Tax - Demand of short payment of service tax - Rate of service tax applicable is the rate prevailing on the date of rendering the service - The impugned order is silent on the claim of the respondents that they have paid excess service tax - Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT;
 
Thus, the above referred provisions of Point of taxation rules are ultra vires the scheme of Finance Act, 1994. This is also an unfavourable provision from the point of view of person liable to pay tax. This is a critical provision and needs further review.  

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