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: 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