Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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