Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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