Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Publish Date: 05 Mar, 2011
Print   |    |  Comment

Expansion of scope of Legal Consultancy Service

Expansion of scope of Legal Consultancy Service

Prepared By:
CA Pradeep Jain and
Sukhvinder Kaur, LLB [FYIC]

The Legal Consultancy service was brought under Service Tax net from 01.09.2009. The Taxable service was defined under sub-clause (zzzzm) of clause (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Legal services provided to a business entity by any other business entity in relation to advice, consultancy or assistance in any branch of law were covered.
 
However, the services provided by way of appearance before any court, Tribunal or any authority and the services provided by the individuals were excluded.
 
Now, the Finance Minister has proposed in Finance Bill 2011 to expand the scope of legal consultancy services falling under the tax net.
 
The sub-clause (zzzzm) has been proposed to be substituted in the following manner:
 
(zzzzm) (i) to any person, by a business entity, in relation to advice, consultancy or assistance in any branch of law, in any manner;
 
(ii) to any business entity, by any person, in relation to representational services before any court, tribunal or authority;
 
(iii) to any business entity, by an arbitral tribunal, in respect of arbitration.
 
Explanation – For the purposes of this item, the expressions “arbitration” and “arbitral tribunal” shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996;’
 
Thus, the following services are included:
 

  1. Services of advice, consultancy or assistance provided by a business entity to individuals are covered.
  2. Representational services provided by any person to a business entity; and
  3. Services provided by arbitrators to business entities.

 
The TRU letter dated 01.03.2011 clarified that Services provided by individuals to other individuals will remain outside the levy.
 
Now, under the Taxable Legal Consultancy services, the service provided by Business entity to another Business entity, Business entity to Individual and Individual to Business Entity are covered.
 
However, the Legal service provided by an Individual Lawyer provided to an individual will also get covered under the taxable service and service tax will become payable on all services.
 
Thus, the overall outcome of this levy will be that individual lawyers will covered under the service tax net. They have to pay the service tax on services provided to business entities. But the services provided to individuals will be exempt.
 
But earlier they were not covered under service tax and need not to take registration and pay tax. But now they will be covered. We have never seen a lawyer who is providing to individuals only. They provide services to both the individuals as well as to business entities. Hence, every individual lawyer will be covered. We have the debate about the fees of lawyers in recent past in the newspaper. So, threshold exemption of Rs. 10 Lakh will be meaningless for them.
 
This legal community feels that they should not be covered under service tax. If they are covered then the exemption is meaningless for them. They have to register, pay tax and file returns with the department. They have to follow the procedures of that department also. If this is to be done, they can do it for individuals also.
 
The second outcome of this levy will be on Chartered Accountants. Earlier the exemption was given to them on representation work on the ground that when lawyers are not paying tax on such activity then they should not be taxed. Hence the exemption under Notification no. 25/2006-ST, dated 13.07.2006 was given to them. But now the lawyers will plead that when the exemption is given to CAs then they should also be exempted otherwise their services will be costlier. They will not be able to compete with Chartered Accountants.
 
The third outcome and most known outcome of this levy will be lawyers will go on strike and there will agitation against this levy. Let us wait and see the future.

************

 
 
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