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: 30 Jun, 2012
Print   |    |  Comment

Hotel Industry – Negative List is Positive !!!

 

HOTEL INDUSTRY – NEGATIVE LIST IS POSITIVE !!!

 

An article by:-
 
CA. PRADEEP JAIN
CA. PREETI PARIHAR

 
Introduction:-
 
“Service tax by way of Negative list” is the beginning of a new era in the 18 years old Service tax law. Most of the existing provisions have been reviewed to line up them with the new scheme. Inspite of a no. of ambiguities regarding the negative list to be introduced w.e.f. 1.7.2012, the hotel industry is receiving positive signs therefrom. This piece of articulation is about the impact of negative list scheme on the hotel industry.
 
Cenvat Credit allowed with Abatement:-
 
In most of the services offered by a hotel, the abatement facility has been continued even in the negative list. However, as an add-on, the facility of Cenvat Credit has also been extended. On Mandap Keeper services abatement @ 30% has been extended with Cenvat facility under the notification no. 13/2012-ST dated 17.3.2012. However, on supply of food items in restaurant and as an outdoor caterer, taxable value has been fixed as 40% & 60% (or abatement of 60% & 40%) respectively with the facility of Cenvat Credit by inserting a new rule 2C in the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. In all the three cases, the facility of Cenvat credit includes the credit on input services, capital goods and inputs other than those falling under chapter 1 to 22. Though there is reduction in the proportion of abatement but simultaneously the credit is allowed which will ultimately reduce the costs. This may be explained by following example assuming only mandap keeper services are being provided:-
 
Receipts from Mandap Keeper services                      Rs. 3500000/-
 
Cenvat Credit availed                                                        Rs. 150000/-            
 
Particulars Before introduction of negative list After introduction of negative list
Gross receipts 3500000 3500000
Less: Abatement @ 40% & 30% 1400000 1050000
Taxable value 2100000 2450000
Service tax payable @ 12.36% 259560 302820
Less: Cenvat Credit 0 150000
Service tax to be paid in cash 259560 152820
 
 
Thus, cash outflow has reduced drastically which will reduce ultimately the cost of service providers. Since a major part of income of hotels comes from the Mandap Keeper Services, they will be benefitted by this amendment at large.
 
Services with abatement + Cenvat excluded from Rule 2(e) of CCR, 2004:-
 
Rule 2(e) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 defines the term exempted services. This rule reads as follows: –
 
(e) “exempted services” means taxable services which are exempt from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon, and includes services on which no service tax is leviable under section 66 of the Finance Act and taxable services whose part of value is exempted on the condition that no credit of inputs and input services, used for providing such taxable services, shall be taken
 
Thus, the following three types of services will be considered as exempted services under rule 2(e) for the purpose of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:–
 
·                    Those services on which no service tax is leviable under section 66 of the Act; and
·                    Those services which are wholly exempted by way of exemption notification; and
·         Those services which are partly exempted by way of exemption notification ON THE CONDITION THAT NO CREDIT OF INPUTS AND INPUT SERVICES SHALL BE TAKEN.
 
As such, the services on which abatement is being granted subject to the condition of non-availment of credit are covered in the definition of exempted services. Prior to enactment of budget, 2012; the abatement was allowed under the provisions of notification no. 1/2006-ST dated 1.3.2006 which clearly stated that the benefit under this notification will be allowed only if no Cenvat Credit is taken. Therefore, the abatement vis a vis Cenvat were not allowed and as such, the services on which abatement was claimed were treated as “exempted services” as per above definition given under rule 2(e) ibid.
 
Now w.e.f. 1.7.2012, the Cenvat Credit will be allowed alongwith abatement in case of certain services like Mandap Keeper, restaurant services, outdoor catering services, etc. these services will come out of the definition of exempted services. Accordingly, these services will be considered as “taxable services” for the purpose of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. As such, entire value pertaining to these services will be considered as taxable value.
 
This contention is also supported by Board circular no. 868/6/2008-CX dated 9.5.2008 which clarifies that for the purpose of rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; the value of exempted services will be the gross value before abatement. Since the services on which Cenvat is allowed alongwith abatement will come out of purview of exempted services and will be treated as taxable services. Therefore, the gross value charged for such services will be treated as taxable receipts on the analogy laid down by the above stated circular. Due to this, the quantum of taxable receipts will highly increase.
 
Increase in taxable receipts, decrease in proportionate reversal:-
 
Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is the most critical aspect for the service providers like hotels which offer a bouquet of services, both exempted as well as taxable. As of now, many of the services provided by the hotel were exempt, due to which the ratio of reversal under rule 6(3)(ii) is very high. The services normally provided by the hotels which are exempt currently are washing services, telephone facility, etc. and are going to be taxable as from 1.7.2012. Further, as per above discussion, the entire receipts from specified services like Mandap Keeper will be considered in the receipts from taxable services. In other words, the quantum of exempted services will reduce drastically. Since the formula of proportionate reversal depends on the quantum of exempted services, lower the receipts from exempted services lower the amount of reversal. For the sake of convenience, rule 6(3) which prescribes the formula for reversing the credit attributable to common input services is produced as follows:-
 
Total value of exempted services/Total value of exempted and taxable services * Total Cenvat Credit availed = Proportionate reversal
 
Thus, lower the amount of numerator in a formula, lower the ratio of reversal. As per changes made due to negative list, the services like Mandap keeper, etc. are excluded from the purview of exempted services as defined in rule 2(e) of CCR, 2004. As such, it will lead to major reduction in the exempted receipts. Therefore, the ratio of reversal will come down significantly. It is expected that the ratio of reversal will come even below 20%. Since service tax is always recovered from the customer, the hotels are not bothered much about the increase in tax payable on increased no. of taxable services; however, they are happy that the service tax credit which was earlier reversed will now enhance the Cenvat balance of hotels.
 
Alternatives in place of proportionate reversal:-
 
Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 gives two options to the provider of taxable and exempted services who is availing the credit on common input services. These two options are either pay the amount @ 6% of value of exempted services or proportionately reverse the credit availed. However, prior to negative list proposal, the quantum of exempted services was so high that it was not feasible to opt for paying the amount @ 6% of the value of exempted services. Thus, eventhough the formula prescribed for the proportionate reversal is cumbersome and the procedure is also complicated, the service providers had no choice, but to opt for proportionate reversal. Now w.e.f. 1.7.2012 when most of the services are going to be taxable, there will be very less amount of exempted service. Since the no. of exempted services has reduced drastically, they can now think of a simpler method as given under rule 6(3)(i) which is simple reversal @ 6% of the value of exempted services. As such, many of the large hotels are doing cost-benefit analysis of these two options as given under rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Thus, negative list has given them a chance to get rid of the cumbersome procedure of proportionate reversal.
 
Before parting:-
 
The negative list of services is going to shuffle the entire service tax law. Out of many ambiguities and lacunas therein, the hotel industry seems to have been benefitted. Though the ultimate benefit available will be known only after the implementation of new provisions, yet, we can say that the Negative list seems to be positive for the Hotel Industry…
 

Comments

  • visu on 15 February, 2013 wrote:

    Excellant..!! Clear explanation of the concept..!! We are all POSITIVE with your views, opinions, and explanation..!! A real HATS off!! to you my dear..!! Visu Iyer Chennai
  • SUNIL BIRLA on 26 November, 2012 wrote:

    Dear Pradeep, Your articles give solution for a basic problem and immense useful for a layman. Please keep it up. Thanks - CA Sunil Birla, Jodhpur, Rajasthan

Post a Comment



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