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: 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