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: 23 Oct, 2009
Print   |    |  Comment

Johnny and Service Tax Refund Part - II

 

Johnny and Service Tax Refund Part - II

                                                                                       By: -                          

CA. Pradeep Jain

Siddharth Rutiya

 

In continuation of previous article, elaborating the difficulties in getting the refund claim under GTA service [Click here to read the previous article], we in this article are unveiling the problems existing in the Service tax refund mechanism under Port Services (Section 65[105][zn]). This complete scenario is being elaborated with the means of humorous poems and conversation between Johnny (an assessee) and his father but the main motive is to bring out the problems faced by exporters.

 

Johnny and Jill went up the hill, to get the refund order
Johnny came back with a lack
And Jill came hopeless after.

Presently, assesses are claiming refund orders under Port Services are experiencing vast intricacies in getting refunds. The refunds claimed by the assessees as against their exports are their Rights but are being refused by the departmental authorities on various arguments which are of no significance and worth less. The various reasons on which the department is refusing these refund claims on the said services are highlighted as under: -

 

Johnny-Johnny!  Yes papa!

Got the refund?

No Papa,

Telling lies?

 No Papa,

What’s the reason?

This papa: -

 

Johnny says:  I went to the department to get the refund for Port service but department said: -

Johnny-Johnny go away,
Come again another day.
Your refund order has following Flay: -

The refund claimed by you is regarding port charges of ICD and as per the law refund is allowed for “Service provided by a port or any person authorised by the port in respect of the export of said goods”. Further the port charges of ICD are not eligible for refund as they aren’t covered under the said service as because of the definition of Port. The definition of port reads as under: -

 

“"port" has the meaning assigned to it in clause (q) of section 2 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963”.

 

And Major Port Trust Act, 1963 defines the term port as: -

 

“"Port" means any major port to which this Act applies within such limits as may, from time to time, be defined by the Central Government for the purposes of this Act”

 

The analysis of these definitions of “port” as given here above doesn’t include ICD and henceforth the refund order is not to be allowed.

 

Johnny’s View: -

I told that ultimately the goods are to be exported through port only and as such the refund should be granted to us. We have also given the list of the shipping bills along with the ports. But you (the department) do not agree. You say that the goods are exported through ICD and not through the port and as such service tax claimed by you are not port charges. Hence the refund cannot be granted to me.

Johnny says:  I went to the department next day again with the corrections but department said: -

Johnny-Johnny go away,
Come again another day.
Your refund order has following more flay: -

I had availed duty drawback in respect of shipping bills in terms of Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995.

Johnny’s View: -

But my contention was that we are also claiming rebate claim. We pay the duty on FOB value of goods. The rebate claim is given to us by the department on FOB value as reduced by Port charges, Outward Freight, CHA Charges and Insurance charges. Henceforth, the value under consideration for Rebate claim doesn’t includes these values and no rebate is given on it.

On the other hand Drawback as given under Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 is limited to the scope of duty/tax paid on inputs and input services. Thus, here again the department is taking contention that Drawback will not be allowed on such Port charges as these are not input services and have been availed after the manufacture of final product.

The Department is taking two way contention one while giving rebate they are denying the same on Port Charges alleging that these aren’t includible in transaction value and on the second part they are disallowing the refund of service tax alleging the Drawback has been claimed and drawback rates includes these input services. Thus, if Department is taking two way contentions.

But the department said that the value under Central Excise is different from the value under drawback rules. The drawback is sanctioned on FOB value and as such these input services are included while fixing the drawback rates. The department said that if we are taking two stands then you are also taking two stands in replying the same. When we sanction rebate claim then you say that these are includible in transaction value and rebate should be sanctioned on FOB value but when claiming refund you say that these are not input services and as such these are not included in fixing drawback rates.

 

Johnny says:  I went to the department next day again with the further corrections but department rejected saying: -

Johnny-Johnny go away,

You won’t get refund anyway.
It has following more flay: -

 

The service tax invoice issued to you is being issued by the shipper and not by the Port authorities. These shippers are being registered under Business Auxiliary Services or Business Support Services. These services aren’t specified under the list of services eligible for refund against export. Thus, the refund order is disallowed on such ground.

Jonny told them that the port authorities do not bill us directly but it is billed to shippers and they bill to us. But the nature of expenses clearly tells that these are incurred at the port. The terminal handling charges and other related charges are clearly incurred at port.

Fruitless again & again;

Johnny now in grief and pain!

Refund order now a dream;

His efforts have downstream!

 

Although the article is ornamented with humorous poems but the key motive is to bring into light the intricacies involved in the refund orders. With this entertaining and rhythmical article we summarize that the present situation and mental state of assesses alleging refunds against export of goods is alike to the situation of Johnny as pointed out in the poem.

There are a number of services on which the refund is allowed. The assessee is facing difficulty in almost all of those services. Due to the large number of services we were not able to cover all the services in this article and hence we will be bringing further articles on the different services covered therein. Keep visiting for the next article……..

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