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: 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