Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Publish Date: 31 Oct, 2009
Print   |    |  Comment

Johnny and service tax refund part - III

 

Johnny and Service Tax Refund Part - III

                                                                                      

By: -                          

CA. Pradeep Jain

Siddharth Rutiya

 

Visit us at: www.capradeepjain.com

In continuation of the series of previous two articles, elaborating the difficulties in getting the refund claim under GTA service and Port services, we in this article are attempting to present the problems existing in the Service tax refund mechanism under Technical testing and analysis Services (Section 65[105][zzh]). This complete state of affairs is humorously picturisead by the way of poems and conversation between Johnny (an assessee) and his father. This Endeavour is just 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.

The assesses claiming refund orders under Technical testing and analysis Services are facing enormous complexities in getting their refund orders passed on futile and negligible grounds that not only harass the assessees but also deprives away the faith of assessees on the refund mechanism. These enormous reasons on which the department is refusing the refund claims on the said services are being projected hereunder as follows: -

 

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 Technical Testing and analysis service but department said: -

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

You have not submitted the written agreement as regards the said service. This is a prerequisite for availing the benefit of refund claim.

Johnny’s View: 

This is just a means of requirement that can be neglected as it is a fact that if there is any statutory requirements of the Foreign law for technical testing and analysis then we the assessees are unable to bring out the same to your good honour and hence there can’t be any written agreement in such respect. But as this service is related to the export of goods the refund ought to have been granted.

Further, this is a set philosophy that no exporter will carry out the technical testing and analysis service from a third party until and unless there is a requirement of same from the foreign buyer’s point of view. This further clarifies the situation and makes it ample clear that the said requirement of submitting the written agreements is just a presupposed condition which can be avoided. But the department does not agree.

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: -

The date of technical testing and analysis report of the samples are post dated from the dates on which the export goods were sent to the buyer. Hence, this construe that the samples were sent prior to the date of Technical testing and analysis report and as such this service availed by the exporter is not in respect of goods exported and therefore the refund is rejected.

Johnny’s View:

The dates of testing report is post dated as regards the date of consignment of goods to the buyer because the goods after being tested were sent to the buyer and as it was assured on our part in respect of quality of the goods that the same will clear out all the testing we sent the goods to the buyer. This was due to the fact that there was urgent need of the buyer. We normally take out the sample from the consignment and keep it for 6 months for any future claims. We took out the sample and sent the consignment and then send it to concerned lab for testing. The test report has come before the consignment reach the foreign buyer. Thus, the complete scenario clearly picturizes that the service of technical testing and analysis availed by us was directly related to the exports made by us and there is nothing which leads to distrust of this fact. Further, the correlation with export is established from the fact that the Service tax invoice has reference of Report. The report has reference of Batch number. That batch number also appears in shipping bill. Thus, it is clearly established that the technical testing and analysis service is taken for this particular consignment only.

 

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 invoices issued by you do not fulfill all the conditions specified under Rule 4(a) like category of service, Description of service etc. and in addition to this the batch number written in the invoice do not match with the batch number as is specified in the technical testing and analysis report. This further leads to the conclusion that the testing and analysis work carried out is no way connected with the goods exported and as such the refund is disallowed.

 

Johnny’s view: -

Firstly, the Department is interpreting the legal language very strictly whereas the department should be liberal in this aspect, more to in the case of Rule 4A of Service tax rules requirements. Non compliance of the Rule 4A is not of great concern and there should be a practice to avoid allegations if the Rule 4A is not complied in its entirety.

Furthermore, the department’s contention that the batch numbers do not match with those specified in the testing report is also no great concern. Just on the behalf of the Batch number it can’t be interpreted that the testing and analysis services weren’t used in respect of export of goods. These batch numbers are entered manually in the invoices and there are great chances of errors in this respect. Henceforth, the allegation of the department is futile for disallowance of refund claim.

 

Fruitless again & again;

Johnny now in grief and pain!

Refund order now a dream;

His efforts have downstream!

 

Via this article the sole endeavor is to picturise the problems faced by assesses in getting the refund order as against the Technical testing and analysis services. To represent the whole situation and to make it somewhat rhythmatic we have graced the article with humorous poems.

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