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: 14 Nov, 2009
Print   |    |  Comment

Johnny and Service Tax Refund Part-IV

 

Johnny and Service Tax Refund Part - IV

                                                                                      

By: -                          

CA. Pradeep Jain

Siddharth Rutiya

 

Visit us at: www.capradeepjain.com

To prolong the series of the articles on Refund claims to exporters we here under this article are expressing the miserable situation of exporters claiming refund claims for service tax paid on services used in export of goods. This is the fourth article in a row of this series of articles. In the previous three articles we had elaborated the difficulties faced by the assessees in getting the refund claim under GTA service, Port services and Technical testing and analysis services.

In this fourth article we are attempting to present the grounds on which departmental authorities are disallowing the refund claims as related to Specialized cleaning services (namely disinfecting, exterminating, sterilizing or fumigating of containers) availed by the exporters (Section 65[105][zzzd]). This complete state of affairs is humorously picturised 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 Specialized cleaning services are facing vast difficulties in getting their refund orders passed on pointless and unimportant justifications that not only are harassing 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 Courier service but department said: -

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

The refund claim was not accompanied along with the written agreement as regards the said service. This is one of the pre conditions for availing the benefit of refund claim.

Johnny’s View: 

The requirement of written agreement is simply a formal requirement that can be avoided as it is a fact that if there are any statutory requirements of the Foreign law for specialized cleaning of containers, then we the assessees are unable to evidence 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 should be granted.

Further, it is a set philosophy that no exporter will carry out the Specialized Cleaning service until and unless there is a requirement of same from the foreign buyers. This further clarifies the situation and makes it 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. Even it was argued that this requirement has been dispensed with new set of Rules effective from 06.07.2009. This has been down on our representations. This shows the intention of the Government. It is laid down principle that the beneficial notifications should have retrospective effect. But the department does not agree and says that it is clearly written in the notification that it is applicable from the date of notification and as such the requirement is relaxed from 06.07.2009 only.

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: -

There is no evidence from the enclosures of the refund claim and other documents that the refund of Specialized cleaning service as claimed by you is accredited by a competent statutory authority.  This is a specific requirement in the notification. As you have not enclosed the certificate and it seems that the Specialized cleaning services as availed by you is from an agency not accredited by the competent statutory authority to provide such specialized cleaning. Even the relaxation from this condition is also applicable from 06.07.2009. Now, the agency is having its office in other city and as such it will take time to get certificate does not hold good in the era of fast communication. Moreover, your argument that fumigation done by this agency is acceptable to foreign countries does not hold good when there is specific requirement in the notification then you should produce the certificate.

The refund claims are allowed in respect of such service only when these are provided by a person who is validly accredited by the competent statutory authority and the said services are used in export of goods. This must be further evidenced by a valid certificate which must be enclosed along with the refund claim.

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 flaw: -

 

The invoices issued by the Specialized cleaning agency do not fulfill all the requirements specified under Rule 4A like category of service, Description of service, valid Invoice Number, Service tax rate, Service tax registration number and other alike things. The debit note issued by agency without service tax registration and category of service are not valid duty paying document and as such the refund is not admissible. Further, your argument that these are rectifiable defects and you have amended the same is not acceptable. As the document should be proper and valid document.

Johnny’s view: -

The view taken by the Department is stringent in applying the legal language as provided under Rule 4A, whereas the department should adopt a liberal view in this regard, more to in the case of Rule 4A of Service tax rules requirements. Non compliance of the requirements specified under Rule 4A, does not lead to a severe impact and there should be a practice on the part of departmental authorities to avoid allegations if the Rule 4A is not complied in its entirety. 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!

 

By the virtue of this scenario picturised above the exclusive attempt is to bring into lime light the problems faced by assesses in getting the refund order as against the cleaning services. To represent the whole situation and to make it somewhat rhythmatic we have graced the article with humorous poems and conversation between Johnny and his father.

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