Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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