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: 30 Nov, 2009
Print   |    |  Comment

Johnny and Service Tax Refund Part - VI

 

Johnny and Service Tax Refund Part - VI

                                                                                      

                          By: -                          

CA. Pradeep Jain

Siddharth Rutiya

 

Visit us at: www.capradeepjain.com

In this unbroken series of articles on the issues relating to the problems faced by exporters under refund claim mechanism we herein are unveiling the VI th part of the same. Herein we are uncovering the problems existing in the Service tax refund mechanism under Business Auxiliary Services provided by commission agent to cause sale of goods exported (Section 65[105][zzb]). The problems faced by the exporters are 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.

The assesses claiming refund orders under Business Auxiliary services to cause sale of goods exported are experiencing great problems in getting their refund orders passed on various departmental justifications that are argued by them. These unnecessary arguments are not only annoying and irritating the assessees but also deprives away the faith of assessees on the refund mechanism designed by the Government. Such reasons on which the department is refusing the refund claims on the said services are being written out 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 Business auxiliary service availed by me in relation to export of goods, but department said: -

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

The refund under this service is allowed only if the Commission agent is located outside India and is engaged under a contract or agreement or any other document by the exporter in India, to act on behalf of the exporter, to cause sale of goods exported. However there was no agreement annexed with the refund claim and further the amount of commission paid or payable to the commission agent is not specified in the shipping bill. These are the pre conditions 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 we are paying the commission on sales basis to a foreign agent for his services as regards the finding of foreign clients then definitely the service rendered by him are related to export of goods. Further, this is a set philosophy that no exporter will pay to a foreign agent for sales made within India and the service tax paid in relation to such commission is undoubtedly related to export of goods.

Further as regards the issue related to specifying the amount of commission paid or payable to the commission agent in the shipping bill is concerned, we submit that the amount of commission to be paid or already paid has already been specified in the shipping bill and the copy of the same is enclosed along with the refund claim. However, the said conditions are cleared but the department does not agree and is denying the claims.

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

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

The pre condition for grant of refund claim is that the Commission sought to be remitted should not be for exports of a canalized item, project exports, or exports financed under lines of credit extended by Government of India or EXIM Bank, or exports made by Indian partners towards equity participation in an overseas joint venture or wholly owned subsidiary. There was no evidence or documentary proof from the assessee’s side to prove that such a condition is satisfied. Hence, the refund claim is subject to denial until assessee proves for the fulfillment of such condition.

Johnny’s View:

We have clarified to the department that the exports made by us were not financed under lines of credit extended by Government of India or EXIM Bank. Further, there were no exports which were made by the Indian partners towards equity participation in an overseas joint venture or wholly owned subsidiary. Thus, the issues raised by the departmental officers were vague and futile. The department said that you should provide an undertaking in this regard to process your refund claim further.

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: -

 

One of the conditions for the Refund of service tax is that it shall be restricted to actual amount of service tax paid or service tax calculated on 2% of FOB value of export goods, whichever is less. Thus, the claim of refund of service tax will not be allowed as the same exceeds the maximum amount of refund i.e. 2% of FOB value.

Continuously, the documents evidencing actual payment of commission to the commission agent were not enclosed with the refund claim. Further, the invoices issued by the agent 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.

Johnny’s view: -

The view taken by the department is incorrect. The amount of refund claim does not exceed the maximum amount allowed as per the conditions specified. The refund claim amount is within the limits of 2% of FOB value and as such the refunds are sought to be allowed.

It was told to them that the service provider is a foreign national and Service Tax Act is not applicable on him. The liability to pay service tax is on service recipient. The service tax has been paid and proof of the same is enclosed. The department said that the service tax has been paid in cash. Instead, it was paid from Cenvat credit and as such refund can not be allowed to you. It was pleaded that there are number of decisions wherein it is held that the service tax payment can be made from Cenvat account. Moreover, the department is deciding the refund and not the issue of payment of service tax. But the department did not agree.

 

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 picturize the problems faced by assesses in getting the refund order as against the Business Auxiliary services relating to the Commission on sales to Foreign agents. 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