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: 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