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: 05 Dec, 2009
Print   |    |  Comment

Johnny and Service Tax Refund Part-VII

 

Johnny and Service Tax Refund Part - VII

                                                                                      

                       By: -                          

CA. Pradeep Jain

Siddharth Rutiya

 

Visit us at: www.capradeepjain.com

In continuation of previous articles, elaborating the difficulties in getting the refund claim under different services, we in this article are unveiling the problems existing in the Service tax refund mechanism under Services of purchase or sale of foreign currency, including money changing provided to an exporter in relation to export goods (Section 65(105)(zm)) &  (Section 65(105)(zzk)) and (i) Services provided in relation to collection of export bills, (ii) Services provided in relation to export letters of credit such as advising commission, advising amendment, confirmation charges (Section 65(105)(zm)). This complete scenario is 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.

Presently, assesses are claiming refund orders under above mentioned Services and are experiencing vast intricacies in getting such refund orders. The refunds claimed by the assessees as against their exports are their Rights but are being refused by the departmental authorities on various arguments which are of no significance and worth less. 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 the above 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 Collection of export bills and letters of credit services such as advising commission, advising amendment, confirmation charges (Section 65(105) (zm)) will not be allowed as the pre condition to avail the refund claim is that the said services must be either provided by a Banking Company or a Financial Institution or a NBFC or a Commercial Concern or any Other Body Corporate. As there is no documentary evidence in this regards, the refund claim will not be allowed.

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 collection charges in respect of export bills and letters of credit services then definitely the service received are related to export of goods and taking a liberal view the refund claims should be allowed. Further, the services received by us in this respect are received by these specified bodies only and we are enclosing the documentary evidences in this respect. Hence, 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 refund under purchase or sale of foreign currency, including money changing provided to an exporter in relation to export goods as specified under Section 65(105)(zzk) shall not be allowed as these services were not received from either a Foreign Exchange Broker or a Money changer or an Authorized Dealer of Foreign Exchange. This is the prerequisite for claiming refund claim and hence refund claim will not be allowed.

Johnny’s View:

The issue as alleged by the department is not correct and is to be avoided. It is a fact that in India only a Foreign Exchange Broker or a Money changer or an Authorized Dealer of Foreign Exchange are authorized for purchase or sale of foreign currency including money changing. Hence, the refund claim is to be allowed in its entirety. Further, we are enclosing herewith the documentary evidences that these services are being provided by one of those specified authorities. The certificate of service provider is also enclosed.

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 conditions for availing the refund claim under money changing services as specified under Section 65 (105)(zm) are that the services shall be received and used by the exporter for export of the goods and further the assessee has not availed the CENVAT Credit of service tax paid. Further, the invoices issued by the money changer 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 completely futile. We have already provided to the department the documentary evidences as regards the use of services for export of the goods. Further we submit that we have not claimed any CENVAT Credit as regards these services and we are rightly eligible for refund claim.

At the last, the view taken by the Department as regards the requirements of Rule 4A we once again submit that the department should adopt a liberal view in this regard, more to in the case of Rule 4A of Service tax rules requirements. Even the Rule has relaxed certain requirements for banking companies. Banks are Government undertaking. They work as per their documents and do not fulfill the requirements. Even the objection was not raised by audit party while conducting their audit. Moreover, in one of the case, the learned adjudication officer has allowed the cenvat credit on the basis of certificate issued by the bank. Following the same analogy, the refund should be granted as all the basic requirement of this refund scheme is fulfilled i.e. the service tax has been paid, the service is used for export goods and goods have been exported. Henceforth, the allegation of the department is pointless for disallowance of refund claim.

Fruitless again & again;

Johnny now in grief and pain!

Refund order now a dream;

His efforts have downstream!

 

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

 

This is the last article of the prolonged series of articles restraining various issues involved in the refund claim mechanism under services tax law. We hope the series of articles depicted the tangible situations faced by exporters under different services.

We will be back with new articles or their series, on various other current issues prevailing in the Indirect Tax regime. Your valuable comments and suggestions are welcomed on pradeep@capradeepjain.com.

 

*********

Comments

Post a Comment



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