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: 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