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: 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