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: 24 Sep, 2010
Print   |    |  Comment

Johnny and Service Tax Refund [Series-II] - Part 1: 'Invoice'

 

Johnny and Service Tax Refund [Series- II]

Part 1: ‘INVOICE’

 

                                                                        Prepared By: -                       

CA. Pradeep Jain

Mayank Palgauta

 

We have already written one complete series of articles for the refund of service tax to exporters under notification no. 41/2007-ST.  The litigation on the same is still going on. The Government has come up with the new notification no. 17/2009-ST dated 7th July, 2009 to make the scheme simple so that the refund is available to the exporters conveniently. But there is no sign of relief for the exporters. They are still struggling to get the refund from the department. With this second series of the articles, an effort has been made to bring out the misery of exporters. This also brings out the present situation existing in the refund structure mechanism under Service tax. This state of affair also is elaborated with the means of poems and conversation between Johnny (an assessee) and his father.

 

Johnny and Jill went up the hill, to get the refund order
Johnny came back with a lack
And Jill came hopeless after.

 

Today, in the present scenario also, the poor exporter is still facing enormous difficulty in getting refund orders as stated in the lines above. There is no radical change has taken place even after the change of total scheme by the Government. The refund claims are the Right of the exporters but the department is rejecting these claims on various grounds which are of trivial importance. This resulted in frustration and skepticism among exporters as regards the Refund mechanism. The one of the conditions relating to INVOICE on which the department is rejecting the refund claim on various services mentioned in the Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 7th July, 2009 (herein after referred to as said notification) are highlighted here by means of poetic conversation: -

 

Johnny-Johnny!  Yes papa!

Got the refund?

No Papa,

Telling lies?

 No Papa,

What’s the reason?

This papa: -

 

Johnny says:  I went to department to get the refund on various invoices issued by service providers under said notification but department said: -

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

 

In relation to refund claim filed by the exporters, they require the original invoices. It is told to them that the original invoices are required by various departments. Hence the same cannot be given to you. But the department is saying that it is condition of the notification and it cannot be relaxed. We said that we can show the same to you and you compare the same with Xerox copies given by us to you along with refund claim. Then give the same back to us per bearer. But they did not agree. They say that the condition has been imposed so that the double refund claim is not taken by you on the same invoice. We have told that you can put a seal on these original invoices saying that the refund is claimed, not to be used again. But they did not agree and told that it is condition precedent for claiming the refund that the original invoices should be submitted with us. We were helpless and submitted the original invoices. We were hopeful of getting the refund thereafter. But we were not aware of the fact that we are dealing with revenue department who can collect the crores of rupees but cannot give small refund claim. The second objection was raised by them

 

Johnny-Johnny!  Yes papa!

Got the refund?

No Papa,

Telling lies?

 No Papa,

What’s the reason?

This papa: -

 

Johnny says:  I went to department to get the refund on various invoices issued by service providers under said notification but department said: -

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

 

All the original Invoices issued by a service providers like Custom House Agent for CHA services or by a Cleaning and Forwarding Agent for cleaning and forwarding services should have certificate as mentioned the notification 17/2009. In this endorsement the assessee has to certify that the services mentioned in the invoices have issued to the assessee; the service tax has been paid thereon by the assessee and said services have been utilized in export of goods under the particular shipping bill no. and its date. We have told them that we have made a rubber stamp of this certificate and put it on Xerox copy of the invoice. But they said that the same should be put on the original invoice. We have told that the original invoice is required by many department and auditors. Hence, we will use them for various purposes after the same is returned to us. But they did not agree and told that the same should be put on the original invoice. We have no option but to agree their demand. After the seal was put on original invoice, we asked for the refund. But the department came with the next arrow. He has told that you have written in rubber stamp the category of service, shipping bill number and date is as per table annexed to refund claim. But the shipping bill number, category of service should be mentioned on the invoice only. We have learnt from past experience that we have no option before the department but to abide by the things as told to us. Hence, we followed their instructions and corrected all the invoices in the hope of service tax refund claim. The assessee submits that the reference of all the Shipping Bills and its date has already given in tabular form with refund claim application. Thus the demand of mentioning the reference of the same in each and every invoice of the service providers has ridiculous point.

  

Johnny says:  I went to the department next day again with the corrections but department rejected saying: -

Johnny-Johnny go away,

You won’t get refund anyway.
It has following more flay: -

The invoices of various service providers have not prepared under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 as many of invoices are not serially numbered; some invoices do not have the Service tax Registration no. of service providers and some of them are not having the description of service provided during the course of Export of goods. Even the same is not mentioned in the table annexed to the refund claim. Furthermore, the same is not mentioned in certificate endorsed on the face of invoice. We pleaded that when the service provider has not mentioned the above details in his invoices then how we can know the above information like under which category the service provider is providing the services. Further, we argued that since these mistakes have not done on our part, the refund should not be denied on these ridiculous grounds which are beyond the control of the assessee.

 

Unrewarding again & again;

Johnny now in grief and pain!

‘Refund Order’ now a dream;

His efforts have downstream!

 

Johnny’s contention:-

To fulfillment of the condition of submitting ORIGINAL INVOICES to the department, we have produced all the ORIGINAL invoices of all the service providers at the time of refund but these have not come back to the our custody as the department contending that they will keep them for the purpose of refund claim. They contend that even after the refund is sanctioned or rejected then the file will go for audit and the department has to send the original invoices to audit wing or review wing. Thereafter, if the appeal is filed then they will keep the invoices with them.  

 

Seeing these erroneous interruptions, obstacles and arguments taken by the department, the exporter-assessee wants to say one sentence to the Government that “HATHI KE DANTH KHAANE KE AUR, DIKHAANE KE AUR” because on one point the Board is issuing the exemption notifications for promoting the Export of goods outside India and on the other side Revenue department is not happy to sanction the refund claim.

 

At the end all the exporters, whose refund claim is under evolution from extensive time period, raise one question that why the Finance Minister is not exempting the exporters from payment of service tax itself in order to remove these types of silly troubles which became a big barrier thereafter. They require straight forward exemption rather than exemption by way of refund.

 

By this humorous and poetic article above we conclude that the physical condition and mental state of assesses claiming refunds against export of goods is similar to that of Johnny in the poem. Every time the assessee is approaching the department his refund claims are being rejected on some or the other flaws. He has to return fruitless, hopeless with his futile efforts thinking whether he will be getting the refund or not. 

 

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 attached conditions with each service. Due to the large number of conditions we were not able to cover all the conditions in this article and hence we will be bringing further articles on the different conditions covered therein.

 

Keep visiting for the next article……..

 

*******

 

 

Comments

  • S.L.Bansal on 29 September, 2010 wrote:

    Excellent job. Such type of ineffecient officers should be prosecuted. In fact they are criminal and corrupt officers who do not impliment tghe law in proper spirit. Such type of issues should be raised before the Commisioner,Chief Commisioner who visits our places ,instead of garlending them. S.L.Bansal
  • S.L.Bansal on 29 September, 2010 wrote:

    Excellent job. Such type of ineffecient officers should be prosecuted. In fact they are criminal and corrupt officers who do not impliment tghe law in proper spirit. Such type of issues should be raised before the Commisioner,Chief Commisioner who visits our places ,instead of garlending them. S.L.Bansal

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