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: 11 Jan, 2010
Print   |    |  Comment

One circular-many solutions

 

One circular - many solutions

 

Prepared By:-

CA Pradeep Jain

Sukhvinder Kaur, LLB (FYIC)

And Siddharth Rutiya

 

Introduction: -

 

The concept of service tax which was introduced in the year 1994 is still evolving. There are a lot of issues involved which need resolution. The service provided by the Custom House Agent (CHA) which was made a taxable service on June 15th, 1997 is also marred with many problems.

 

Custom House Agent Service - An Overview: -

 

The service of CHA is taxable under Section 65 (105) (h) of the Finance Act, 1994. The said provision reads as under:

 

“(h) to any person by a custom house agent in relation to the entry or departure of conveyances or the import & export of goods.”

 

Thus, the services undertaken by CHA which is in relation to the entry or departure of conveyances or the import and export of goods is a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994.

 

Issues involved: -

 

In these CHA services, during the import or export of goods, apart from the service of CHA there are various other services which are involved like the port services, terminal handling service, cargo handling service, cleaning or fumigation of containers services etc. In most cases, it is the CHA who is dealing with the service providers providing these services on behalf of their customer. The CHA even hires the service providers providing these services for the customer. Thereafter, he charges the same from the customers. There are number of disputes arising due to the same. These are discussed below:-

 

1.     Valuation of services: - The very first question is whether the services rendered by others will be includible in the taxable value of CHA. Whether he has to pay tax on the same?

 

2.      Allowability of credit: - The service of the CHA and the service providers providing the cargo handling, cleaning, port and other port services are providing the service to the importer/exporter. In many cases, the service providers are raising the bill to the CHA which is not in the name of the customer. In such cases, whether the credit availed by the customer is admissible? In most of the cases the CHA reimburses the service providers and in turn collects the said charges from the customer. It is also a practice that the CHA when issues his own bill to the customer, he attaches the bills of the service providers with his bills but does not include the said amount billed to him by the service providers in his own bill. Also, the CHA may be sending the photocopy of the invoices of the service providers with his bill. The question of admissibility of cenvat credit can arise in such cases.

 

 

3.     Refund of service tax to exporters: - The refund of services provided by CHA in relation to export of goods, is to be refunded to the exporters. If the CHA includes documentation charges, Terminal Handling charges and BL charges in his invoice and charges service tax on complete amount then the department says that these are not CHA agency Commission but the port charges. But since the CHA is not registered under the port services then refund is not admissible.

 

We will be discussing these provisions one by one.

 

VALUATION: -

 

The Board Circular F.No.B-43/1/97-TRU, dated 06.06.1997 had clarified that the service tax would be charged on the 'service charges only' and statutory levy and other reimbursable charges would not be included in the taxable value. It was also provided that in case there are lump sum payments towards the reimbursable as well as service charges, service tax would be charged on 15% of the gross value only.

 

Then in the year 2006, the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules were prescribed and the concept of 'pure agent' was brought. It was provided that expenditure or costs incurred by the service provider as pure agent alone will be eligible for exclusion from taxable value.

 

However, the disputes arose as to which services should be included for being available to the pure agent and which services should be excluded. There were different practices being followed by the CHAs regarding the documentation and records. To settle these disputes, now the Board has issued a new clarificatory Circular.

 

The Circular No. 119/13/2009-ST, dated 21.12.09 has been issued by the Board clarifying that exclusion of charges from the assessable value should be allowed to such charges from the taxable value of CHA services, where the prescribed conditions are fulfilled. These conditions are as under: -

 

a) The activity/service for which a charge is made should be in addition to provision of CHA service (as mentioned in paragraph 1);

 

b) There should be arrangement between the customer & the CHA which authorizes or allows the CHA to

 

(i)                arrange for such activities/services for the customer; and

(ii)             make payments to other service providers on his behalf;

 

c) The CHA does not use the activities /services for his own benefit or for the benefit of his other customers;

 

d) The CHA recovers the reimbursements on 'actual' basis i.e. without any mark-up or margin. In case of CHA includes any markup or profit margin on any service, then the entire charge (and not the mark-up alone) for that particular activity/ service shall be included in the taxable value;

 

e) CHA should provide evidence to prove nexus between the other (than CHA) services provided and the reimbursable amounts. It is not necessary such evidence should bear the name or address of the customer. Any other evidence like BE No./Container No./ BL No./ packing lists is acceptable for the establishment of such nexus. Similar would be the case for statutory levies, charges by carriers and custodians, insurance agencies and the like;

 

f) Each charge for separate activities/services is to be covered either by a separate invoice or by a separate entry in a common invoice (showing the charges against each entry separately) issued by the CHA to his customer. In the latter case, if certain entries do not satisfy the conditions mentioned herein, the charges against those entries alone should be added back to the taxable value;

 

g) Any other miscellaneous or out of pocket expenses charged by the CHA would be includable in the taxable value for the purposes of charging tax on CHA services.

 

These conditions will be applicable for services provided with effect from 19th April 2006, i.e. after the introduction of the valuation rules. It has been provided in the Circular that for the prior period, the taxable value should be determined in accordance with the prevailing instructions issued by the Board at that time i.e. before the introduction of valuation rules.

 

This is a welcome step from the Board in reducing the fog of issues surrounding the assessee. Now, the litigation regarding which charges are to be included in the assessable value of the CHA and which not will be reduced considerably. Some long awaited relief has been granted to the assessees. But the issue is not settled completely here. There are number of conditions attached to the same. The department can twist these conditions and disputes can arise on the same. For example, one condition is that there should be arrangement between assessee and CHA. It can be verbal or written. But the department may insist on written agreement which is practically absent.

 

Furthermore, if there is mark up which is normally the case then the CHA has to pay the service tax on whole amount and this will not be acceptable to importer or exporters. This will clearly reveal that he has charged the extra amount from them. Thus, it will be very difficult position for the CHA. However, in next points, we will discuss that the exporters or manufacturers will also be benefited if the CHA charges service tax on complete amount.

 

CENVAT CREDIT ON CHA BILLS:-

 

Another issue involved is regarding availability of cenvat credit. It is a general practice that the CHA is submitting his bill and is attaching the bills of other service providers providing the other services. The problem arising is that the bill issued by these service providers is not in the name of manufacturer but is in the name of the CHA. So, the manufacturer cannot take credit of service tax on such bills and if they take credit then the department raises objections regarding admissibility of the credit on the ground that the bill is not in manufacturer’s name. One solution to this problem suggested was that the CHA office should be registered as service tax distributor and pass on the credit to the manufacturer. But it was proved totally wrong. Firstly, the office of manufacturer can be registered as service tax distributor. Since the bill is not in the name of manufacturer but in the name of CHA and as such the problem exists. Also, if the CHA office is registered as service tax distributor then number of registrations will be issued to office of CHA as he will be dealing with many clients.

 

Secondly, the practice being followed by the CHA is that they do not attach the original bills with their own bill to the manufacturer but are attaching Xerox copies to the same. Again the problem arises for the manufacturer for taking cenvat credit as credit is not admissible on the Xerox copy of the invoice under the Rules. If the CHA pays the service tax and takes credit then will such credit be available to the manufacturer?

 

The solution is that the name and address of the manufacturer should appear in the invoice as the service recipient as per conditions stated in the Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and the manufacturer should directly pay the service tax to the said service providers, then credit of service tax will be available to him. But it is not practical solution. The second and good solution is that the CHA takes the credit on these invoices and add some mark up and charge the same in his bill to the assessee. He will pay the service tax on complete amount. In this way, the CHA and the assessee both will be happy. The CHA will get the mark up and assessee will avail the credit.  

 

REFUND OF SERVICE TAX TO EXPORTERS:-

 

Another issue is with regard to refund of service tax paid on services utilised for export of goods. The Government has granted refund of service tax paid on specified services utilised in relation to export of goods. The scheme is provided vide Notification No. 41/2007-ST, dated 06.10.07 as amended from time to time. This Notification has been superseded now by Notification No. 17/2009-ST, dated 07.07.2009. The specified services include the service provided by the CHA.

 

For the CHA services, the said Notification prescribes the following conditions: -

 

“The exporter shall produce,-

 

(i) invoice issued by customs house agent for providing customs house agent services in relation to export goods exported by the exporter specifying:

a) number and date of shipping bill,

b) description of export goods,

c) number and date of the invoice issued by the exporter relating to export goods,

d) details of all the charges, whether or not reimbursable, collected by the customs house agent from the exporter in relation to export goods,

 

(ii) details of other taxable services provided by the said customs house agents for providing and received by the exporter, whether or not relatable to export goods.”

 

However, it is not a normal practice of the CHAs to mention these details in their invoices and if any one detail is missing then the department is denying the grant of refund of service tax to the exporter. Also, the refund is not given on the Port charges like the B/L charges, Documentation charges, THC charges etc charged by the CHA on the ground that these services do not fall under the CHA services. But these fall under the port services. Now, since the Board has clarified that if the CHA adds some mark up then he can charge the same in his bill from the customer and pay the service tax on complete amount. If he does so then it will fall under CHA service only. Thus, the ground raised by the department will be rejected by this Circular and exporter will be able to get the refund of service tax paid on these amounts if charged in the invoice of CHA.

 

Comments & Conclusion:  

 

With this circular, not only the dispute of valuation has been sorted out but it will solve the many problems faced by CHA and exporters/importers. The manufacturer will be able to take the cenvat credit after this circular and the exporters will be able to get the refund from the department. As such, this circular of the Board has done many things. A Hindi proverb can be very well said for this circular “EK PANT DO KAAJ” (one work is done and it has resulted in two solutions). But this circular has exceeded this proverb and has resulted in many solutions. This might have happened because it was issued for CHAs who also do many jobs for their clients.

 

*********

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