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 Oct, 2007
Print   |    |  Comment

REFUND OF SERVICE TAX ON THREE MORE SERVICES ALLOWED TO EXPORTERS

 
 
ANALYSIS OF Notification No. 41/2007-SERVICE TAX, DATED 6-10-2007
 
As we all are aware that the Finance Ministry has come out with the notification of exemption of service tax to exporters after almost 9 months of announcement of such exemption by the commerce minister in Foreign Trade Policy. But the exemption was granted only for 4 services and too by way of refund.
 
Now, the CBEC has come up with a new notification no. 41/2007-ST DT. 6.10.07 in supersession of earlier notification. The three new services have been added in the list of eligible services. But number of conditions has been incorporated in the same. The salient features of the new scheme are as under:-
 
Conditions:-
 
  1. The exporter who has received and used the services for the export can only apply for the refund.
  2. The exemption will be granted by way of refund as was done in the earlier notification.
  3. The refund will be granted only when the exporter has actually paid the amount to the service provider. Thus, receipt and bank reconciliation statement has become important for claiming of the refund.
  4. No Cenvat credit should have been taken by the exporter of such services for which the refund has been applied by him.
  5. No drawback has been taken of such specified services. The drawback rates are declared by the Government only and they do not give any detail that these services are included for fixation of drawback rates. As such, it is very difficult for the exporter claiming drawback to ascertain that these services have been included in fixation of the rates of drawback. Eventually, he has to forgo the refund,
  6. No other exemption or refund of these specified services has been claimed by the exporter.
 
Procedure:-
 
i.                   The very first condition in this category that the person liable to pay service tax should pay the service tax. Thus, the exporter has to ensure that the service provider has paid the service tax. Further, it is provided that the refund will be granted to exporter and it will not be given to the service provider. But there is one exception in this regard that the person liable for payment of service tax and exporter are one and same person then the refund will be granted to him. This happens in many services as listed in Rule 2(1) (d) where service recipient and service provider are one and same person. One common example is of Goods Transported by Road.
ii.                The exporter should file the refund claim with the department. The registered manufacturer exporter will easily file the claim. If the claim is filed by merchant exporter then he has to file a declaration with the department. The Assistant Commissioner will give a Service tax code to him and thereafter he can file the refund claim.
iii.              The refund claim is to be filed on quarterly basis. It will be filed for the goods which custom officer give let export order. Normally, the department provide the six months period for filing of proof of export and one year period for rebate claim. But this claim gives only two months period. It might happen that the proofs of export are not received during this period.
iv.              The refund claim should accompany with the documents of export of goods, payment of service tax on specified services and agreement of exporter with the buyer. The documents of export of goods are already filed by the exporter along with the Annexure 19 on monthly basis. Secondly, it is very difficult to give the details of payment of service tax. As the service tax is paid by the service provider and not by the exporter. Lastly, the agreement between the buyer and exporter has no relevance for the refund claim. The exporter might not like to give the same due to fear of leakage of his trade secret. But the department will insist for the same. Thus, there is every possibility of conflict in this claim.
v.                 The Assistant Commissioner will verify the refund claim and if he is satisfied with the same then he will sanction the same to the exporter. But no time limit has been provided for the sanction of the same. Even there is no provision for the interest payment. As such, it is sweet will of the department to sanction the refund claim in this regard.
vi.              Lastly, if the payment is not received for the goods exported then the department will recover the amount from the exporter. Such type of condition does not exist in the Central Excise Act earlier. They were only concerned with the export of goods. But recovery of refund when the payment is not received has been introduced for this refund. As such the exporter has to give Bank Realization Certificate also to substantiate his claim. But the problem is that Foreign Exchange manual provides 180 days for payment but the refund provides maximum period of five months.
 
Services eligible for refund:-
 
The following services have been listed for the refund to the exporter:-
  1. General insurance services;
  2. Port services;
  3. Technical testing and analysis services;
  4. Technical inspection and certification services;
  5. Other port services;
  6. Goods transported by Road;
  7. Goods transported by Rail.
 
Out of above, four services were already eligible for refund in the earlier notification. Now, three more services have been included which are general insurance services, Technical testing and analysis services and lastly Technical inspection and certification services. The last two services will be given refund only in case where there is provision in the agreement with the buyer for the same.
 
Conclusion: -
 
 The Board has included some more services for the refund but numbers of conditions have been added to the scheme. These conditions will create undue hardship for the exporters. Even it may result in rejection of most of refunds of the exporters like condition of drawback. These problems should be resolved at the earliest. Further, the other services like commission to agents, banking and financial charges, courier charges, custom house agent charges should be included in the list of services. This inclusion will be real benefit to the exporters in such a tough time.
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