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: 23 Jul, 2014
Print   |    |  Comment

Rule 7 of Point of Taxation Rules: Reducing the time limit from 6 months to 3 months does not pain m

Rule 7 of Point of Taxation Rules: Reducing the time limit from 6 months to 3 months does not pain much

An article by:-
CA. Pradeep Jain
CA. Preeti Parihar
Manish Bhati

Introduction:-

Point of Taxation means the point in time when a service shall be deemed to have been provided and service tax is required to be paid on that point of time. The provisions related to determination of point of taxation under different situations have been prescribed under a separate set of rules namely the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011. This article revolves round the changes made by budget, 2014 in the Point of Taxation rules pertaining to the most typical concept of service tax law, i.e. the Reverse Charge Mechanism.

 
Situation prior to Budget, 2014:-
As per Rule 7 of Point of taxation rules 2011 as it existed prior to announcement of budget, where any person receiving the service is liable to pay tax instead of service provider then point of taxation shall,:-

“Where the payment is made within a period of 6 months of the date of invoice then the Point of taxation, be the date on which Payment is made."
Provided that where the payment is not made within a period of 6 months of the date of the invoice then the point of taxation shall be determined as if this rule does not exist and point of taxation shall be determined according to rule 3 of Point of taxation Rules 2011.

According to Rule 3 of point of taxation rules 2011, point of taxation shall be:-

(a)   Where Invoice is issued with in specified time period specified in rule 4A of the service tax rules 1994 (Rule 4A of Service tax rules 1994 as produced below) then the Point of taxation shall be the time when the invoice for the service provided or to be provided is issued.

(b)  Where invoice is not issued with in specified time period specified in rule 4A of Service Tax Rule 1994, then the point of taxation shall be the date of completion of provision of the service. Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 states that the provider of taxable service is required to issue the invoice within 30 days (14 days upto 31.03.2012) from the date of completion of service. 
Thus, according to rule 7 of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 as it stood prior to announcement of budget, the date of payment shall be the Point of taxation provided the payment is made to the service provider within six months from the date of invoice. If there is any failure to make the payment within the 6 months of date of invoice, then the point of taxation shall fall on a back date as per rule 3 of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011; i.e. the date of invoice or date of completion of service, as the case may be. Thus, failure to make the payment to service provider will take the Point of Taxation to back date and in that case service receiver has to pay service tax along with interest from the date of invoice or date of completion of service upto the date of actual payment.

 
 
Situation after Budget, 2014:-
With the announcement of Budget, 2014; Notification No. 13/2014-ST dated 11th July, 2014 has issued to amend the aforesaid rule 7 of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011. As per amended Rule 7, where any person receiving the service is liable to pay tax instead of service provider then point of taxation shall,:-

“Where the payment is made within a period of 3 months of the date of invoice, be the date on which Payment is made.
Provided that where the payment is not made within a period of 3 months of the date of the invoice then the point of taxation shall be the date immediately following the said period of 3 months.”

Thus, according to new provision, in case of Reverse charge, the point of taxation shall be the date of payment only if the payment is made within three months of the date of invoice. If the payment is not made within three months from the date of invoice, the point of taxation shall be the date just after the expiry of this period of three months. For eg. the date of issue of invoice is 1.8.2014. If the payment is made on or before 31.10.2014, the point of taxation shall be that date. However, if no payment is made upto this date, the point of taxation shall be 1.11.2014. The service tax for this point of taxation has to be paid upto 5.12.2014. If the payment is made after this date, say on 9.1.2015; the interest will be required to be paid for the period from 5.12.2014 to 9.1.2015.

 
Transitional Provision:-
The switching over to new rule has been facilitated by inserting a new rule 10 to Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 as a transitional provision. This rule has been inserted vide the notification no. 13/2014-ST and it reads as follows:-

“10. Notwithstanding anything contained in the first proviso to rule 7, if the invoice in respect of a service, for which point of taxation is determinable under rule 7 has been issued before the 1st day of October, 2014 but payment has not been made as on the said day, the point of taxation shall,–
(a) if payment is made within a period of six months of the date of invoice, be the date on which payment is made;
(b) if payment is not made within a period of six months of the date of invoice, be determined as if rule 7 and this rule do not exist.”

 The analysis of this rule makes it ample clear that if an invoice for the service covered under Reverse charge has been issued before 1.10.2014; the point of taxation shall be determined according to rule 7 as it existed before the issuance of notification no. 13/2014-ST. Thus, the old provisions will continue to be applicable and the new provision will be applicable for the invoices issued after this notification comes into force, i.e. from 1.10.2014.

 
Winding up:-

Amendment in the rule 7 of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 gives somewhat relief, in respect of payment of interest, to defaulter service receivers; who do not make payment of invoice within prescribed period. The old provision shifted the point of taxation to the earlier date in case of failure to pay the invoice within a period of six months. This attracted huge amount of interest which will substantially reduce with the amended provision. Though the time limit for making the payment to service provider has been halved, yet the relief from payment of interest from back date is a welcome step looking to the fact that this budget has drastically increased the interest rates in case of delay in payment of service tax.
 

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