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: 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