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: 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