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: 17 Mar, 2012
Print   |    |  Comment

Section 80A - Another way to trap Renting service providers

Section 80A – Another way to trap Renting service providers..

Prepared By:
CA Preeti Parihar
Manish Vyas

Introduction-
 
Service tax on “Renting of immovable property” service was introduced w.e.f. 1.6.2007. That time the language of charging Section 65(105)(zzzz) to the Finance Act, 1994 suggested that taxable service in this case would be service provided “in relation to” renting of immovable property. Thus, at that time the services provided in relation renting of immovable property were chargeable to service tax. Renting in itself was not chargeable to service tax.
 
Litigation rounds:-
 
Later on, after huge claws of litigation, Government amended this Section retrospectively in the Finance Act, 2010. Now, service tax was specifically levied on the “renting of immovable property service”. As such, this amendment brought the renting per se under the net of service tax; that too, retrospectively since levy, irrespective of anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority.
 
Even after the retrospective amendment, litigation continued and Delhi high Court has granted stay from recovery of Service Tax in respect of renting of immovable property service in the case of Home Solutions Retails Ltd Vs UoI [2010-TIOL-341-HC-DEL-ST]. It was held that renting of immovable property by itself cannot be regarded as a service. The recovery of service tax thereupon was stayed by the hon’ble High Court.
 
Trent Limited & Future Value Retail Ltd. challenged the validity of the retrospective amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2010. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has stayed the recovery of service tax for the period June 1, 2007 to March 31, 2010 as decided in TrentLtd. v. Union of India and Others [2010-TIOL-402-HC-AP-ST]. But the verdicts of hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court that service tax is not leviable for the period from 1.6.2007 to 1.4.2010. 
 
Further, Delhi High court in the case of Home solutions Retail vs UOI has observed that the government should examine about the waiver of penalty due to non-payment of service tax in this matter. Subsequently, in the case of Retailers Association of India vs UOI, hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the litigants to pay 50% of the arrears within six months in three equal installments. For balance 50%, it was directed to furnish solvent surety at the satisfaction of the jurisdictional commissioner.
 
Section 80A introduced by Budget, 2012-
 
In the above background, the recent Budget has introduced a Section 80A for waiver of penalty subject to following conditions –
 
-                     Service tax due on renting of immovable property service is paid within a period of six month along with interest.
-                     The amount of service tax due will be as on 6.3.2012.
 
Thus, if the service tax due as on 6.3.2012 is paid within six months, the penalty will be waived. However, those who don’t avail this benefit, this Section will be treated as non-existent for them.
 
While parting-
 
Right now, the constitutional validity of Renting of immovable property service is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Retailers Association of India v/s UOI in Civil Appeal No. 8390 of 2011 and in the case of Home Solutions Retail (India) Ltd v/s UoI in Special Leave Civil Appeal No. 27636/2011. But before the Apex Court decided this issue, government is once again ready to convince the providers of renting service to pay the service tax and availment the benefit of penalty waiver. Payment of the service tax on renting of immovable property service means they have accepted the levy. It seems government want to trap the renting service providers in the other way – this is Section 80A …
 

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