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: 18 Mar, 2016
Print   |    |  Comment

SERVICE TAX ASSESSEES TO FILE ANNUAL RETURN

SERVICE TAX ASSESSEES TO FILE ANNUAL RETURN

An article by:-
CA Pradeep Jain
CA Neetu Sukhwani &
Neelam Jain

 
Introduction:-
Although, with the government resorting to implement unified taxation regime GST in near future, it was hoped that the number of returns to be filed by an assessee would reduce substantially and this has been done in case of Central Excise Assessees which is highly appreciated by the trade and industry. However, at the same time, service tax assessees will be required to file Annual Return in addition to the half yearly returns presently filed by them. This has been done by amending Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 which will be applicable with effect from 01.04.2016. This article is an attempt to analyse the probable consequences of the amendment.
 
Glimpse of the Amendment:-Vide notification no. 19/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016, the Central Government has amended the Rule 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 by inserting certain new sub rules after sub rule (3) which read as follows:-
“(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), every assessee shall submit an annual return for the financial year to which the return relates, in such form and manner as may be specified in the notification in the Official Gazette by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, by the 30th day of November of the succeeding financial year;
(3B) The Central Government may, subject to such conditions or limitations, specify by notification an assessee or class of assesses who may not be required to submit the annual return referred to in sub-rule(3A).”
Apart from this, amendments have been made in Rule 7B in order to facilitate revision of annual returns and in Rule 7C so as to impose late fees in case of delay in filing of annual return which is specified as amount calculated at the rate of one hundred rupees per day for the period of delay subject to maximum of twenty thousand rupees.
 
Analysis of the Amendment:-
·        Every assessee shall file an annual return in prescribed form. Government may exempt class of assessees who may not be required to submit annual return subject to conditions of limitations prescribed in the notification. It is pertinent to note that as per Notification no. 17/2006-C.E. (N.T.) dated 01.08.2006 as amended by Notification no. 42/2008-C.E. (N.T.), a Central Excise Assessee, who has paid duty of excise less than one hundred lakh rupees during the financial year to which Annual Financial Information Statement relates is exempted from filing the said statement in Form ER-4 that is required to be filed latest by 30th November of the succeeding year as per the provisions of Rule 12(2)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Accordingly, it may be hoped that similar exemption is provided to service tax assessees based on the quantum of service tax paid in a financial year. However, as the small scale exemption limit in excise is much higher than that prevalent in service tax, there is possibility that the limit of service tax payment may be specified on lower side.
 
·        The last date for filing of annual return is 30th November of the succeeding financial year with the option to revise the return within one month from the date of filing of original return. The provision enabling revision of return is welcomed.
·        Late filing of annual return will invite late fees at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day during the period of delay subject to maximum of Rs. 20,000/-
 
Before Parting:-
Although, the requirement of Annual Return is akin to the ER-4 return to be filed by Central Excise assessees, but there will be substantial difference in the details to be submitted in the annual return filed by the service tax assessees. Moreover, in service tax laws, not only service providers but service receivers are also liable to pay service tax under special circumstances which is commonly known as ‘reverse charge mechanism’ or ‘partial charge mechanism’. Consequently, the assessees paying service tax under ‘reverse charge mechanism’ should be exempted from filing Annual Returns as the return would normally require assessees to provide information as regards income/expenditure incurred by them. 

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