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: 14 Jul, 2014
Print   |    |  Comment

Service tax on road of taxing agricultural produce.

Service tax on road of taxing agricultural produce.

An article by:-
CA. Pradeep Jain
Prayushi Jain

 
With the budget 2014-2015 wherein amendments have been made in mega exemption notification 25/2012-ST two of the amendments relates to transportation by rail and goods transport agency of organic manure and cotton, ginned or baled. With this amendment transportation of this product has been exempted in an alike way in interim budget rice had been exempted of tax on its loading unloading, packing, storage or warehousing. The additions have to be done because of the stand taken by ex-finance minister P Chidambram that rice and cotton do not qualify in the definition of service tax as they have to be processed to become marketable. This statement had a lot of revolting from the side of people as rice is not an agricultural produce is not justified in any of the stretch of imagination.
 
Service tax had greatly changed by introduction of Negative list which initially contained 17 services which were exempt from the service tax. The relevant portion of the negative list is given below:
“Section 66D specifies following services as non taxable:
 
 
(d) services related to agriculture or agriculture produce by way of –
 
i. agricultural operations directly related to production of any agricultural produce including cultivation, harvesting, threshing, plant protection or seed testing;

ii. Supply of farm labour;
iii. processes carried out at an agricultural farm including tending, pruning, cutting, harvesting, drying, cleaning, trimming, sun drying, fumigating, curing, sorting, grading, cooling or bulk packaging and such like operations which do not alter essential characteristics of agricultural produce but make it only marketable for the primary market;
 
iv. Renting or leasing of agro machinery or vacant land with or without a structure incidental to its use;
 
v. loading, unloading, packing, storage or warehousing of agricultural produce;
 
vi. Agricultural extension services;
 
vii. Services by any Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee or Board or services provided by a commission agent for sale or purchase of agricultural produce.
 
 
Agricultural produce for this purpose is only the produce which hasn't been processed at all or has only been subjected to minor process by a cultivator or producer that doesn't alter its essential characteristics but makes the commodity ready for sale in the primary market. The paddy has to be processed in the industry into the white, brown rice which than becomes marketable. Hence they shall be taxable in Service tax.
 
 The finance minster as per the reading of law is absolutely justified but as per the practicality saying rice is not agriculture produce is a hilarious statement. Narrowing the scope of agricultural produce and making the produce taxable under service tax law is not a verified position.
 
By this budget further addition have been made in the entries of mega exemption notification which are as follows:-
 
 
(v) in entry 20, for item (j), the following items shall be substituted, namely:-
    
       “(j) chemical fertilizer, organic manure and oil cakes;
 
        (k) cotton, ginned or baled.”;
 
 
(vi) in entry 21,-
       (a) for item (e), the following item shall be substituted namely:-
          
          “(e) chemical fertilizer, organic manure and oil cakes;”;
 
    (b) after item (h), the following item shall be inserted, namely:-
            “(i) cotton, ginned or baled.”;
 
With this amendment undoubtedly cotton has been given exemption but looking from different perspective it appears that except these two other agricultural produce which required to be processed for making it marketable like pulsed, wheat and other grains, tea, coffee shall be taxable in the law of service tax. The processes are just minute ones which are generally carried out by the farmers only.  As intention of law makers was never to increase the hardships of the farmer and put the onus of tax on him therefore the inclusion of these grains in taxability sphere is just not reasonable on part of the government. The government has  always exempted the agricultural producers from every ambit of tax than the same shall be followed in service tax laws and unnecessarily the farmers should not be harassed.
 
Winding up:-
 
Therefore the amendment shall be brought into effect increasing the scope of definition of agriculture which covers up these produce and no unnecessary hardships are brought into. Revenue will take no time in alleging the producers and the processors of these grains to deposit the tax. This will just increase the rounds of litigations and appeals.
 

 
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