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: 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