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: 08 Sep, 2015
Print   |    |  Comment

THERE IS RATE CHANGE # RETURN UTILITY # NO MORE UTILITY

THERE IS RATE CHANGE # RETURN UTILITY # NO MORE UTILITY
 

An article by:-
CA. Pradeep Jain
CA. Preeti Parihar
CA. Vaibhav Bothra
 

Introduction:-
“Online” - the most used word in modern world; whether it is a “person” or a “procedure”, everyone and everything is online now. Compliance procedures of most of the legal provisions have become online, somewhere it is optional and somewhere it is mandatory. In the service tax too, concept of online filing of return was first introduced for big taxpayers; w.e.f. 1.10.2011. Since then, the service tax return utility has been a classical example of both efficient data compiler and technical hurdles. The Service tax which itself is so much complicated containing a plethora of provisions, becomes scarier when a rate change takes effect. This becomes even more mind boggling when the rate change happens in between of a year. The after effects of this rate change proved a pain most when filing the service tax return. This article explains this pain of tax payers.
 
Analysis of legal provisions:-
The change in rate of service tax is the most complicated thing faced by the assessees. Last change in the service tax rate was in the year 2012-13 which was perhaps the most complicated change as there was transformation of service tax law by way of introduction of negative list concept. However, since then, things have simplified much as the transitional period has passed. Here, in this article, we are talking about the effect of rate change while filing the service tax return online. Before coming to the point, it would be better to discuss the provisions applicable in case of change in the rate of service tax. According to Point of Taxation Rules, 2011; if any advance is received against a service to be provided in future, the service tax is to be paid at the time of receipt of such advance. However, if the service is not yet provided and invoice is also not issued and there is change in rate of service tax; the service tax has to paid on the entire value as per new rate. Thus, the advance on which tax was earlier paid with old rate; will now be subject to new rate. This can be understood with the help of following example:-
Advance Received                         Rs. 50000/-
Date of advance                             1.4.2015
Service tax rate                               12.36%
Service tax paid on 5.5.2015      50000 * 12.36% = Rs. 6180/-.
Change in rate of service tax       1.6.2015
New rate of service tax                 14%
Date of provision of service        1.7.2015
Date of issue of invoice                5.7.2015
In above case, since the provision of service and issue of invoice (i.e. two events) are after the change in rate; new rate will be applicable on the entire service value. Thus, now the service tax payable on advance will be calculated as follows:-
50000*14% = Rs. 7000/-.
Since service tax of Rs. 6180/- has already been paid by 5.5.2015; differential service tax of Rs. 820/- (being 7000-6180) would be now payable.
The question is how and where this differential service tax of Rs. 820/- will be represented in the ST-3 return.
 
History of problems in return utility:-
In 2012-2013, the return utility (July-Sept)  had the facility of inserting an additional row and mentioning that differential rate of tax; thereby showing the additional tax to be paid in a particular month for a particular service. It had the facility of inserting any rate irrespective of the fact that statutory rate of service tax applicable as on date is different. Thus, in the given example, in the year 2012-13; we could show both the transactions of taxes paid and rates applied. There was facility in the return utility to consider the change in the rate of service tax and all the relevant details could be presented by way of inserting a new row below the main details.
Later on, the return utilities have undergone changes. In the later period till now, the return utility does not accept any rate other than the statutory rate applicable. Thus, now, if one tries to enter any rate other than the rate applicable as on date, the utility does not accept the same and the return gets void. Thus the return filer has to strictly follow the application of statutory rate only. For this the data of that particular period had to be adjusted so that net tax paid for that particular period could be arrived in the return.
 
Rate change w.e.f. 1.6.2015:-
W.e.f. 01/06/2015, the rate of service tax has been increased to 14% from 12.36%. Thus, a no. of assessees who have received advances and have already paid service tax on the same with old rate; will now be required to pay the differential tax. It is worth noting here that the last few return utilities are not accepting the rate of tax if it is other than statutory rate. However, since there was no change in the rate of service tax during this period, this problem did not come in limelight. Now, when there is change in service tax rate, again, the same problem would be faced since there will be two sets of service tax rates applicable for the same taxable service and no mechanism in the online utility to display the same.
 
While parting:-
Online filing has made the life of tax payers easier and hassle free; however, at the same time one or other fault in the return utility creates the hassle and it becomes a tough job to file the returns online. One such fault is being discussed in this article which can create problems in the coming month. There is still time in the due date of filing the ST-3 return. The authorities can manage to update the return utility as soon as possible. If it is not updated, a no. of online return filers will be harassed with no fault at their end.

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