Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Publish Date: 04 Mar, 2011
Print   |    |  Comment

Trading is exempted service now!!! published on Taxindiaonline.com

Trading is exempted services now!!!

Prepared By:
CA Pradeep Jain
CA Preeti Parihar
CA Rajani Thanvi

INTRODUCTION:-
 
The term ‘Trading’ means the act of buying and selling. It involves the selling of goods in the same form as it was purchased. Thus, no further processing is done thereupon. There are many manufacturers that are also involved in the trading of goods. Cenvat Credit is allowed only in respect of those inputs/input services which are used in the manufacture of the dutiable final products or for providing the taxable output service. Therefore, credit is not allowed except in these two cases and if taken, it has to be reversed under the provisions of rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
 
BRIEF HISTORY:-
 
Though trading activity was not specifically defined as exempted service prior to budget, 2011 yet reversal was demanded by the department if trading activity was involved. This issue arose before the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Orion Appliances Limited Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2010(019) STR 0205(Trib. Ahm)] wherein it was held that trading activity is not at all a service. Further the rule 6(2) of cenvat credit rules requires maintaining separate account only in respect of exempted service and dutiable service. Since trading activity cannot be considered a service, the question of maintenance of separate accounts does not arise. But the Ahmedabad tribunal has decided that,
 
(A) trading activity cannot be called a service and therefore it cannot be considered as an exempted service also.”
(B) Where an assessee would not be eligible to take input Service tax credit on an output which is neither a service nor excisable goods and at the same time there is no provision to cover situations where an assessee is providing a taxable service and is undertaking another activity which is neither a service nor manufacture. In such a situation the only correct legal position appears to be that it is for the appellant to choose and segregate the quantum of input service attributable to trading activity and exclude the same from the records maintained for availment of credit.
 
Hence the tribunal has held that the since trading activity is not a service, credit cannot be taken on the same. Thus, the assessee was ordered to segregate the quantum of input service attributable to trading activity and exclude the same from the Cenvat register. In order to remove the ambiguities arising out of such decisions, this budget has included the trading activity in the definition of exempted services.
 
EXEMPTED SERVICES – OLD & NEW DEFINITION:-
 
The term Exempted Services as defined in rule 2(e) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 prior to recent budget 2011 read as follows:-
 
 “exempted services” means taxable services which are exempt from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon, and includes services on which no service tax is leviable under section 66 of the Finance Act;
 
From this budget this definition has been extended as follows:-
 
““exempted services” means taxable services which are exempt from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon, and includes services on which no service tax is leviable under section 66 of the Finance Act and taxable services whose part of value is exempted on the condition that no credit of inputs and input services, used for providing such taxable service, shall be taken.
 
Explanation- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that “exempted services” includes trading.”
 
Thus, the scope of exempted services has been extended and now the taxable services whose part of value is exempted on the condition that no credit is taken shall also be included. The Trading activity has been specifically included in the definition of exempted services.
 
IMPACT OF THIS CHANGE:-
 
Since the trading activity is specifically included in the exempted services, the provisions of rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 will be attracted. Thus, the manufacturer-trader cannot take the credit on inputs/input services meant for used in trading activity. He is required to maintain separate records for availment and consumption of the inputs/input services meant for trading activity. On failure to comply with this provision, he will be either required to reverse the proportionate credit or will be required to pay an amount equal to 6% of the value of trading activity.
 
The value to be taken for this calculation will be as per explanation to rule 6(3) and (3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which reads as follows:-
 
“Explanation I. - “Value” for the purpose of sub-rules (3) and (3A),-
(a) ………
(b) ………
(c) in case of trading, shall be the difference between the sale price and the purchase price of the goods traded.”
 
Hence in case of trading activity the reversal will be made on the basis of value calculated by subtracting the purchase price from sale price. An analysis of the provision clears that every manufacturer who is doing trading activity will not be able to avail cenvat credit. If he avails the same, he is required to follow the provisions of rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
 
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS:-
 
Though, the term trading activity has been included in the definition of the exempted services; yet it is not explained as to what will be counted as a “trading activity”. In common parlance, trading activity is the sale of goods in the same form as they are purchased. Thus, if any goods that are purchased are sold as it is, it will be termed as trading activity. So, whether the removal as such of inputs will also come under the trading activity? What will be situation when the inputs/other goods are sent to the sister concern or to another unit of the assessee? Whether such clearance will also come under the trading activity? What will be situation when those goods are traded which are not inputs at all for the assessee? Since these are not inputs, credit is not available at all, so where comes the question of reversing the credit? These are the questions which are required to be answered before the litigation starts.
 
Further, we have come across a objection raised by the department in respect of hotel industry. They have asked us to reverse the cenvat credit on input services relating to sale of food and beverages in the restaurant. We are still fighting on the same. Whether it will be termed as trading activity? But the food is not sold as such. 
 
BEFORE PARTING:-
 
The government has included the trading activity in the definition of the exempted services in order to avoid the conflicts. But whether this inclusion will serve its purpose or will create new ambiguities? As there are various services which are used commonly in the manufacturing as well as trading activities such as telephone services, advertisement, security, courier, professional and banking services etc. The reversal under rule 6(3A) is already very complicated and now the Government has made it more complicated by adding the trading activity in the definition of exempted services. Ek to karela, oopar se neem chadha…

*************

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