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: 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