Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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