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: 30 Jun, 2012
Print   |    |  Comment

Works Contract - Negative List- Unanswered Questions

 

WORKS CONTRACT - NEGATIVE LIST- UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

 

An article by:-
 
CA. PRADEEP JAIN
CA. PREETI PARIHAR

 
Introduction:-
 
Service tax on Works Contract was introduced on 1.6.2007. Starting with an attractive rate of 2% service tax on the composite value of both material & labour, today it has reached the rate of 4.8% w.e.f. 1.4.2012. Under the current scheme, the works contract covers only immovable properties, however, in order to bring it up to the proposed negative list; the definition of works contract has been amended so as to include the movable properties also. Further the reverse charge mechanism is also extended to it. This article revolves around the enhanced scope of the works contract service under negative list scenario.
 
New definition of works contract:-
 
The new definition of works contract has been given under section 65B(54) of the Finance Act, 1994 which reads as follows:-
 
“Works Contract means a contract wherein transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods and such contract is for the purpose of carrying out construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration of any movable or immovable property or for carrying out any other similar activity or a part thereof in relation to such property.”
 
Thus, the definition that was proposed in the Finance Bill, 2012 did not include the movable properties but the definition that is being given in the Finance Act, 2012 includes the services related to movable properties also.
 
Scope of Works contract service under negative list:-
 
The definition of works contract service encompasses a wide range of services like construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration and other such services. Some of these activities are purely related to immovable properties like construction, erection, installation, etc. However, some of these activities can be carried out on both movable and immovable properties like the repairs, renovation, maintenance, etc.  
 
Under the negative list, the specified categories have been demolished and scope of the works contract has been enhanced so as to include movable properties also. Now, many of the services related to movable properties under current scheme involving the material therein like Authorized service station, repairs and maintenance services, Photography services, etc. will fall under works contract service in the negative list scheme provided the material involved therein is leviable to VAT/sales tax. This will cover cases where the authorized service station does the repairing of a car and supplies any part thereof. Hence it is a composite contract where both service and material value is involved and as such will be covered under the works contract. Thus, the annual maintenance contracts involving the material alongwith service will also fall under the purview of works contract under negative list and will be chargeable to service tax @ 4.8%.
 
Valuation of works contract service:-
 
In the new scheme of negative list, the valuation of Works Contract is to be done in accordance with the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. For this purpose, rule 2A is being inserted which specifies the steps for valuing the works contract service. This rule lays down following fundamentals for its valuation:-
 
Ø    Value of Works Contract = Gross amount charged – Value of transfer of property in goods. However, VAT or Sales Tax is not includible in the value of material supplied.
 
Ø    Value of Works contract service shall include the labour charges, amount paid to sub-contractor for labour and services, charges for planning, designing and architect’s fees, hire charges for machinery and tools, cost of consumables like water, electricity, fuel, etc., cost of establishment of contractor relatable to supply of labour and services, profit earned in relation to supply of labour and services.
 
Ø    In the cases where VAT has been paid on ACTUAL value of transfer of property in goods, then this value will considered while calculating the value of Works Contract.
 
Ø    If the VAT is not paid on the ACTUAL value, “the person liable to pay tax on service portion involved in the execution of works contract” will calculate the same as follows:-
 
(i)                In, works contract for original works, service tax will be payable on 40% of total amount charged;
(ii)              In works contract for maintenance/repairs/ reconditioning/ restoration/ servicing of any goods, service tax will be payable on 70% of total amount charged.
(iii)            In case of other works contract (like maintenance, repair, completion and finishing services such as glazing, plastering, floor and wall tiling, installation of electrical fittings of an immovable property)not covered in above two clauses, service tax will be payable on 60% of total amount charged.
For the purpose of valuation,
 
·        "original works" means all new constructions; additions and alterations to abandoned or damaged structures on land that are required to make them workable; erection, commissioning or installation of plant, machinery or equipment or structures, whether pre-fabricated or otherwise.
 
·        Total amount =  Gross amount charged for works contract + fair market value of goods and services supplied free of cost under same/any other contract – Amount charged for such goods and services – VAT/Sales tax
 
Under existing scheme of works contract, an option has been given to the assessees either to opt for composition scheme or pay the service tax at full rate on service portion after deducting the material value from total amount. Even option is also available for the services related to movable properties like authorized service station, photography service, repairs and maintenance services, etc. in form of notification no. 12/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003. Under this notification, if the value of material is identifiable and charged separately in the invoice, it is deductible and service tax is payable only on the service portion. This notification is available as an option, but it is being deleted in view of negative list. However, under current scheme, the model of this notification is being carried forward as a mandate, not as an option.
 
In other words, under works contract, the option of paying service tax on the basis of a fixed percentage is only available if the VAT has not been paid on the material on actual basis. If this condition is satisfied only then, the assessee can pay the service tax on a fixed percentage over the gross amount charged. Thus, the scheme of option with assessees has been taken away under negative list. The department will always ask for telling the exact amount of material used which is impossible. Even under the VAT, the assesses were not able to tell the exact amount of material in works contract. Thus, the composition scheme was introduced. The option either to pay the tax on value of service or under the composition scheme should be restored in works contract to avoid unnecessary litigation.
 
Reverse charge method extended to works contract:-
 
Alongwith changes in the spirit of works contract by amending the definition, the reverse charge method has also been extended to the works contract service. Under notification no. 15/2012-ST dated 17.3.2012, it is prescribed that the 50% service tax on works contract will be paid by the service recipient and 50% will be paid by the service provider in the cases where the service provider is an individual/firm/LLP and the recipient is the body corporate.
 
Unanswered questions:-
 
Though the government has exercised due diligence in drafting the provisions under negative list, yet there are some issues that needs attention. Some of such issues are as follows:-
 
ØThe reverse charge mechanism has been extended partly to the works contract service where 50% service tax would be paid by the service provider and remaining 50% will be paid by the service recipient. How the value will be determined, either on the basis of invoice raised by the service provider or there will be any other method?
 
ØIf it will be on the basis of invoice, in what manner the invoice will be issued by the service provider? Whether he will issue the invoice will entire value with total service tax thereupon and will indicate that the 50% amount of service tax will be paid by the service recipient? Or the invoice will be raised with entire value but service tax will be charged only to the extent it is payable by the provider of service.
 
ØThere will be cases where the service provider is availing the exemption under notification no. 6/2005-ST dated 1.3.2005 and hence not liable to pay the service tax on 50% value while the service recipient will have to pay the service tax on remaining 50% as the benefit of this notification is not available to service recipients.
 
ØWhere the service provider is covered under notification no. 6/2005-ST, whether the same taxable value can be bifurcated into two parts – one chargeable to service tax and other not chargeable to tax?
 
ØThe reverse charge mechanism will increase the complicacies for individual service providers. They will have to keep the track over each and every invoice by looking to what type of concern they are providing the services. In case, the service is being provided to the person other than business entity, the 100% service tax is to be paid by the individual/LLP/firm service provider. Thus, such service providers will have to analyze the legal identity of the service recipients and ascertain where they have to pay complete service tax and where 50% service tax.
 
ØIn the cases where the service provider is liable to pay the service tax only on 50% value, whether this value will be considered as the receipts from exempted service for the purpose of determining the limits under notification no. 6/2005-ST.  
 
ØIn the cases where the assessment is not accepted by the department or in case of valuation disputes, proceedings will be initiated against whom – the service provider or service recipient or both?
 
ØWhere an individual/firm/LLP provides works contract services to the government/local authority and these services are not exempted under serial no. 12 of mega exemption notification no. 12/2012-ST dated 17.3.2012, what will be the situation – whether the service tax will be paid by the service provider completely or government will be considered as person liable to pay the service tax to the extent of 50% under reverse charge mechanism.
 
ØFurther, the composition scheme has not been given as an option. Under current scheme also, there is a lot of dispute regarding the value of material involved. Thus, the dispute will also continue in the negative list also where the department will insist on providing the actual figures, while the assessee will contend that it is not ascertainable.  
 
ØWhen the finance bill was proposed, there was provision of paying the service tax @ 25% on total amount charged including the value of land. However, after enactment of Finance Bill, this provision has been deleted from the Valuation rules. However, it is hoped that this will be brought back in the Act.   
 
In short, intention of the government, behind extending reverse charge method on works contract service and that too partially, is not clear. In absence of many of the unanswered questions, it seems that the works contract is going to be harsher under negative list.
 
Before parting:-
 
The service tax by way of negative list is going to be implemented just after a few days. The most complicated and full of litigations - Works contract with Reverse charge mechanism is now ready with extended scope to create more ambiguities under the new scheme also. The transitional phase of the negative list is going to be a challenging one for the government and many clarifications are still needed for its effective implementation.  
 
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