Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1311

Appropriate Court for filing appeal for Rate of duty & Classification issues

Case: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MANGALORE v/s RAI & ASSOCIATES
 
Citation: 2011 (23) S.T.R. 210 (Kar)
 
Issue:- Issue relating to rate of duty and classification – Appeal to High Court not maintainable – Appeal lies to Apex Court under Section 35L of CEA, 1944.
 
Brief Facts:- Appellant are chartered Accountant. They were being outsourcing the work of ledger maintenance and billing for M/s. MESCOM.
 
Department alleged that the assessees offered their services in their professional capacity of practicing chartered accountants and they were liable to attract service tax in terms of Notification No. 59/1998-ST.
 
The First Appellate Authority held that the relationship between the assessee and M/s. MESCOM is not that of practicing chartered accountants and a client but that of an agent and his principal. The service so provided there­fore does not fit into the description of taxable service in terms of Section 65(105)(s). The contract is for outsourcing the work of ledger maintenance and billing and not for hiring a chartered accountant for his specialized professional skills of accounting which involved application of principles and procedures of accounting which cannot be dispensed with on account of computerization of ledgers and which cannot be attended by persons other than a chartered ac­countant. The services were neither offered nor provided as a professional ser­vice of accounting attracting service tax liability in terms of Notification No. 59/1998-S.T. by attracting classification under category of services provided by a practicing chartered accountant. Therefore, the first appellate authority set aside the order confirming the liability of service tax and other consequential liabilities under the classification of services of practicing chartered accountant for services of ledger maintenance rendered to M/s. MESCOM in terms of the contract.
 
In appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal in its order set out the definition given in the Chartered Accountant Act, 1949 and on an elaborate con­sideration of the statutory provisions and the material on record held that the activity of outsourcing of meter reading, billing and ledger posting which was an activity to be done by the respective companies does not come within the ambit of the professional activity of chartered accountant. The three companies had out sourced the work to other private parties also who were not chartered account­ants. The employees were not getting trained as chartered accountants under the Chartered Accountants Act. They were unskilled personnel without qualifica­tions and were only doing manual work. The employees were covered under the various labour legislations such as Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and Minimum Wages Act.
 
Department is in appeal before the High Court.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- The High Court held that the dispute related to rate of duty and classification. It was held that the question raised in this appeal falls squarely within the exception carved out in Section 35G, an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment’. It was held that the High court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the said issue, as held by this court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v/s M/s Mangalore Refineries and Petro Chemicals Limited [2011 (270) ELT 49 (Kar)]. The appeal lies to the Apex Court under Section 35L which alone has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the said question.
 
Appeals rejected as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the Revenue to approach the Apex Court.
 
Decision:- Appeal rejected.

Comment: - There is clear cut Rule in statue that the rate and classification dispute will go to Highest Court of India. But many a times the appeal is being filed in High Court. This will lead to depriving of his legal remedy to go to Supreme Court. If he files appeal in Apex Court now, it will time barred. However, the High Court has given liberty to Revenue to approach Apex Court.

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