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

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1051

Availability of Abatement when credit with interest reversed

Case: AJITNATH TOURS & TRAVELS Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX AHMEDABAD
 
Citation: 2010-TIOL-1574-CESTAT-AHM
 
Issue:- Rent-a-cab service – Benefit of Abatement will be available if assessee reverses cenvat credit with interest.
 
Brief Facts:- Appellant is providing services of "Rent-a-Cab" and they are discharging their service tax liability regularly after availing abatement permitted. Appellant had procured a vehicle bbearing No. GJ-BT-9855 from M/s, Parswanath Tourist Service for supplying on hire to one Dr. Rarneshbhai Shah from 18.1,2008 to 29.1.2008. The said M/s. Parswanath Tourist Service had charged a total amount of Rs. 65,000/-including service tax, education cess and S.H.C. of Rs. 3,026/- was paid in cash by appellant to the said M/s. Parswanath Tourist Service for providing the said vehicle. The appellant had provided the said vehicle to Dr. Rameshhhai Shah from 18.1.2008 to 29.1.2008 on consideration of Rs. 1,04,400/-. Thus, service tax payable on 40% after calculating abatement of 60% on the said amount of Rs. 1,04,400/- works out to Rs. 5,178/-. However, while calculating service tax payment, appellant's clerk adjusted the said amount of Rs. 3,026/- against the total liability and remaining amount was paid in cash for the period from 01.4.2008 to 30.09.2008 and filed ST-3 return.
 
Thereafter, show cause notice was issued on 17.4.2009 proposing to deny the benefit of abatement availed by appellant under Notification No. 01/2006-ST for the entire period from 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008 and service tax of Rs. 19,070/- was demanded.
 
The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand for service tax and imposed penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal) upheld the demand of service but set aside the penalty imposed by the Original Adjudicating Authority.
 
Appellant are in appeal before the Tribunal.
 
Appellant’s Contention:- Appellant submitted that similar issue has been dealt with by the Tribunal before and it was held that benefit of abatement will be available if credit is reversed with interest. The following cases are relied upon:
 
- Skyline Builders - 2010 (17) STR 436 (Tri. Bang.)
 
- Face Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 (249) ELT 119 (Tri. Ahmd.)
 
Respondent’s Contention:- Revenue fairly agrees that precedent decisions cited by the appellant cover the issue before the Tribunal.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- The Tribunal found that the appellants has paid the amount of credit taken in cash along with interest. The precedent decisions cited by them also are on the same line that if the credit is reversed with interest, benefit of abatement available in the Notification can be extended. Demand of service tax set aside.
 
Decision:- Appeal allowed.
 
Comment:- Even the Apex Court has held in case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Private Limited [1996(81)ELT 3 (SC)] that the reversal of cenvat credit will mean not taking of credit. Following the same analogy when the assessee has reversed the Cenvat credit then it will be termed as non taking of credit and hence the abatement will be available to them. We have also come across such decision and adjudication officer has dropped the proceedings against us but the department has filed the appeal in Commissioner (Appeal). It has been seen now-a-days that every dispute is not settled before CESTAT.

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