Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2016-17/3114

Credit admissibility of Service Tax paid on Private Placement of Shares.

Case:- STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LTD.  VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH
 
Citation: - 2016 (42) S.T.R. 72 (Tri. – Del. )

 
Brief Facts: -The issue posing for consideration in this appeal is whether the credit of Service Tax paid on the service of the Private Placement of Shares is admissible as input service credit as per the Cenvat Credit Rules.
 
The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Automotive Wheels falling under Chapter 87 of the CETA, 1985. The appellants availed the service of M/s. MAPE Advisory Group Pvt. Ltd. for raising finance by way of Private Placement of Share of the company with M/s. New Vermon Advisory Services Ltd. as the appellant was in need of finances for implementing Automotive Wheels Line Project in their factory. M/s. MAPE Advisory Group Private Limited charged professional/brokerage fee amounting to Rs. 26,40,000/- for their service and service tax amounting to Rs. 2,69,280/- (including education cess) was paid. The appellants availed the credit of the service tax paid to M/s. MAPE Advisory Private Limited as an input service credit as per the provision of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants denying the credit on the ground that financial services availed by appellants for disposal of shares are not covered under the definition of “input services.” The appellants defended the show cause notice submitting that the definition of “Input Services” as provided Under Rule 2(l) included banking and financial services which are services used in relation to the business of manufacture. They also contended that the demand is hit by the bar of limitation. The adjudicating authority held against the appellants which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) the appellant has filed this appeal.
 
Appellant’s Contention: -On behalf of the appellant, the ld. counsel Ms. Priyanka Goyal submitted that at the relevant time the company was implementing the Automotive Wheel Line Project for which finance was required. The services of M/s. MAPE Advisory Group (P) Ltd. was availed for raising finances by way of private placement of shares. This activity undertaken by the appellants relates to their business as the capital raised by private placement of shares is utilized in the business of manufacture. That the adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate the definition of input service in its right perspective. She relied on the following judgments in Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Pune, 2012 (276) E.L.T. 94 (Tri. - Mumbai) = 2012 (25) S.T.R. 73 (Tribunal) and 2013 (30) S.T.R. 572 (Tri. - Mumbai), Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. v. CCE - 2009 (14) S.T.R. 304 (Tri. - Ahmedabad) = 2012 (277) E.L.T. 188 (Tri.).
 
Respondent’s contention:- On behalf of revenue it was submitted that the activity of private placement of shares is not an activity used by the appellant directly or indirectly or in relation to the manufacture of the final products. That therefore Cenvat credit is not admissible to such services. He submitted that private placement of shares does not find mention in the definition of input services and therefore Cenvat credit cannot be allowed on such services.
 
Reasoning Of Judgement:-The tribunal have carefully considered the rival submissions. It is the case of the appellant, that they raised capital by private placement of Shares, for the purpose of implementing a new project, the Automotive Wheel Line Project in their factory. The contention of the revenue that such financial services rendered to the appellant for the purpose of raising capital is not related to manufacture directly or indirectly cannot be accepted. The definition of “input service” is not restricted being limited to services which are directly linked to the manufacturing activity. But the definition has a wide ambit and covers services which are relating to business activities of manufacture. In Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. v. CCE (supra) it was held that merger charges are covered in the category of services of financing and Cenvat credit is admissible for the same. Therefore, Tribunal was of the view that the service of private placement of shares for raising capital is an input service and credit on the service is to be allowed.In view of the above the impugned order is set aside with consequential relief to the appellant. The appeal is allowed.
 
Decision:-Appeal Allowed.

Comment:- The substance of the case is that raising capital by way of private placement of shares for a new project comes under the ambit of input service as the definition of input service is not restricted being limited to service which are directly linked to the manufacturing activity but it has a wide ambit and covers service which are relating even indirectly to business activities of the assessee.

Prepared By: - Alakh Bhandari
 
 

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