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 law-2012/13-1558

Installation of electricity meters is service relating to transmission and distribution of electricity and is eligible for exemption.

Case:- PURVANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.VERSUSC.C.E., ALLAHABAD

Citation:-2013 (30) S.T.R. 259 (Tri. - Del.)

Issue:-Installation of electricity meters is service relating to transmission and distribution of electricity and is eligible for exemption.

Brief facts:-The appellant-assessee is engaged in the purchase of electricity from Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and transmitting it to various consumers within its ju­risdiction. The department pursuant to the intelligence received came to know that apart from transmission of electricity, the appellant-assessee was also en­gaged in the business of "erection, commissioning and installation" as also "technical testing and analysis" which according to the department, were subject to levy of service tax in terms of provisions of Finance Act, 1994 During the enquiry, the appellant-assessee furnished balance sheets for the year 2003-04 and 2004-05 which revealed that income of the appellant­-assessee comprised of revenue from, sale of power - less electricity - internal con­sumption - revenue, subsidies and grants and other income. The department was of the view that the income shown under the head "other income" in the balance sheet for the relevant financial years was in respect of amounts received by the assessee appellant for providing taxable service i.e. "erection, commissioning and installation" as also "technical testing and analysis". Accordingly, based on profit and loss statement, the appellant- assessee was served with show cause notice dated 17-10-2008 raising demand of service tax amount for the period 2003-04 and 2004-05. The only issue for determination in these appeals is whether or not the services provided by the assessee in respect of erection, commissioning and installation as also technical testing and analyses and installation of meters at the premises of electricity consumers would be covered under the exemption benefit provided by Notification No. 45/2010-S.T., dated 20-7-2010.

Appellant’s Contention:-The appellant contested the show cause notice and claiming that the income shown in the statement of account for the years 2003-04 and 2004-05 un­der the head "other income" comprised of -Interest on loan to staff, Interest on fixed deposits , Amount charged from customers for delayed payment, Rebate for timely payment of Loan/interest, Sale of scrap , Penalty charges from the contractors and suppliers for delay ofwork, Rebate relating to power purchase, Rent income charges from the staff, Ex .E.'55 found of physical verification of stores, Miscellaneous receipts. There cannot be any service tax on any of the above heads of "other income" mentioned above. They further submitted that the allegation in the show cause notice the "other income" is relating only to receipts against taxable ser­vices is based on presumption and assumption as the details of "other income" where already given in the audited balance sheet provided by them. On merits the appellant also raised the plea of limitation on the ground that there was no justification for invoking extended period of five years. He further placed reliance upon the Notification No. 45/2010-ST., dated 20-7-2010and sub­mitted that vide this notification Central Government has exempted persons en­gaged in transmission and distribution of electricity from levy of service tax in respect of taxable service relating to transmission and distribution of electricity retrospectively. Thus, it is pleaded that in view of exemption notification, im­pugned order confirming demand and imposing penalty is not sustainable in law.

Respondent’s Contention:-The learned AR for the Revenue on the contrary has sub­mitted that benefit of Notification No. 45/2010-ST. would be available to the appellant-assessee only if it is established that the service on which service tax is levied are related to transmission and distribution of electricity. He also  submitted that income under the head "other income" detailed in the statement of account of the assessee relates to the services other than transmission and dis­tribution of electricity as such adjudicating authority has wrongly dropped sub­stantial portion of demand raised vide the show cause notice. Learned AR thus argued as to allow the appeal preferred by the department and modify the im­pugned order to confirm the demand raised in show cause notice.

Reasoning Of Judgment:-After considering the rival submissions and perused the record, we find that this no­tification exempts the services relating to transmission and distribution of elec­tricity provided by the service provider to the service receiver from the incidence of levy of service tax. Admittedly, the assessee is engaged in transmission and distribution of electricity after purchasing the same from U.P. Power Corporation Limited. Since the assessee is selling electricity to the consumer, in our view for billing the consumer for electricity consumed it is essential to install the electric­ity meter having capacity to withstand the load provided to the consumer. Thus, any activity or service like erection, commissioning and installation of meters as also technical testing and analysis can easily be termed as the service relating to the transmission and distribution of electricity provided by the service provider to the service receiver. Thus, in our considered view such service, which is sub­ject matter of this appeal, would be squarely covered under the exemption pro­vided under Notification referred to above. We may note that similar view was taken by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of M.P. Power Transmission Company Limited v. CCE, Bhopal [2011 (24) S.T.R. 67 (T)] in relation to interpretation of similar exemption Notification No. 11/2010-S.T., dated 27-2-2010 which is pari materia to the Notification No. 45/2010-S.T., dated 20-7-2010. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the De­partment which is accordingly dismissed. The appeals as well as stay applica­tions filed by the assessee are allowed and the demand confirmed by the im­pugned order is set aside
.
Decision:-  Assessee’s appeal allowed/Department’s appeal dismissed.

Comment:-The analogy drawn from this case is that the anciliary services to the main services are also exempted as in the present case, installation of electric meters was incidental service to the main service of transmission and distribution of electricity that was exempted vide notification no. 45/2010-ST. Accordingly, the service of installation of electric meters was also held to be exempt.  

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