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/2013-14/1949

Maintenance and repair services of railway sidings exempted from service tax since 2010.

Case:-  CENTRAL RAILWAY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUS., NAGPUR

Citation:- 2013 (31) S.T.R. 134 (Bom.)

Brief facts:- The Central Railway has carried out maintenance and, repairs of rail­way sidings owned by private parties. According to the Revenue, this Constitutes a taxable service of the management and maintenance of repairs and services as defined in Section 65(105)(zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended, with effect from 16 June 2005. The demands in question were governed by two show cause notices. The first show cause notice was for 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, dated 13 October 2010. The second show cause notice was for 2010-11 and was dated 3 May 2011. Both the show cause notices were adjudicated upon. The dues on ac­count of service tax are Rs. 2.51 crores under the first show cause notice and Rs. 74.22 lakhs under the second show cause notice. The demand has been con­firmed on adjudication. On an application for stay, the CESTAT has directed the Appellant to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the service tax and to report compli­ance.
 
Appellant’s contention:- The Appellant submitted that by a Noti­fication dated 21 December 2010, an exemption was provided in respect of man­agement, maintenance or repair of railways. Hence, it has been urged that a waiver was necessary. Moreover, it has been urged that the dues of the Union Government are secure since, after all, it is the Union Ministry of Railways which has to pay the demand if it is found to be due and payable.
 
Respondent’s contention:-  The respondent sup­ported the order of the Tribunal.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-After considering both the sides and persuing the record,, it is concluded that on 27 July 2009, the Central Government in the Ministry of Finance issued a Notification under Section 93(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 exempting the taxable service referred to in Section 65(105)(zzg) provided to any person by any other person in relation to management, maintenance or repair of roads, from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon. The earlier Notification was amended on 21 January 2010 to expand the scope of the exemption to cover, inter alia, the management, maintenance or repair of roads, bridges, tunnels, dams, airports, railways and transport terminals. In view of the exemption, prima facie, it appears that from 21 December 2010 the service provided for the management, mainte­nance or repair of railways stands exempted. The contention of the Appellant is that the work of management and repair of railway sidings owned by private parties is an incident of the maintenance and repair of the railway tracks. This, in our view, would raise prima facie a substantial question for consideration. Hence, insofar as the demand covered by the second show cause notice dated 3 May 2011 for 2010-11 is concerned (Rs. 74.22 laths), a complete waiver of deposit was warranted. That leaves the balance of the demand of Rs. 2.51 crores which relates to the period 2005-06 to 2007-08. This period is prior to the exemption notifica­tion. Having regard to the fact that the demand has been levied against the Un­ion Ministry of Railways, we are of the view that the ends of justice would re­quire that the extent of the deposit should be scaled down. At the same time, having evaluated the merits, prima facie, we are of the view that an absolute waiver for the earlier period is not warranted. No case of financial hardship has been urged at the hearing. On the circumstances, we direct in this appeal that (i) there shall be a complete waiver of pre-deposit in respect of the demand for Rs. 74.22 lakhs gov­erned by the show cause notice dated 3 May 2011 for the period 2010-11 as adju­dicated; and (ii) as regards the balance of the demand for Rs. 2.51 crores for the period 2005-06 to 2007-08 governed by the show cause notice dated 13 October 2010 as adjudicated, the Appellant shall deposit an amount equivalent to 20% of the demand within a period of eight weeks from today. The order of the Tribunal shall stand modified accordingly in these terms. The question of law accordingly stands answered. We clarify that our ob­servations in this order are only confined to a prima facie evaluation for the pur­pose of the stay application and shall not come in the way of the final disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal on merits. The Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
 
Decision:- Stay partly granted.

Comment:- The essence of the case is that maintenance and repair of roads, railways etc is exempted from the levy of service tax since year 2010 and so complete stay from pre-deposit granted for the demand for the period after 2010. However, as there was no exemption prior to the year 2010 and considering the fact that the appellant is a part of government department, 20% of the demand ordered as pre-deposit.  
 
 
 

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