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/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