Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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