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 Laws/2012-13/1248

No Show Cause Notice if the tax is paid before issuance of the same.
 

 
Case: -  KISHAN M. MEHTA & CO. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, AHEMDABAD

Citation: - 2012 (27) S.T.R. 481 (Tri- Ahmd.)

Brief fact: - The Appellant is engaged in providing services as practicing Chartered Accountant. They had defaulted in payment of Service Tax in time during the period from April 2002 to March 2006, but paid the same with interest and on few occasion filed returns also later than due date. On noticing the frequent default by the appellant, Show Cause Notice was issued by the Revenue on 15-01-2007 initiating proceedings for imposing penalty under Section 76 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994.

Appellant Contention: - The Appellant submit that they were paying Service tax quite often in time and whenever there was a delay, it was paid with interest and they were also fairly admitting that the return were filed late on many occasion, he submit that payment of Service Tax, Interest thereof and filing returns was done voluntarily without any reminder from the Department. He further submitted that according to Section 73(3), where there is a short levy of Service Tax, if the person who is liable to pay on the basis of his own or on the basis of ascertainment by Central Excise officers, pays Service Tax and interest before serving of a notice, no Show Cause Notice will be issued. He also drew my attention to the C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 137/167/2006-CX.4, dated 3-10-2007, wherein the Board has clarified that if the assessee pays Service Tax with interest before issue of Show Cause Notice, no further proceedings will be initiated. It was also clarified that the conclusion of proceedings in terms of sub-section of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 implies conclusion of entire proceedings under Finance Act, 1994 (the Act).

Respondent Contention:-  The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submits that the assessee is a frequent defaulter and being a Chartered Accountant, he is expected to follow the law properly and therefore deserves to be visited with penalty under Sections 76 and 77 of Finance Act, 1994.

Reasoning of Judgment:  The Tribunal Held that the circular issued by the Board clearly provides that there can be no proceedings under Finance Act, 1994 at all when the assessee is eligible for benefit of provisions of Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994. Further, there are several decisions of the Tribunal wherein, a similar view has been taken. Tribunal find that such a view has been taken in the case of Auto Transport Services v. C.C.E., Jaipur-11 - (2006) 5 SI-I 396 (New Delhi-CESTAT) 2006 (3) S.T.R. 330 (Tribunal). Since the issue is covered by the precedent Tribunal's decision cited above and Board's circular discussed above and also since the issue is covered by provisions of Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994, no Show Cause Notice should have been issued and no proceedings should have been initiated. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
 
Decision:- Appeal Allowed
 
Comments :-  Show cause notice need not to be issued when the tax is paid before issuance of show cause notice. This provision is clearly contained in Section 73(3) of the Act but the department does not agree the same as issue show cause notice invariably.
 
 
 
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