Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case law/2013-14/1891

Once a service is specifically made taxable, it cannot be presumed to be covered under another service prior to its enactment.

Case:-SANA ENGINEERING COMPANY Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, COIMBATORE

Citation:-2013-TIOL-1566-CESTAT-MAD

Brief facts:-Applicants own industrial cranes which they make available to others for various purposes. One of such purposes is erection of wind mill towers. In respect of such activity, appellants were paying service tax under the category of "Erection and Commissioning Service" since July 2005. During the same time, they were also making similar cranes available to certain other parties for doing other types of activities on which they were not paying service tax because such activities, according to the applicant, were not in the nature of erection and commissioning. Subsequently, from 16.5.2008 when new entry for taxing "supply of tangible goods" came into force as per section 65 (105) (zzzz), they got themselves registered for paying service tax under this category of service and started paying service tax for cranes supplied for activities other than erection and commissioning also. At this stage, Revenue issued a show cause notice arguing that prior to 16.5.2008, services rendered by them would be covered by entry for "Business Support Service" under section 65 (105) (zzzq) which came into force from 1.5.2006 onwards. Based on such reasoning, a demand was issued to the applicant for that portion of the remuneration received by them on which service tax was not already paid. On adjudication, an amount of Rs.24,46,786/- is confirmed against the applicant along with interest and penalties. The appellant preferred appeal to the Commissioner Appeals that upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by the order in appeal, the appellant preferred appeal to the Tribunal.

Appellant contentions:-The counsel for the applicant submits that making available cranes owned by them to another person would be appropriately covered by "Supply of Tangible Goods services" and it cannot be covered by "Business Support Service" which was a residual entry which lacks clarity regarding its coverage. He points out none of the activities specifically mentioned in the definition for 'Business Support Service' could cover the activity of the appellant. He argued that once a more specific entry has come into force, there is a presumption that for the period prior to enactment of such specific entry, the service in question would not be covered by any other entry which is not specific. He also points out that this very same issue has come before the Tribunal in a few cases at the stay stage and Tribunal was of prima facie view that supply of such tangible goods could not be taxed under the category of "Business Support Service" from 1.5.2006 to 15.5.2008 and the Tribunal has granted stay. He therefore prays that in this case also appeal may be admitted without any pre-deposit and stay may be granted. He relies on the following orders:

(i) Industrial Handling Vs. CCE - 2011 (23) STR 559 (Tri.-Kol)

(ii) Industrial Services (Gases) Vs. CCE - 2010 (19) STR 445 (Tri.-Kol)

Respondent Contentions:-Respondentsubmits that the definition of "Business Support Service" is broad enough to cover any service that is rendered for which remuneration is received. By making available cranes, applicants were supporting the business activity of the person to whom cranes were made available.

Reasoning of judgement:-"Business Support Service" is in the nature of residual entry and cannot cover an activity, like making tangible goods available to another person which was subsequently covered by a specific entry. Therefore, we follow the precedent decisions and grant waiver of pre-deposit of dues arising from the impugned order and there shall be stay on collection of such dues during pendency of the appeal.

Decision:-Stay Granted.

Comment:-The essence of this case is that when a service is made leviable to service tax from a particular date, it cannot be made leviable to service tax under some other category prior to such date. Therefore, the service of supply of tangible goods cannot be leviable to service tax under Business Support Service  for the period prior to its coming into service tax net. 

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