Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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