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/2013-14/1891

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