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/2013-14/1891

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