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 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