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 Laws/2011-12/1251

Payment of service tax on GTA from Cenvat Credit

CASE: CCE, GHAZIABAD Vs M/s BPL DISPLAY DEVICES LTD
 
CITATION: 2011-TIOL-841-CESTAT-DEL
 
Issue:- Whether the respondent could pay the service tax on the GTA services received as service recipient by using Cenvat credit or whether the same was required to be paid-in cash?
 
Brief Facts:- The respondents are manufacturers of Colour Picture Tubes chargeable to central excise duty under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff. Since they also receive Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services in respect of which they are liable to pay service tax as service recipient. They had availed Cenvat credit of central excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods and of service tax paid on "input services" used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products.
 
The department was of the view that during April, 05 to September, 2005 period, they have wrongly paid the service tax of Rs.40, 949/- though Cenvat credit account and thus, they have wrongly utilised the Cenvat credit as per the provisions of Cenvat Credit Excise Rules, the Cenvat credit could be used only for payment of central excise duty on the final products or service tax on output services, while the GTA service received by them is not their "output service".
 
The Asstt. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original confirmed the service tax demand, on appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Asstt. Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal holding that in view of explanation to Rule 2 (p) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 During the period of dispute, GTA services received by the respondent, on which they were liable to pay the service tax is deemed to be their output services and hence, the service tax on GTA has been rightly paid by utilising the Cenvat credit.
 
Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue filed this appeal.
 
Appellant’s Contention:-Revenue pleaded that the GTA service received by the respondent is their input service and not their out put service, that the explanation to Rule 2 (p) during the period of dispute is applicable to only in respect of those persons who do not manufacture any final products or provide any service, while in this case, the respondent is a manufacture of excisable goods and hence, the Explanation to Rule 2(p) is not applicable.
 
In terms of the Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the Cenvat credit can be utilised for payment of excise duty on the final products or service tax on any output service/services, that since the GTA service is not the output service of the appellant, the service tax on the same cannot be paid by utilising the Cenvat credit and should have been paid in cash.
 
The Tribunal in the case of CCE, Rajkot Vs. Adishiv Forge P.Ltd. [2008 (9) STR 534 (Tribunal)] has held that payment of service tax by the respondent on the GTA service received by them does not make, them service provider and they continue to be service recipient
 
The same view has been taken by the Member (Technical) in the case of M/s. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. reported in2008 (12) STR 447 (Tribunal) and this matter has been referred to the Larger Bench for decision and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct.
 
Reasoning of the Judgment:- In the present case, the GTA service received by the respondent is not the service which has actually been provided by the respondent. The respondent is only a deemed "provider of taxable service" for the reason he is the person liable to pay the service tax on the GTA service received. Moreover, the GTA services which is received by the respondent is specifically covered by the definition of "input services" and the same services cannot be considered as "input service" as well as "output service".
 
The Tribunal’s decision in the case of Adishiv Forge P. Ltd. and M/s. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. is considered. In view of this, it was concluded that the GTA services received by the respondent cannot be treated as their "output service"
 
The respondents have wrongly paid the service tax on the GTA serviced received by them through Cenvat credit.
 
Decision:- Revenue Appeal allowed.
 
Comment:- The above decision shows the consistent view maintained that service tax for GTA are to be paid only through Cash and not through Cenvat, however the service tax paid on outward freight can be taken as Cenvat credit subject to fulfillment of conditions as held in the decision of Ambuja Cement Ltd. Also, in the case of ABB Ltdit has been held that till 18.04.2006 Service Tax on GTa could be paid from Cenvat account. 

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