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 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