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 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