Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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