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/2013-14/2093

Penalty for late filing of Nil Service Tax Return may be waived.

Case:- AMRAPALI BARTER PVT. LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, KOLKATA

Citation:- 2013 (32) S.T.R. 456 (Tri. – Kolkata)

Brief facts:- The applicants were engaged in providing the taxable services under the category of ‘construction in respect of commercial or industrial building and civil structure services’. For rendering the said services, the appellants were registered with the service tax department. The appellants had filed six ‘nil’ Returns in ST-3 form for the period from September, 2005 to March, 2008 on 18-11-2008. Consequently, show cause notice was issued to each of them proposing penalty under Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority directed the appellants to pay Rs. 12,000/- for each ST-3 Return and also imposed penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 77 of Finance Act, 1994 against each of the appellants. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants had filed appeals before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commr. (Appeals) dropped the penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act but confirmed the penalty of Rs. 12,000/- against each of the appellant under Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules. Hence two appeals were filed by the appellants against order-in-appeal No. 144-145/ST/KOL/2012, dated 30-4-2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata.

Appellant’s contentions:- The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that in view of the Circular No. 97/8/2007-S.T., dated 23-8-2007, they were not supposed to file half yearly returns in ST-3 Form as the liability to pay Service Tax during the said period was nil. She further submitted that during the period they had not provided any service and hence there was no liability to pay Service Tax. However, as a matter of abundant precaution, they submitted six half yearly ‘nil’ returns from the period April, 2005 to March, 2008 on 18-11-2008. Further, she held that in view of the proviso to Rule 7C, the ld. authorities below ought to have waived the late fees.

Respondent’s contentions:- Ld. AR for the revenue reiterated the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had already dropped the penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, there was no reason to waive the late fees directed to be paid under Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.

Reasoning of judgment:- Heard both sides and perused the records. Undisputedly, the appellant were registered with the Service Tax Department for providing taxable services. It was also not in dispute that during the period April 2005 to March, 2008, they had not provided any service and also they had not filed any returns with the Department. They had filed six ST-3 nil Returns belatedly on 18-11-2008. The Hon’ble Judge agreed with the ld. Advocate that in view of the Circular dated 23-8-2007, in the event no service was rendered by the service provider, there was no requirement to file ST-3 Return. The ld. AR could not produce anything contrary to the said circular. Besides, it was found that as per Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, in the event ‘nil’ returns were filed, the Service Tax Appeal Nos. 394-395/2012 assessing officer had the discretion to waive the late fees for filing the ST-3 Returns. In Tribunal’s view, it was a fit case to invoke the proviso to Rule 7C and waive the late fees relating to the Nil Returns filed by each of the appellant during the period April, 2005 to March, 2008. In these circumstances, the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the appeals filed by the appellants were allowed.

Decision:- Appeals were allowed.

Comment:- The analogy drawn from the case is that in view of the Circular dated 23-8-2007, it has been clarified that in the event where no service was rendered by the service provider, there was no requirement to file ST-3 Return. Further, as per Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, in the event where belated ‘nil’ returns were filed, the assessing officer had the discretion to waive the late fees for filing the ST-3 Returns. Accordingly, the late fees for filing Nil returns of service tax was waived and the appeal was allowed.
 

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