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/2012-13/1006

Provision of GTA service - when Tarformer transported in Assessee's own Truck?

Case: COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., LUCKNOW v/s TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES
 
Citation: 2012-TIOL-98-HC-ALL-ST
 
Issue:- Contract for repair and maintenance of transformer for which assessee transporting faulty transformer in their own truck – whether GTA service provided and service tax leviable on the same?
 
Brief Facts:- Respondent-assessee is engaged in rendering the services of maintenance and repair of transformers. They entered into an agreement with U. P. Power Corporation Limited for repair and testing of damaged Transformers stipulating that respondent had to lift the damaged Transformers and after repair, re-installed the same.
 
During scrutiny, the A. O. found that during the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007, respondent had lifted damaged Transformers by their own Trucks and charged the expense to U. P. Power Corporation Limited on account of “maintenance and repair” of old and damaged Transformers. The A.O. was of the opinion that on this amount, respondent was liable to pay service tax. Demand was raised against Respondent for the said period as well as for previous period i.e. 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2006 and for subsequent period i.e. 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008. Demand was confirmed and penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 was imposed. Penalty was also levied under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
 
In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the demand and cancelled the penalties. Aggrieved by the same, Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of Revenue.
 
Hence, Revenue is in appeal before the High Court. 
 
Appellant’s Contention:- Revenue submits that transportation is a taxable service. Therefore, value of taxable service would include the cost of transportation and as such, the tax liability would arise on the total gross value paid on account of “repair and maintenance”. It was further submitted that transportation charges should be included in the gross value and as respondent has not paid service tax on the same, he was liable to pay tax with interest. And it was held also liable penal action as per Section 64(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- The High Court perused the terms and conditions of agreement entered between the respondent and U. P. Power Corporation Limited. It was noted that in the agreement it was stipulated that “rate for transportation/carriage are inclusive of loading, unloading, handling and insurance. And any loss/damage to transformers during transportation/carriage will be the responsibility of the contractor”.
 
The, High Court held that as per aforesaid stipulation, it appeared that it was the responsibility of the contractor to transport the defective transformers and any damage caused during transportation was charged from contractor. Further, it appears that the respondent has lifted the Transformers in his own truck and no services were taken from any transporter. The contract is only for repair and maintenance of the Transformers but without lifting the Transformers, repair is not possible. Thus, lifting and re-installation of the Transformers is an integral part of the repair, for which a contract was entered into between the respondent and U. P. Power Corporation Limited.
 
The High Court held that when Transformers have been transported in their own truck and no transportation charges were paid to any third party, then there is no question for charging the service tax as per Section 65 (50b) of the Finance Act, which states that ‘goods transport agency’ means any person who provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note, by whatever name called.
 
The High Court noted that in present case, no consignment note was issued and no services were taken from any third party for transportation of the Transformers. The lifting, repair and installation are the composite activities, for which the contract was signed between U. P. Power Corporation Limited and respondent. Neither transportation services were provided by third party nor any transportation charge was paid by the respondent to anyone. When it is so then no service tax is leviable as no transportation charges were paid by the respondent.
 
Thus, the High Court was of the view that transportation of the Transformers is an integral part of the “repair and maintenance”. Lifting and re-installation of the Transformers are necessary components of the “repair and maintenance” as long was it is not provided by the third party. No reason to interfere with impugned order of the Tribunal. 
 
Decision:- Appeal dismissed. 

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