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/2011-12/1297

Service tax on material supplied by Contractee - Works Contract - Classification of Long Term Contracts

Case: VED CONTRACTORS PVT LTD v/s CCE, DELHI-II
 
Citation: 2011-TIOL-1008-CESTAT-DEL
 
Issue:- Material provided by contractee – whether to be included in the assessable value and whether service tax leviable on the same – matter pending before Delhi High Court- pre-deposit waived.
 
Classification of long term service whether under Works contract or under Commercial/Industrial Construction Service & Construction of Complex Service – pre-deposit ordered.
 
Brief Facts:- Demand against the appellant-assessee has been raised on two issue – the first issue related to levy of service tax on material supplied by the contractee. The second demand was relating to execution of works contract which became taxable w.e.f. 01.06.2007. The matter is before the Tribunal and application for waiver of pre-deposit and grant of stay has been filed.
 
Appellant’s Contention:- With regard to first demand, appellant submitted that when the material is supplied by the contractee, they shall not form part of assessable value of taxable service since the appellant has no ownership of the material for which he does not retransfer the same by providing the service warranting a demand of service tax.
 
With regard to second issue, it was contended that the taxability of such a service has been explained by CBEC in its Circular No.128/10/2010-ST, dated 24.08.10. It was submitted that services which are taxable under different entry have suffered tax under the entry commercial or industrial construction service and construction of complex service. Therefore, pre-deposit may not be insisted for wrong classification and taxation.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- The Tribunal held that taxability of the value material supplied by contractee in respect of the service provided under Finance Act, 1994, has been decided by Tribunal against assessee in the case Jaihind Projects Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad [2010(18)STR-650(Tri.-Ahmd.)]. But when similar such matters came up before Delhi Bench, members of Bar mentioned that the issue in principle being under challenge before the Delhi High Court and did not insist on pre-deposit on the controversy.
 
Therefore, in the present case, the Tribunal has waived of requirement of pre-deposit in respect of first demand.
 
With regard to second demand, the Tribunal have taken the view that when Board has conceived that long term contracts having elements of certain nature of taxable service were intended to be brought to the ambit of the changed classifications to fall in to the entry of works contract, this does not appear to alter the nature of activity carried out by an assessee in the past. The work is recognized by its nature and incidence of tax depends on the nature of activity. The prospectivity and restrospectivity taxation is not the intention of the Board as is apparent from the Circular. Board has deliberately used the word "undergo a change" in the Circular. By such conception, Revenue decided to provide a more convenient classification of the past activity considered to taxable under the frame of works contract. Prima-facie this does not alter the levy by any argument of restropectivity or any prospectivity of application of the law. The Tribunal had noted the Apex Court decisions on the nature of legislation to what extent shall be retrospective and to what extent shall be prospective.
 
On the facts of the case, it was noticed that the work was executed in 2007-08 and the intention of Board demonstrating taxability of the activity carried out. It was held that prima facie, no reason exists to waive the requirement of pre-deposit. Pre-deposit ordered for the second demand.
 
Decision:- Stay granted partly.

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