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/2013-14/2327

Service tax rate at the time of rendition of services is relevant.
Case:-COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX VERSUS RATAN SINGH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.

Citation:-2014(33) S.T.R. 242 (DEL.)

Brief Facts:-This appeal is directed against the order dated 27-2-2012 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in service ST Stay No. 1989/2011 and ST Appeal No. 965/2011. The Tribunal observed that the issue involved in the present case was whether the applicable rate of Service Tax would be the rate in force at the lime of realization of the consideration in respect of the taxable service or would it be the rate of tax which was in force at the time of the rendition of the taxable service. The Tribunal noted that recently it had decided that the appropriate rate of tax would be the rate which was in force at the time when the service was rendered and not the rate which was in force on the date in which the payments were received. Accordingly, the Tribunal dis­missed the Revenue's appeal.
The Revenue is aggrieved by the said order dated 27-2-2012 and has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.

Appellant Contentions:-The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Rule 3(3) of the Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007 had not been examined by this Court in the case of Vistar Construction (supra) and, therefore, that decision was distinguishable. Hence, show cause notice was rightly issued against respondent.

Reasoning of Judgment:-High Court may point out that the entire controversy arose out of the show cause notice dated 21-4-2009 wherein the main allegation against the respondent was as under:-
"2. Whereas on scrutiny of the ST-3 return of Works Contract Service for the period Oct., 07 March 08, it has been observed that the noticee had paid the Service Tax in the month of March 1998 at the rate of 2% instead of 4%. As per Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Tax Research Unit) F. No. 545/6/2007-TRU, dated 28-4-2008, the Service Tax shall become chargeable on receipt of payment and on the amount so received for the service pro­vided or to be provided, whether or not services are performed. The rate applicable to taxable transaction shall be the rate in force at the time the service tax becomes chargeable. This is a well settled legal position. The date on which the services one record be provided has no relevance to ex­amine the applicable tax rate the service is already taxable at the time of re­vision on rate. In view of the above, it is clarified that the rate of 4% is ap­plicable for the Works contract service where the payment for the service is received on or after 1-3-2008."
In the present case, it is an admitted position that the service in exe­cution of Works Contract had been rendered by the respondent during the peri­od October, 2007 to the end of February, 2008. It is also an admitted position that all invoices in respect of the said services had been raised by the end of February, 2008. However, the payments in respect of the said services were received only after 1-3-2008. It is also an admitted position that rate of Service Tax applicable prior to 1-3-2008 was 2% and after 1-3-2008 was 4% under the Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007. It is the case of the appellant that since the payments for the services rendered were received only after 1-3-2008, the applicable rate would be 4% and not 2%. Reliance was placed by the Revenue on the Ministry of Finance. Department of Revenue in­struction dated 28-4-2008.
We may point out at this juncture itself that recently a similar issue had arisen in another set of cases before Tribunal. Those were decided on 23-1-2013 in W.F. (C) 5636/2010 entitled Vistar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Others and W.P. (C) 3632/2012 entitled Piyare Lal Hari Singh Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Others [2013 (31) S.T.R. 129 (Del.)]. In that decision, the main controversy was with regard to the applicable rate of Service Tax in respect of works contract service. There also, the service had been rendered prior to 1-3-2008, but the pay­ments were received after 1-3-2008. The revenue had placed reliance on the very same instruction dated 28-04-2008 and, after going through the same, this Court held that the view expressed in the instruction was wrong. This Court had placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Association of Leasing & Financial Service Companies v. Union of India : 2010 (20) S.T.R. 417 (S.C.), wherein the Supreme Court clearly held that the Service Tax was levied on service and that it was not a tax on materials or sale. The taxable event was the rendition of the service. Consequently, this Court held that the rendition of the service had been completed prior to 1-3-2008 and, therefore, the taxable-event had occurred prior to 1-3-2008. Consequently, the applicable rate of tax would be the rate which was prevalent prior to 1-3-2008. Since the entire foundation of the argu­ment of the revenue is based on the instruction dated 28-4-2008 which has been found to be invalid by virtue of our decision in the case of Vistar Construction (supra), the present appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
The learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that Rule 3(3) of the Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007 had not been examined by this Court in the case of Vistar Construction (supra) and, therefore, that decision was distinguishable. First of all, we are not able to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant inasmuch as the instruction dat­ed 28-4-2008 had been dealt with in detail and the paragraph 2 thereof, specifical­ly refers to the said Composition Rules of 2007. Secondly, and more importantly, the show cause notice does not contain any such allegation with regard to the respondent having made an option under the said Rule 3. Since, there is no foundational basis for making the submission and no such submission was made before the appellate authority, the appellant cannot be permitted to take up this plea before this Court for the first time.
In view of the foregoing, following the decision in the case of Vistar Construction (supra) the present appeal does not raise any substantial questions of law and is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
 
Decision:-Appeal dismissed.

Comment:-The main controversy in this case was the applicable rate of service tax in respect of Work Contract Service when rate of Service Tax was changed. The similar issue was considered in case of Vistar Construction. Therefore, by placing reliance upon the decision of Vistar Construction, it was concluded that the rate of service tax that is applicable is the rate prevalent at the time of rendition of service and not the rate at the time of realization of consideration.

Prepared by: Hushen Ganodwala
 
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