Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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