Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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