Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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