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 /2016-17/3230

Whether activity of identifying vendors fall under BAS or C&F?

Case:-COMMR. OF C. EX., GHAZIABAD VERSUSINTERNATIONAL ELECTRON DEVICES LTD.

Citation:-2016 (41) S.T.R. 479 (Tri. - Del.)

Brief Facts:-The appeal is filed by Revenue challenging the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) which set aside the levy of Service Tax on ‘Clearing and Forwarding Agents’ services alleged to have been rendered by the appellants. Brief facts are that the respondents entered into an agreement with Lucky Exports, a partnership firm engaged in Merchant exports. As per the agreement, respondents were appointed as agents to assist procuring at best possible price and identifying vendors for medical equipment products. The respondents received commission for these activities. A show cause notice was issued alleging that these services would fall within the definition of ‘Market Research Agency’, Clearing and Forwarding Agency, Company Secretary, Engineering Consultancy Service, Management Consultant, or Scientific, Technical Consultancy. The notice finalized in the Order-in-Original which confirmed service tax demand and penalty classifying the services under the category of “Clearing and Forwarding Agent” Services. In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the same observing that the appellants have not performed any activities of C&F agents. Aggrieved the Revenue is before tribunal.
 
Appellant’s Contention:-The learned DR vehemently argued that the services would fall within the ambit of C & F agents. He drew attention to the agreement and urged that activities of the respondents included procurement of the goods and execution of order which are activities coming under C & F agents service.
 
Respondent’s Contention:-Against this, the submissions on the side of respondents is that their activities would fall under Business Auxiliary Service which was not taxable during the relevant period. They also contended that from the show cause notice it is not clear under which category exactly they are sought to be taxed, as several categories are mentioned in the show cause notice. That their activities as an agent would not fall under any of these alleged services.
 
Reasoning Of Judgement:-The tribunal have perused the records and considered the submissions made by both sides. The basic issue is whether during the period 2001-02 the activities for which the respondents received Commission would fall within the category of C & F agents service. On going through the agreement entered between respondents and Lucky Exports it is seen that respondents were appointed as agents exclusively for assisting in procuring the specified products at most attractive prices, by identifying suitable vendors. In consideration of such services, a commission at the rate of 8% of the purchase amount was agreed between them. The description of activities in this agreement clearly falls within the definition of BAS. But BAS services provided by Commission agents were outside the purview of levy of service tax till 8-7-2009. Further, in the cross-objection filed by the respondents it is brought out that the demand is barred by limitation. The show cause notice was issued on 23-3-2007 for the periods 1999-2000 to 2001-2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) has therefore rightly set aside the demand raised in the Order-in-Original. They do not find any material that calls for interference in the impugned order. From the foregoing, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed. The cross-objection is also dismissed.
 
Decision:-Appeal dismissed.
 
Comment:- The gist of the case is that the assessee engaged in the activity of  identifying vendors on behalf of service recipient for procuring goods at attractive prices would clearly falling under Business Auxiliary Service and not under Clearing and Forwarding Agent Service. But, during relevant period, since the BAS were out of purview of Service Tax law, no tax is payable by the assessee. The demand was also time barred.
 
Prepared By-Neelam Jain
 
 

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