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 /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