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/2015-16/2772

Whether adjustment of excess service tax paid against future liability possible suo moto, if interpretation involved?

Case:-ASCENT MARKETING AND SERVICES VsCOMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHOPAL

Citation:-2014 (33) S.T.R. 108 (Tri. - Del.)

Brief Facts:-The Appellants are rendering cleaning services specified under Section 65(24b) of Finance Act, 1994 and they have been paying Service Tax. During the period 15-6-2005 to Jan. 2009 they rendered such services to Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre and received charges of Rs. 1,69,43,267/-. The noticee did not pay any Service Tax on the said amount. For the period June, 2005 to March, 2006 they paid Service Tax amounting to Rs. 4,04,542/- on the value of cleaning service provided by them to M/s. BMHRC. By October, 2006 they realised that they need not have paid such Service Tax because the said hospital is not a commercial establishment and therefore the service rendered to such establishments was not covered by entry at Section 65(24b). Therefore they adjusted the excess Service Tax paid during the said period against their total liability for Service Tax for the period April, 2006 to December, 2006. The Revenue was of the view that an assessee cannot take such suo moto refund of Service Tax paid by adjustments against future liability and therefore a Show Cause Notice proposing recovery of such amount adjusted stands confirmed against the appellants by the impugned order. However, penalty imposed in the order-in-original has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the order, the Appellants have filed this appeal.

Appellant contentions:-   The Appellants submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not properly consider the provisions of sub-rule 6(4A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 as amended after 1-3-2007, while denying such adjustment. The Appellants contend that they can take such suo motu credit as per sub-rule 6(4A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994.
The Appellants also bring to the notice of the Tribunal that the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the cleaning service rendered by the Appellant to BMHRC was not taxable. Therefore, it is their contention that demand is confirmed after giving a finding in their favour and therefore they should not be asked to pay this amount.
 
Respondent contentions:-Ld. Authorised Representative for Revenue submits that taxability of the service in question is not for consideration before Tribunal. The only issue to be decided is whether an assessee can take suo moto credit of any Service Tax paid in a previous period by adjusting the same against future liability. The authorised representative submits that the correct procedure applicable in such a situation is to file a refund application and as per law such refund can be sanctioned after considering whether the refund application is filed in time and whether there is any unjust enrichment occurring while granting such refund. In a situation where assessee himself takes credit on excess payment of Service Tax both this checks cannot be enforced. In fact there is no provision under Service Tax Rules to allow refund of Service Tax through such mechanism. To understand the correct scope of Rule 6(4A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, sub-rules (4) and (4A) of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, as it stood at the relevant time, have to be seen together. These sub-rules are reproduced below :-
(4)Where an assessee is, for any reason, unable to correctly estimate, on the date of deposit, the actual amount payable for any particular month or quarter, as the case may be, he may make a request in writing to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, giving reasons for payment of service tax on provisional basis and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, on receipt of such request, may allow payment of service tax on provisional basis on such value of taxable service as may be specified by him and the provisions of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001, relating to provisional assessment, except so far as they relate to execution of bond, shall, so far as may be, apply to such assessment.
(4A)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (4), where an assessee has opted for registration under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of these rules and has paid to the credit of Central Government any amount in excess of the amount required to be paid towards Service Tax liability for a month or quarter, as the case may be, for the reason of not receiving details of payments received towards the value of taxable services at his other premises or offices, the assessee may adjust such excess amount so paid as Service Tax by him against his Service Tax liability for the subsequent period and the details of such adjustment shall be intimated to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise within a period of fifteen days from the date of such adjustment.”
It is very clear that provisions of sub-rule (4A) was available only to an assessee has taken registration under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, that is where an assessee was providing service from more than one premises and such assessee had taken a combined registration for all such premises which was not the case of the present appellants.
This rule was changed from 1-3-2007. At that time also sub-rule (4B) made certain special provisions. For the sake of academic interest this provision is reproduced below :
“(4B)The adjustment of excess amount paid, under sub-rule (4A), shall be subject to the following conditions, namely :-
(i) excess amount paid is on account of reasons not involving interpretation of law, taxability, classification, valuation or applicability of any exemption notification,
(ii) excess amount paid by an assessee registered under sub-rule (2) of rule 4, on account of delayed receipt of details of payments towards taxable services may be adjusted without monetary limit,
(iii) in cases other than specified in clause (ii) above, the excess amount paid may be adjusted with a monetary limit [two lakh rupees] for a relevant month or quarter, as the case may be,
(iv) the details and reasons for such adjustment shall be intimated to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise within a period of fifteen days from the date of such adjustment.”
Rule 4B as in force after 1-3-2007 clearly states that excess payment made on account of reasons involving interpretation of law, taxability, classification, value or applicability of any exemption notification shall not be allowed to be refunded by way of credit taken by the assessee on his own.

Reasoning of Judgment:-In the present case the claim for refund has arisen on account of interpretation of law and therefore such refund cannot be claimed refund under Rule 6(4A) as it existed at the relevant time or even later. Moreover, Rule 4B as in force after 1-3-2007 clearly states that excess payment made on account of reasons involving interpretation of law, taxability, classification, value or applicability of any exemption notification shall not be allowed to be refunded by way of credit taken by the assessee on his own.
So we do not find any prima facie case in favour of the appellants. We direct them to make deposit of 50% of the tax amount demanded as a pre-condition of hearing the Appeal within six weeks. Subject to such pre-deposit balance of dues arising from the impugned order shall be waived and there shall be stay on collection of such amounts during the pendency of the Appeal. Compliance to be reported on 28-2-2012.

Decision:-Stay partly granted.

Comment:-The crux of the case is that as per Rule 4B, assessee is not permitted to adjust excess service tax paid by him towards his future service tax liability if the reasons for excess payment are interpretation of law, taxability, classification, value or applicability of any exemption notification. In such a case, proper course of action by the assessee is claiming refund of excess service tax paid by him.

Prepared By:- Meet 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