Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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