Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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