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 Laws/2010-11/1103

Whether assessee obtaining orders for principal before 2005 is C&F agent or Del credere agent

Case: Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore v/s N.K Agencies Pvt. Ltd
 
Citation: 2010 (20) S.T.R 176 (Kar.)
 
Issue:- Assessee obtaining orders for principal and marketing of goods during 01.10.1999 to 30.09.2004 prior to amendment in definition of BAS in 2005 – whether C&F agent or Del credere agent?
 
Brief Facts:- Respondents had entered in to an agreement with M/s Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) on certain terms and conditions.  The respondent had obtained orders from the customers and passed them on to RIL and goods were directly dispatched to the customers from the factory of RIL. The respondent had received commission for rendering the above services.
 
According to Revenue, the services rendered by the respondent fell under the category of Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services and was therefore taxable under the provision of Service Tax. Revenue issued show cause notice to the respondent and also corrigendum contending that service tax was liable in respect of the services rendered by the respondent.
 
Respondent replied that they were not liable to pay the service tax or interest and penalty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of service tax and also imposed penalty.
 
In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority. Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order rejected the appeal. Against the order of the Tribunal, present appeal has been preferred before the High Court. Following questions of law have been raised:
 
1)         Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the activity of the respondent cannot be brought within scope of taxable services, viz, “Clearing and Forwarding Agent Services” as defined under Finance Act, 1994?
 
2)         Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in allowing the Appeal relying on a judgment made in M/s Raja Rajeshwari International Polymers Pvt. Ltd v/s CCE [2006 (3) STR 561 (Tribunal)], inspite of the fact that it has not reached its finality and pending before this Hon’ble Court in CEA. No. 41/2006?
 
3)         Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the services rendered by the respondent does not fall under the category of Clearing and Forwarding Agents inspite of the fact that Circulars stated otherwise?
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- Reference was made to the judgments given in Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore v/s Sreenidhi Polymers (P) Limited [2010 (18) STR 385 (Kar)] and in CST, Bangalore v/s Raja Rajeshwari International Polymers (P) Limited [2010 (18) STR 390 (Kar)] wherein the question of laws which are identical to the issues raised in the present appeal were answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
 
The High Court perused the definitions of “clearing and forwarding agent” and the meaning of ‘Del Credere Agent’ and the amendment brought about in the year 2005, whereby a del credere agent is included in the category of business auxiliary service prior to the said amendment could not have been brought within the scope of the definition of “clearing and forwarding agent” under the Finance Act.
 
It was held that in the instant case, the respondent who rendered service was not a clearing and forwarding agent for RIL and that he was a del credere agent and he was not liable to pay any service tax. It was held that this was apparent from the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between respondent and RIL.
 
It was held that as the period in question was from 01.10.1999 to 30.09.2004 which was prior to the amendment of “Business Auxiliary Service” which is w.e.f. 16.06.2005. Therefore, following the judgments relied upon, the question answered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue.
 
Decision:- Appeal dismissed. 

************

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