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 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