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 Law/2013-14/1610

Whether BSS like roads, parking, security gate falls within the ambit of input services?

Case:- COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III Vs M/s MINDA ACOUSTICS LTD
 
Citation:-2013-TIOL-894-CESTAT-DEL
 
Brief facts:-  All the appeals filed by the Revenue and by the appellant are being disposed of by a common order as they arise but of the same impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). However, for the sake of brevity, facts as available in the assessee appeal are being adverted too. The appellant is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of Sound Signalling equipments. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant in respect of various services. It is seen that original by a show cause notice was issued for disallowing the Cenvat credit on various inputs services like CHA service, courier service, catering service, medical claim insurance, rent a cab and general insurance and business support service and denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 12,66,562/- was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner along with imposition of penalty of Rs. 3,50,00/- On appeal against the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the credit in respect of various services but denied the same in respect of business support service to the extent of Rs. 10,59,538/-. The said denial is challenged by the appellant, whereas allowing of the Cenvat credit stand challenged by the Revenue. The appellant was availing the business support service (support service for business and commerce) such as security, cleaning and housekeeping, canteen, reception, maintenance of common areas i.e. roads, parking, security gate and running and maintenance of common facilities like ETP, STP, EPBX, WTP, DG sets, air compressors, chilling plant. For the said purposes, they have entered into an agreement with M/s Minda Acoustics Ltd. on 1/5/06 for the purpose of providing the above business support services. The Revenue has denied the credit on the ground that they cannot be held to be admissible cenvatable input services.
 
Appellant’s contention:- The appellant contended that services like security, cleaning and housekeeping , canteen, reception, maintenance of common areas i.e. roads, parking, security gate and running and maintenance of common facilities like ETP, STP, EPBX, WTP, DG sets, air compressors, chilling plant do not fall in ambit of input service definition thus credit won’t be allowed.
 
Reasoning of Judgement:   The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (20) S.T.R. 577 (Bom.), that the criteria for coverage of input services is that the same is integrally connected with business of manufacture of final product and the scope of the definition being very wide, the same would cover services not only used directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, but also various services used in relation to business of manufacture, whether prior to manufacture or after manufacture. The definition of input service seeks to cover every conceivable service used in business of manufacture. Similarly, in the case of Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune - III reported in 2009 (15) S.T.R. 657 (Bom.), it stands held that the term business appearing in the definition of input service cannot be given a restricted definition in as much as the said term is of wide import and covers all the activities related to functioning of a business. By applying the ratio of the above decision to the facts of the instant case, it was found that the business support services being provided by M/s Minda Acoustics Ltd. are relatable to the business activities of the appellant and are squarely covered by the definition of input services. Also it as found that no merits in the Revenue's contention that the same are not directly related to manufacture of their final products. Thus appeal was dismissed.
 
Decision:- Appeal was dismissed.
 
Comment:-The analogy drawn from this case is that the definition of input service cannot be given a restricted definition in as much as the said term is of wide import and covers all the activities related to functioning of a business.

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