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 Law/2019-2020/3614

Whether Cenvat credit can be distributed for receipt of input services, under common invoice without registration as an ISD?
RAJASTHAN PATRIKA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CGST, JAIPUR Final Order Nos. A/51245-51246/2019-SM(BR), dated 15-5-2019 in Appeal Nos. ST/53597 & 51359/2018-SM
 

Brief facts: M/s Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited, a private limited company is engaged in the business of print media, organizing events and running FM Radio Stations. Through FM Radio stations it earns revenue from selling of time slots to the advertisers on which it was paying service tax, without claiming any exemption. The appellant has taken separate service tax registrations at all the four locations and was discharging service tax separately. However, the appellant is a private limited entity and has a common Income Tax PAN and Company Identification Number. As the vendors were providing input services to all the four FM Radio stations of the appellant, they raised a common bill for their services addressed to the Jaipur office (Head Office) of the appellant.
Issue:Whether Cenvat credit can be distributed for receipt of input services, under common invoice without registration as an ISD?
Reasoning Of The Judgment:It is admitted fact that the appellant have received the input services at all the four broadcasting centers. All the four broadcasting centers are registered with the Service Tax Department running taxable output services being 'sale of advertisement slots' etc. Admittedly, the service providers have raised the bill at their Jaipur office, which is the Head Office of the appellant company and they have paid the service charges including service tax to the service provider, and have taken Cenvat credit. Thus, there is only a procedural irregularity. Had the appellant taken centralized registration or got them registered as an ISD for their Jaipur Office, then there would have been no such difficulty and/or irregularity in availing the Cenvat credit. The appellant is one and the same having common PAN based registration number and also CIN number under the Companies Act. At best, the appellant could have got registered as an ISD and distributed the Cenvat credit proportionately to their other three radio stations and could have availed the Cenvat credit, thus adjusting the output tax payable. Thus, the situation is wholly revenue neutral. Learned Counsel further relies on the ruling of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Dashion Limited - 2016 (41) S.T.R. 884 (Guj.) wherein the issue before the Hon’ble High Court was -The High Court noticed that the objection of the Department was that the credit from one unit was utilized for the purpose of duty liability of other unit, without pro rata distribution by the input service distributor and observed that there is nothing in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which would automatically and without any additional reasons disentitle an input service distributor from availing Cenvat credit unless and until such registration was applied and granted. It was in this background that the Tribunal viewed the requirement as curable. Particularly when it was found that full records were maintained and the irregularity, if at all, was procedural and when it was further found that the records were available for the Revenue to verify the correctness, the Tribunal, in our opinion, rightly did not disentitle the assessee from the entire Cenvat credit availed for payment of duty. Accordingly, it answers the question in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the Learned Counsel prays for allowing of the appeal with consequential relief. Same judgment passed by court considering the above case that that the situation is wholly Revenue neutral as all the four centres had paid service tax, also in cash and the Cenvat credit could have been distributed and thus availed by the other centres, and hence no gain. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The appellant is entitled to consequential benefit, in accordance with law.
Comment:Since the issue is regarding distribution of Cenvat credit among different branches without registration for ISD is only procedural irregularity as they have paying output tax and registered in same PAN, so it can be allow to be distribute as there is no additional gain and ask them to register for ISD so that they can distribute credit properly.
Prepared by CA Kunal Karnawat
 
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