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/2014-15/2366

Whether Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on input services used in the construction of immovable property which is further rented out be availed?

Case:OBEROI MALL LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI

 
Citation:2014-TIOL-1757-CESTAT-MUM
 
Brief Fact:
 
The appeal and stay petition are directed against order-in-original No. 04-06/ST-II/RS/2014 dated 30/01/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai. Vide the impugned order, the learned adjudicating authority has disallowed Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.2,02,62,906/- availed by the appellant in respect of various input services relating to construction of mall which was subsequently rented out to various customers. Apart from the service tax demand, interest liability has also been confirmed and equivalent amount of penalty under Section 78 and a penalty of Rs.5,000/- under Section 77 were also imposed. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us.
 
Appellant contention:
 
The learned Consultant for the appellant submits that this is second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, when the matter had come up before this Tribunal, this Tribunal had granted stay vide order No.S/163-165/13/CSTB/C-I dated 14/01/2013=2013-TIOL-604-CESTATMUM and thereafter vide Order No. ST/CO/91025 to 91027/13 dated 22/05/2013 = 2013-TIOL- 1241-CESTAT-MUM the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to give clear finding as to why the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of service tax paid on inputs services in respect of construction services, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd.{2013 (30) ST 3} = 2013-TIOL-12-HC-AHM-STand the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Navaratna S.G. Highway Prop (P) Ltd. {2012 (28) STR 166 (Tri-Ahmd-2012-TIOL-1245-CESTAT-AHM. In the second round of litigation, the adjudicating authority has once again confirmed the demand by denying the credit by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Galaxy Mercantile Ltd. = 2013-TIOL-751-HCALL- ST. The learned Consultant submits that in the Galaxy Mercantile Ltd. case, the question for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court was, whether Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods could be availed in respect of a building constructed which was subsequently used for warehousing purpose. In that case, the Tribunal vide order dated 24/07/2013 2013-TIOL-1442-CESTAT-DEL, by majority decision, held that Cenvat Credit availed on inputs service is not required to be reversed and only directed pre-deposit of 35% of the Cenvat Credit attributable to inputs and capital goods. The said decision was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and the same was upheld. Therefore, the question of availing Cenvat Credit on inputs service on the construction of immovable property was not considered by the Hon'ble High Court at all. Therefore, reliance on the same decision for confirmation of service tax demand is clearly not sustainable.
The learned Consultant further submits that as per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sai Sahmita Storages (P) Ltd. = 2011-TIOL-863-HC-AP-CXthe credit of service tax paid on input service is available when the same is used for construction of immovable property, which is thereafter used for warehousing. He also referred to the decision in the case of Navratna S.G. Highway Prop. (P) Ltd., wherein a similar view was taken. Accordingly he pleads for grant of stay.
 
 
Respondent Contention:
The learned Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority and it is his contention that the impugned demands are sustainable in law and the appellant be put to terms.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:
As regards the reliance placed by the adjudicating authority in the case of Galaxy Mercantile Ltd., the said decision did not pertain to eligibility of Cenvat Credit on input services which were used in the construction of an immovable property. The question for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court was only limited to eligibility of Cenvat Credit on inputs and capital goods. In fact, in the said case, this Tribunal had held that the appellant was eligible for availing Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on input services and therefore, reliance placed by the adjudicating authority on this decision does not support the Revenue's case at all.
 
We further observe that the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of                            Sai Sahmita Storages (P) Ltd. and this tribunal in the case of Navratna S.G. Highway Pro. (P) Ltd. has held that Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on input services used in the construction of immovable property would be available if such immovable property is used for rendering other taxable services. Following the same in the present case also, we hold that the appellant has made out a prima facie case for grant of stay. Accordingly, we grant unconditional waiver from pre-deposit of dues adjudged against the appellant and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal.
 
 
Decision : Stay granted

Comment:
The tribunal while delivering its decision stated that there is no such bar on the availment of input services used in the construction of immovable property to the extent such constructed property is further used in the rendering of other output services.
 
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