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/2015-16/2918

Whether credit admissible on the services like printing of calendar, greeting cards, diaries, etc.?

Case:- ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. VERSUSCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I
 
Citation:-2015 (40) S.T.R. 523 (Tri. - Del.)
 

Brief facts:-The appellant is in appeals against the impugned orders denying credit of Service Tax paid on various services, i.e., on printing of calendar, greeting cards, diaries and for organizing award function for students and booklets for contest and water harvesting systems during the period April, 2007 to March, 2011 and non-payment of Service Tax on space renting for commercial purposes.
As both the appeals are arising out of common issue, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.
 
Appellant’s contention:- The contention of the learned consultant for the appellant is that printing of calendars, greeting cards, diaries, etc., are for the sales promotion activity of their business. Further awards function organized by them is also part of their sale promotion as the students to whom the awards have been given, they give innovative idea for usage of their products in the construction activity. These two services are integral part of the sale promotion activity of the appellant. He submits that the appellants are entitled to take credit on these services. For demand of Service Tax, it is the submission of the appellant that they are falling within the SSI exemption limit and their turnover during the impugned period remained below the threshold taxable limit during the period. Therefore, the impugned orders are to be set aside.
 
Respondent’s contention:- On the other hand, learned AR opposed the contention of the consultant and submits that the activity of printing of calendar, greeting cards, diaries, etc., and distribution thereof are not an activity of their business but are welfare or facilities provided to the employees. To support this contention, he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the cases of CCE, Nagpurv. Manikgarh Cement - 2010 (20)S.T.R.456 (Tri. - Bom.) and Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd.v. CCE, Lucknow - 2012 (282)E.L.T.541 (Tri. - Del.) = 2014 (34)S.T.R.309 (Tri.).For demand of Service Tax, he submits that the appellant is big organization and have multifarious business activities and it is not possible that the value of taxable service of whole organization is less than the threshold limit. Therefore, the appellant is liable to pay service tax on this service.
 
Reasoning of judgment:- In this case, the two issues are involved - (a) whether the appellant is entitled to take credit on the services namely, printing of calendar, greeting cards, diaries, etc., and organization award functions or not? (b) whether the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax under the category of renting of immovable property having turnover of less than the threshold limit of SSI exemption or not?
For availing credit on printing of calendar, greeting cards, diaries, etc., the appellant used these services for advertisement purposes of their products, therefore, these are integral part of their sale promotion. They accordingly, hold that the appellant is entitled to take credit on printing of calendar, greeting cards, diaries, etc. Further they hold that for organizing award functions, these activities are parts of their sale promotion as the students to whom the awards have been given, they give innovative idea for marketing their products in the public. Therefore, the said activities are also the activities for sale promotion. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to take credit on printing of calendar, greeting cards, diaries, etc., and organizing award functions which are integral part of the sale promotion.
For demand of Service Tax under the category of renting of immovable property for the period 2007-08 to 2010-11, the total demand of Rs. 44,030/- which is below the threshold limit and the Revenue has not produced any contrary evidence that the appellant has crossed the threshold limit. In the absence of evidence, they hold that the appellant’s turnover is below the threshold limit of SSI exemption. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay Service Tax on these services. In these circumstances, they do not find any merit in the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same are set aside. The appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.
 
Decision:- Appeal allowed.
 
Comment:- The analogy of the case is that credit can be availed for printing for distribution of calendars, greeting cards, diaries, as the same being an activity of sales promotion, is integral part of business activity. Organizing functions for giving rewards to persons providing innovative marketing ideas also a part of business activity. Hence, both services were held as input service. Hence Credit of Service Tax is available on them.
Second issue was regarding leviability of Service Tax under the category of renting of immovable property which was below the threshold limit. As Revenue could not produce any contrary evidence to show that the appellant has crossed the threshold limit, the appellant was entitled for small scale industries exemption. In the absence of evidence, they hold that the appellant’s turnover is below the threshold limit of SSI exemption. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay Service Tax on these services.

Prepared by:- Monika Tak

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