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 /2016-17/3274

Whether credit be denied on ground that service tax was not required to be paid?

Case:- GHAZIABAD PRECISION PRODUCTS P. LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T., GHAZIABAD
 
Citation:- 2016 (42) S.T.R. 369 (Tri. - Del.)
 
Brief Facts:-The facts of the case are that the assessee is an exporter of goods and availed certain input services outside India. The assessee was under the impression that as the services have been availed outside India, therefore, the assessee is not required to pay service tax on the services under reverse charge mechanism, did not pay the service tax. During the course of audit, it was pointed out to the assessee that assessee is required to pay service tax on the input services availed outside India under the reverse charge mechanism. The assessee paid service tax as directed by the Audit team and took the credit of the same in PLA. Subsequent audit also took place, wherein it was directed to the assessee that they were not required to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism, therefore, whatever the service tax they had paid, they are not entitled to credit of same. In these set of facts, the show cause notice was issued to the appellant to deny the credit availed by them which he was adjudicated and proposal made in the show cause notice was confirmed by the adjudicating authority. On appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee has to reverse the credit along with interest availed by them but the assessee can file refund claim of the service tax paid by them. In consequence to the said order, the assessee reversed the Cenvat credit and filed refund claim.
 
Appellant’s Contentions:- In the appeal filed, the assessee is requesting for setting aside of demand of interest confirmed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by reversal of credit during the intervening period.
 
Respondent’s Contentions:-The Revenue has challenged the impugned order on the premise that the assessee is not entitled to take Cenvat credit in their PLA account and refund claim filed by the assessee is barred by limitation.
 
Reasoning Of Judgement-The Tribunal heard both the parties.
In this case, initially the assessee was not paying the Service Tax under reverse charge mechanism and on being pointed out by the Audit team have paid the Service Tax and taken credit in their PLA account. In subsequent audit, it was observed that as the assessee is not required to pay Service Tax, therefore, they are not entitled to avail Cenvat credit. Infact, on the Service Tax paid by the assessee under reverse charge mechanism, the assessee has taken the credit. On being pointed out by the later audit team, the Service Tax they were asked to reverse the credit of service tax taken by them.
As per Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the assessee is entitled to take the credit of Service Tax paid. Therefore, the observation of the audit team in subsequent audit is not correct. If that has been taken care of at that time, this allegation was not required. Further, the observations made by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order directing the assessee to reverse the said credit and file refund claim is also not warranted. As the entire exercise is revenue neutral, in these circumstances, the following order was passed :
The service tax paid by the assessee initially as directed by the Audit team under reverse charge mechanism, the assessee is entitled to take Cenvat credit of the same in their Cenvat credit account. There is no requirement of reversal of Cenvat credit and consequently, the assessee is not required to file Refund claim.
With these observations, appeals are disposed of.
 
Decision- Appeal disposed of.
 
Comment-The gist of the case is thatassessee having paid Service Tax under reverse charge mechanism,  is  entitled to avail credit of same in Cenvat credit account .Therefore, merely because service tax was erroneously paid cannot be the reason for denying credit as far as service tax has been paid by assessee.
 
Prepared By- Praniti Lalwani
 
 

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