Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2599

Whether credit of ST paid on Brokerage for sale/purchase of shares & securities for Trading, Event management services available?

Case:-BANK OF BARODA LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-II .

Citation:-2015 (37) S.T.R. 488 (Tri. - Mumbai)

Brief Facts:-
The applicants are seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 4,88,93,874/- along with interest and various penalties under the Finance Act, 1994, on account of denial of Cenvat credit on certain input services.
The brief facts of the case are that applicant is a banking company engaged in providing banking and financial services to their clients. To provide their services the applicants are required to maintain CCR and SLR as per guide-lines prescribed by RBI. For this, the applicant is paying brokerage and sale of investment and also paying custodian charges to M/s. Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. No doubt on these charges the service provider is paying Service Tax and charging from the applicant. The applicant has taken Cenvat credit on the Service Tax paid on these services. Further, the applicant has availed Cenvat credit on event management charges paid by them to custodian for celebration of annual day function etc., they have also taken the Cenvat credit on the consortium charges paid to the lead bank i.e. SBI and also taken the Cenvat credit on maintenance charges for residential flat of Managing Director. The Revenue is of the view that all these services are not input service for providing output service by the applicant. Therefore, they are not entitled to take Cenvat credit on these input services. Accordingly, the show cause notices were issued and same was converted into impugned orders. Aggrieved from the said orders, the applicant is in appeals before Tribunal and seeking waiver of pre-deposit of the impugned demands.

Appellant contentions:- Shri S.S. Gupta ld. CA for the applicant submits that the brokerage paid on purchase, sale and investment and custodial charges of Stock Holding Corporate Ltd. are statutory expenses to be incurred by the applicant to do their banking business. Therefore, whatever charges they have paid, the Service Tax is also paid thereon. Therefore, they are entitled for Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on these charges, as these charges are related to their business activity. It is further submitted that for event management charges also they are entitled to take Cenvat credit as these events are carried out by them to celebrate their anniversary wherein their clients, employees and other persons have participated. He further submits that Cenvat credit has been denied on service charges paid to the lead bank, on account of documents against which they have availed Cenvat credit against prescribed document under Rule 9(f) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In this context, it is submitted that as per Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the concession has been given to the banking and financial institution and as all the details required as per Rule 4A ibid are present, the applicant is entitled to take Cenvat credit. For maintenance charges for residential flat of Managing Director, the ld. Consultant submits that they have reversed the credit.

Respondent Contentions:- On the other hand, the ld. AR opposed the contention of the ld. CA and submits that the Cenvat credit taken by the applicants for three services mentioned hereinabove is not entitled to take Cenvat credit as these services are not directly related to their business activity. Therefore, the applicant be put to terms, at this stage.

Reasoning of Judgment:-The learned heard the parties and considered their submissions.
After hearing arguments advanced by the ld. Consultant, we are of the view that the services namely Brokerage for sale/purchase of shares & securities for Trading, Custodian charges, Event management services paid by them are in nature of input services having nexus to their business activity. Therefore, they are entitled to avail input service credit. We further find that as per Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, the required document that has been mentioned is the debit note issued by lead bank i.e. State Bank of India for Custodian charges and it contains all details. Therefore, applicants are entitled to take Cenvat credit on the said document. As the applicant had already reversed a sum of Rs. 44,620/-against the maintenance charges for residential flat of the Managing Director, therefore, the applicant has made out a case for complete waiver of pre-deposit. Accordingly, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of Service Tax, interest and penalties and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal.

Decision:-  Stay granted.

Comment:-The crux of the case is that service tax paid for Brokerage for sale/purchase of shares & securities for Trading, Custodian charges, Event management services are in nature of input services having nexus to their business activity. Therefore, the assessee will be entitled to avail input service credit of the same.

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