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/2015-16/2599

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