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/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