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/2014-15/2277

Whether credit of ST paid on GTA, insurance service could be used for payment of ST on output service of Authorised Service Station?

Case:-M/s TARAN ANGAD TRADERS (P) LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE
 
Citation:-2014-TIOL-1537-CESTAT-DEL
  
Brief facts:-The appellant are an Authorised Service Station and also a dealer of M/s. Hero Honda Motors and accordingly, are also engaged in the business of purchase and sales of new motorcycles and part thereof besides, servicing of motorcycles by maintaining an Authorised Service Station from the same premises. The period of dispute in this case is from 1.10.2004 to 30.09.2005. The point of dispute is as to whether the cenvat credit of service tax paid on the GTA service, insurance service and telephone services availed could be used for payment of service tax on the output service of Authorised Service Station. The department being of the view that these input services mainly used for purchasing of the two wheelers and their storage and sale, the same cannot be treated as input services for servicing of the two wheelers and accordingly, the appellant would not be eligible for cenvat credit in respect of these services. On this basis, the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 6.10.2006 confirmed cenvat credit demand of Rs.1,30,790/- along with interest and besides this, imposed penalty of Rs.2,000/- on them under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On appeal being filed to the Commissioner
(Appeals), this order of the Dy. Commissioner was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 10.09.2008. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed.
 
Appellant’s contentions:-Shri P.K. Ram, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the issue involved in this case stands decided in favour of the appellant by the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Badrika Motors (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bhopal [2014-TIOL-24-CESTAT-DEL], wherein the Tribunal relying upon its earlier decision in the case of CCE, Tirupathi Vs.Shariff Motors [2009-TIOL-1571-CESTAT- BANG] and also the judgement in the case of Sri Venkanna Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad 2009 (16) STR 34 (Tribunal- Bang.) has held that when M/s. Badrika Motors (P) Ltd., as an authorized service station, is also a dealer of two wheelers, they would be eligible for utilizing cenvat credit of service tax paid in respect of GTA service availed for transportation of the new Hero Honda Two Wheelers to their premises, for the payment of service tax on output services of the servicing of two wheelers provided by them in terms of their agreement with Hero Honda Motors, as in terms of the agreement, M/s. Badrika Motors (P) Ltd. was required not only to engage themselves in the sale of products and spares but also to service the two wheelers as well and it is axiomatic that no precise or mathematical correlation is required between the input and output services. He pleaded that in view of this judgement of the Tribunal, the impugned order is not sustainable.
 
 
Respondent’s contentions:-Shri Amresh Jain, ld. Departmental Representative defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasized that services received by the appellant i.e GTA service, insurance service and telephone services have been received in connection with bringing new two wheelers, their storage and their sale and these services have no nexus with the output service of the appellant. He, therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
 
 
Reasoning of judgment:-They have considered the submissions from both the sides.Issue involved in this case stands decided in favour of the Appellant by the Tribunal judgement in case of M/s. Badrika Motors (P) Ltd.The Tribunal relying upon earlier decision in the case of CCE, Tirupathi Vs. Shariff Motors - 2009-TIOL-1571 -CESTAT- BANG and also the judgement in the case of Sri Venkanna Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad 2009 (16) STR 34 (Tribunal- Bang.)has held that when M/s. Badrika Motors (P) Ltd.,as an authorized service station, is also a dealer of two wheelers, would be eligible for utilizing cenvat credit of service tax paid in respect of GTA service availed for transportation of the new Hero Honda Two Wheelers to their premises, for the payment of service tax on output services of the servicing of two wheelers provided by them in terms of their agreement with Hero Honda Motors, as in terms of the agreement.
 
Decision:- Appeal allowed.
 
Comment:- The analogy of the case is that  the cenvat credit of ST paid on the GTA service, insurance service and telephone services availed could be used for payment of ST on the output service of Authorised Service Station. According to earlier decision of the tribunal in Badrika Motors, the cenvat credit on service tax paid on GTA availed can be used for payment of service tax on output service. Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 “Input service” includes any service used by a service provider for providing an output service, hence credit can be availed and utilised for discharging the output service liability of Authorised Service Station.
 
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