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/2013-14/2009

Whether diesel received free of cost from the service recipient is included in gross value of service provided?

Case:- KARAMJEET SINGH & CO. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., RAIPUR

Citation:-2013(32) S.T.R. 740 (Tri.-Del.)

Brief Facts:-The four appeals are preferred (by the same assessee) against adjudi­cation orders dated 16-5-2008, 20-7-2009, 20-7-2009, 20-7-2009 and 31-1-2011, re­spectively determining the assessee’s liability to specified amounts of Service Tax, interest and penalties.

The assessee was proceeded against for under remittance of Service for the taxable "site formation and clearance, excavation and earth moving demolition" services provided to M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Limited (JSPL) under distinct contracts covering the period 16-6-2005 to 31-3-2007; 1-4-2007 to 30-9-2007; 1-10-2007 to 31-9-2008; and 1-10-2008 to 30-9-2009, respectively. Before the adjudicating authority the assessee had contended that for the entire period covered by the adjudication order dated 16-5-2008 (subject matter of Appeal No. ST/578/2008) and for the period covered by the adjudication order dated 20-7‑2009 (subject matter of Appeal No. ST/803/2009) Service Tax was due to be remitted since the services provided by the assessee, on a true and fair construction of the transaction did not fall under site formation and clearance etc. service, a contention that did not find favour with the adjudicating authority.

The short issue that falls for consideration is whether the value of diesel supplied by the service recipient JSPL, free of cost, to the assessee service provider ought to be included in the gross value charged for the service provid­ed for valuation of the tax liability under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority concluded that the value of the diesel so supplied by the service recipient to the assessee/service provider should be included. Since the assessee failed to reveal the value of the diesel so provided by JSPL and to in­clude the same in the gross value receipts disclosed in the Service Tax-3 returns and failed to remit tax on such value, proceedings were initiated culminating in the adjudication orders, impugned in these appeals. Since this is the core issue we refer to the adjudication order dated 16-5-2008 (subject matter of Appeal No. ST/572/2008) as illustrative of all the adjudication orders which are impugned in the appeals.

The adjudicating authority in para 6 of the order extracted provisions of Section 67 of the Act; in para 7, the value of the diesel supplied free of cost by the service recipient to the assessee is set out in a tabular form, and there is no contest on the valuation of the diesel price. In pare 7.2, the adjudicating authority concluded that the total diesel consumed during the relevant period was of the value of Rs. 27,51,22,718/- and that this value must be considered as the consid­eration received by the service provider from the service recipient for providing the taxable service of site clearance, under Section 67(1)(ii) of the Act.

Respondent Contentions:-The respondent reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority.

Reasoning of Judgment:-Whether the above conclusion and analysis is sustainable is the only issue before this Tribunal.

In the context of a challenge to the vires of Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, the High Court of Delhi in Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India - 2013 (29) S.T.R. 9 (Del.) had occasion to consider the scope of Section 67 of the Act as well. To the extent relevant and material, suffice it to notice that Rule 5(1) of the 2006 Rules enjoins that where any expenditure or cost is incurred by the service provider in the course of providing a taxable service, all such expenditure or costs shall be treated as con­sideration for the taxable service provided or to be provided and shall be includ­ed in the value for the purpose of charging Service Tax on the said service. This provision was challenged on the ground of transgressing the scope and trajectory of Section 67 of the Act. The High Court invalidated Rule 5(1) of the 2006 Rules on the conclusion that this provision was ultra vires Section 67 of the Act. In the course of analysis, the Delhi High Court concluded that in the context of Section 67 read holistically with the provisions of Section 66 as well, it is clear that quan­tification of the value of a service can never exceed the gross amount charged by the service provider for the service provided to him and that the mere fact that rule was made as a subordinate legislation would not enable an expansion of the legitimate contours of the statutory provision. Proceeding from this analysis of Section 67, the High Court concluded that expenditure or costs incurred by the service provider in the course of providing the taxable service can never be con­sidered as the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service provided by him.

In the light of the aforesaid clear ratio delineated in Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), the conclusion is irre­sistible that the value of diesel supplied free of cost by the service recipient to the assessee service provider for providing the taxable "site formation and clearance, excavation and earthmoving and demolition" service would not be a component of the gross value charged for the service provided, for computation of tax under Section 67 of the Act and the failure to so include would not constitute either suppression of material facts nor a wilful contravention of the provisions of the Act with a view to evade tax, justifying invocation of the extended period of limi­tation under the proviso to Section 73(i) of the Act either. The several adjudica­tion orders impugned in these appeals are unsustainable on the aforesaid analy­sis and are accordingly quashed. The appeals are allowed but in the circum­stances without costs.
 
Decision:-Appeal allowed.

Comment:- Following the ratio of the decision given by the High Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the value of material supplied free of cost by the service recipient is not includible in the taxable value for the purpose of levy of service tax.
 
 

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