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/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