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-2013/14-1599

Whether magazine for fertilizer industry be treated as newspaper so as to exclude leviability of service tax?

Case:-  M/s FERTIPLANT ENGGCO PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD

Citation:-   2013 –TIOL -748-CESTAT-MUM

Brief Facts:-The appeal and stay application are directed against the Order-in-Appeal no. S/419/RGD/2012 dated 28.06.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II.

The Appellant, M/s Fertiplant Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. are manufacturer of machinery used in fertilizer industry. They placed an advertisement for their machinery in a magazine, called “Fertilizer Focus” which is published in UK. The department was of the view that for the consideration paid by them for putting out the advertisement in the foreign magazine, the appellant is liable to discharge Service Tax under the category of “Sale of space or time for advertisement” services and accordingly, a demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs.32,642/- was confirmed along with interest thereon and also imposing penalties under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority, who dismissed the appeal. Hence, the appellant is before Tribunal.

Appellant Contentions:-The appellant submitted that as per definition of “Sale of space or time for advertisement” under section 65(105)(zzzm), it specifically excludes sale of space for advertisement in Print Media and since the magazine is a print media, they are not liable to pay any Service Tax. The term ‘Print Media' has been defined under Section 65(105)(zzzm), as a ‘Newspaper' defined under section 1(1) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 and as per the said Act “newspaper” means any printed periodical work containing public news or comments on public news. Therefore, the said magazine comes under the category of ‘Print Media' as provided for in the law. The learned counsel also submits that if the Service Tax is levied, they would be eligible for availing credit thereon under the category of input services and, therefore, the entire transaction is revenue neutral. He also submits that the demand is time barred as the show-cause notice has been issued on 07.01.2011 for the period 2006-07 and 2007-08. Accordingly, he prays for grant of stay.
 
Respondent Contentions:- The Respondent submits that the magazine “Fertilizer Focus” is mainly circulated amongst the people engaged in fertilizer industry and does not have any news value for the general public. Therefore, it does not qualify as newspaper. Accordingly, he submits that the appellant be put to terms.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-We have considered the submission from both parties and perused the record, we find that the definition of ‘newspaper' as defined under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 is wide enough to cover any periodical work containing public news and comments on public news. In the instant case, the magazine is published once in two months and it is a printed periodical work. The magazine publishes news pertaining to fertilizer industry and advertisement of the said industry and contains articles on research work which is going on and the statutory provisions relating to the said industry. Since the scope of magazine is specific, it will be mainly of interest to public connected with that industry. Public connected with the industry would include a large number of the public such as fertilizer users, manufacture of fertilizers, farmers, scientists and all others whoever is interested in that field. They are as much part of the general public as anybody else and, therefore, we are prima facie of the view that the impugned magazine is a newspaper as defined in the law.

In any case, the transaction is revenue neutral, inasmuch as the appellant could have taken credit of the Service Tax paid on the transaction as promotion or marketing of the goods come within the purview of input services as defined in rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Thus, the appellant has made out a strong prima facie case in their favour for grant of stay.
Accordingly, we grant unconditional waiver of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged against the appellant and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal.
 
Decision-: Stay application allowed.

Comment:-The analogy drawn from this case is that the magazine published for the fertilizer industry would be treated at par with newspaper, i.e. print media so as to exclude it from the purview of service tax as this magazine is also meant for the public at large who are interested or are in any way connected with the field of fertilizers. 

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