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/21-22/3653

Whether not filing of cross objection by the assessee as well as Chartered Accountant’s Certificate can be the ground to reject the assessee’s claim of refund?
CaseNupur Viniyog Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata)
 
Citation: Appeal Number: Service Tax Appeal No.75701 of 2018
 
Issue: Whether not filing of cross objection by the assessee as well as Chartered Accountant’s Certificate can be the ground to reject the assessee’s claim of refund?

Brief Facts: the facts of the case are the learned Deputy Commissioner, Service Tax Park Street Division, Service Tax-II allowed the exemption by way of sanctioning an amount of Rs.1,34,782/- as refund of Service Tax paid on the taxable specified services for export of goods made under Bills of Export claimed by the by M/s. Nupur Viniyog Private Limited (Appellant) assessee. Subsequently, the Department filed appeal before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) on the ground that certain shipping bills involving amount of Rs.80,853/-do not fulfill the conditions as prescribed in Clause (i) of Paragraph 3 of the Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. The department has also raised the issue that the certificate of the Chartered Accountant as prescribed in sub-clauses (A) & (B) has not been submitted by the claimant. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the Department and modified the Order-in-Original (which sanctioned refund) on the ground that no Cross Objection was filed by the respondent assessee against the Department’s appeal and further on the ground that the Chartered Accountant’s Certificate was not filed before him. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal.

Appellant contention : Shri N.K. Agarwal, learned Chartered Accountant, appearing on behalf of the appellant assessee submitted that a claim for refund of Service Tax paid on specified taxable services used for export of goods under Bill of Exports amounting to Rs.1,43,138/- under Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 in Form-A-1 was filed on 22.05.2015. Subsequently, claim amounting to Rs.6,129/- was withdrawn with a request to process the remaining claim of Rs.1,37,009/-. It is his submission that the learned Adjudicating authority, after detailed verification of the documents as submitted by the appellant assessee, found that barring the credit involved in few input service invoices amounting to Rs.2,227/-, the refund claim of Rs.1,34,782/- fulfilled the conditions/requirements as prescribed in the Notification No.41/2012-ST (supra) and the said amount was found to be admissible for refund. Accordingly, the appellant assessee was granted the refund. He further submitted that they had also filed Cross Objection before the learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on 27.05.2016 against the appeal filed by the Department. He also submitted that in the course of hearing on 22.11.2017 before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the grounds taken in the Cross Objection were reiterated and the fact of filing the original copy of the Chartered Accountant’s Certificate dated 20.05.2015 filed along with the refund claim was asserted. He vehemently argued that the Memorandum of Cross Objection having been filed on 22.05.2016 is a fact on record, but the learned Commissioner (Appeals) chose to deny even the existence of any such Cross Objection filed by the appellant assessee, which is totally unjustified and uncalled for.
 
Reasoning of Judgement:Hearing took placethrough video conferencing and it was decided that the learned Adjudication officer has gone through all the documents and has discussed the conditions of the Notification or eligibility of the refund claim and has made a point-wise observation. He has finally sanctioned the refund claim. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal before him mainly on the ground that the respondent assessee did not file any Cross Objection and further Chartered Accountant’s Certificate was not available in the records before him. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) could have called for the copy of the Cross Objection filed by the assessee as well as copy of the Chartered Accountant’s Certificate. It was held that mere this ground cannot be the ground to reject the assessee’s claim of refund. It can be seen that there is no dispute as to the fact that the goods were exported by the appellant assessee. Once it is not in dispute that the services are specified for refund purpose, and since Service Tax was actually paid on specified services pertaining to export activity, refund must be granted to the exporter.

DECISION: Held that once it has been established that export had taken place and Service Tax was paid on export by the Appellant in terms of the relevant notification, refund must be granted. It is settled principle that substantive benefit should not be denied to the Appellant even if technical conditions are not fulfilled. Sole intention of the Government to bring out the rebate schemes is to promote the Indian exporters to enjoy a level playing field and to compete with the exporters of other countries in the global market; if the refund claims are rejected on such flimsy grounds, it defeats the very purpose of rebate schemes and traps the exporters under unnecessary litigations. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order is set aside and the order passed by the learned Adjudicating authority is upheld (OIO).
 
Prepared by Sandhya Daiya. 
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