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/2015-16/2698

Whether one division of a parent company can discharge the service tax liability on its behalf?
Case:-  SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPN. LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., PUNE-I
 
Citation:- 2015 (37) S.T.R. 311 (Tri. - Mumbai)

Brief Facts:-The appeal and stay petition are directed against order-in-original No. PUN-EXCUS-001-COM-044-13-14, dated 9-1-2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I Commissionerate. Vide the impugned order, the learned adjudicating authority has confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 1,53,31,456/- along with interest thereon and also imposing penalties under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 against M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant is before Tribunal.
 
Appelants Contention-The learned consultant for the appellant makes the following submissions. M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. has various divisions, namely Sahara TV Network, Aamby Valley Ltd. and so on. Subsequently, Aamby Valley Ltd. was demerged from the parent company and became a separate legal entity and vide a brand agreement between Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. and Aamby Valley Ltd., the latter was permitted to use the brand name of former subject to payment of consideration. This usage of brand name falls under the category of ‘intellectual property service’. In the invoices issued for the receipt of consideration, it is stipulated that the payment has to be made by Aamby Valley Ltd. to Sahara India TV Network, Mumbai, who will discharge the service tax liability in respect of the consideration received. Accordingly, Sahara India TV Network, Mumbai, discharged service tax liability of Rs. 2,32,36,539/- on the consideration received for the usage of brand name. The department is disputing the payment by Sahara India TV Network and insists that the payment should have been made by Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. only and not by Sahara India TV Network, Mumbai, since it is only a division of the former. It also appears from the notice that the dispute is not actually relating to payment by Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. division but usage of Cenvat credit for payment of service tax by Sahara India TV Network. This Tribunal in the case of Mahindra Logistics Ltd.v. CC, E & ST, Nagpur reported in 2012-TIOL-1919-CESTAT-MUM, had held that separate divisions of a legal entity cannot be considered as separate legal entities and if the tax liability is discharged by the head office, the same would suffice. Following the ratio of the decision, so long as the service tax liability has been discharged by a division of Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., the same would be a valid discharge of tax liability and no further liability would accrue. Accordingly he prays for grant of stay.
 
Respondents Contention-The learned Additional Commissioner appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authority. It is his submission that when Sahara India TV Network has discharged the service tax liability utilising the Cenvat credit, it is not correct discharge of duty liability.
 
Reasoning Of Judgement-The tribunal have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. From the show cause notice, it appears that the charge against the appellant is that Sahara India TV Network which is a division of Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., cannot discharge the tax liability on behalf of Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. They do not find any provision in law which supports this proposition. So long as Sahara India TV Network is a part and parcel of Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. and they have received consideration for services rendered by the parent company and discharge service liability, the same cannot be said to be a wrong discharge of tax liability or misutilisation of Cenvat credit. Thus the appellant has made out a prima facie case for waiver of the dues. Accordingly they grant unconditional waiver of the dues adjudged against the appellant and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal.

Decision-Stay granted

Comment-The crux of the case is that the division of a parent company is part and parcel of it and so discharge of the service tax liability on behalf of the parent company by the division is valid and proper. Hence, the stay application was allowed.

Prepared By-Neelam Jain
 

Post a Comment
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