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/2019-2020/3608

Whether purchase and sale of air cargo space liable to service tax?
PAWAN CARGO FORWARDS PVT. LTD. VS. PR. COMMR. OF S.T., CHENNAI-I[2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 559 (TRI.-CHENNAI)]
Brief facts:-The appellants are an air cargo agent and are paying service tax on the commission amount paid from the airlines. Department took the view that appellants should have been paying service tax also on the freight charges reimbursed by them from their customers charged over and above the freight amount payable to the airline companies.
 
Issue:-Whether purchase and sale of air cargo space liable to service tax?
Appellant’s contentions:-It was submitted that although department wants to levy service tax on the profit earned but has calculated service tax demand on the gross amount collected from the customer on behalf of the airlines, which is contrary to the order itself.
It was submitted that the appellant is merely an agent collecting the freight on behalf of the Airlines and hence, the amount collected cannot be treated as service provided by the appellant-assessee to the customers.
 
It was submitted that on the freight amount, service tax has already been paid by the airlines and hence, only again taxing the same in the hands of the appellant, would amount to double-taxation, which is incorrect. Reliance is placed on Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of -Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr. - 2013 (29) S.T.R. 9 (Del.)wherein it was held that the double taxation must be clearly provided for and intended; at any rate, double taxation cannot be enforced by implication.The aforesaid order has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and Anr.v. M/s. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (3) TMI 357-SUPREME COURT OF INDIA = 2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 401 (S.C.).
 
It was also submitted that even if the entire amount collected from customer is taxable in the hands of the appellant, then the service tax paid by the airlines would be available as cenvat credit to the appellant, which would make the entire exercise revenue neutral.
 
It was also submitted that, it is a settled law that no service tax can be demanded on difference between freight amount collected from the customer and paid to the airlines. Reliance is placed on :-
 
1. M/s. Skylift Cargo (P) Ltd.v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai And (Vice-Versa) 2018 (2) TMI 320-CESTAT CHENNAI
2. M/s. La Freight Pvt. Ltd.v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai 2018 (3) TMI 113-CESTAT CHENNAI
 
 
Respondent’s contentions:- The respondent submits that the assessee adopts two types of transaction, one in respect of which they act as intermediary which involves commission on agreed terms and the other booking cargo space from airlines and sale to their customers. The issue revolves around retaining of air freight amount collected by them. Assessee as an agent had performed booking and marketing of cargo space and such activity falls under the category of service in terms of Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 and is chargeable to service tax on the gross amount received. Hence, appellants are liable to discharge service tax on the total value realized by them from their customers.
Reasoning of judgment:-After considering the submissions, it was concluded that mere sale and purchase of cargo space and earning profit in the process is not a taxable activity as held in the case of Skylift Cargo (P) Ltd.v. CST, Chennai and La Freight Pvt. Ltd. v. CST, Chennai.
It was held that the same view has been taken by this Tribunal earlier also in the case of Tax Global India Ltd. v. CST, Chennai [Final Order No. 42113/2017, dated 18-9-2017 in Appeal No. ST/150/2008]. Hence following the ratio already laid down, the impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential benefits.
Comment:- The issue regarding taxability of the activity of purchase and sale of cargo space has been a matter of dispute and there have been favourable decisions wherein it has been held that the margin earned on such activity is not liable to service tax. It is pertinent to mention that there was service tax exemption on air freight and so when the said activity was exempted, the transaction of purchase and sale of space should also not be liable to service tax.
Prepared By- CA Neeetu  Sukhani 
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