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 /2016-17/3434

Whether refund of service tax can be denied on ground of mismatch?
 
Case - ROSHAN R. JAISWAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR
 
Citation-2015 (38) S.T.R. 772 (Tri. - Mumbai)
           
 
Brief Facts-  The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a distributor for BSNL Pre-paid Cellular services etc. and was registered with Service Tax department under the category of ‘franchise service’. As per para 9 of the Order-in-Original, the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 24,73,590/- during the period 13-1-2009 to 9-11-2009 which included interest. These taxes were paid pursuant to issue of show cause notice dated 16-10-2008, which was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 17-8-2009. Although the tax and interest has been deposited, the appellant had preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide Order-in-Appeal No. SR/52/NGP/2010, dated 15-2-2010 allowed the appeal in favour of the appellant holding that the appellant is a trader in SIM cards and have paid the Sales Tax on such transaction and accordingly, no Service Tax is payable. Consequent to allowing of the appeal, the appellant applied for refund for the total amount of Rs. 24,76,590/-. The Assistant Commissioner while adjudicating the claim of refund, allowed refund of Rs. 23,76,070/- (Rs. 18,98,953/- being Service Tax and Rs. 4,77,117/- towards interest) observing that as per the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the amount of Service Tax on the alleged value of Service Tax comes to Rs. 18,98,953/- and the interest on such tax comes to Rs. 5,74,637/- whereas on scrutiny of the challans it is observed that the appellant has paid Rs. 19,96,473/- as tax, and Rs. 4,77,117/- towards interest and the amount of Rs. 97,520/- was rejected. It was observed that the interest paid by the appellant does not tally with the calculation as per the appellate order and thus, the amount was rejected on the ground of mismatch.
 
Appellant’s Contention-  The appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal and states that as it has been held that no Service Tax is exigible on the appellant, whatever amount was deposited by it is acquired the character of deposit. Accordingly, the whole amount of Rs. 24,76,590/- become refundable and there is miscarriage of justice in rejecting the refund of an amount of Rs. 97,520/- out of the total claim on the account of mismatch. Accordingly, the appellant prays for allowing the appeal with a direction to the concerned authority to refund the rejected amount of Rs. 97,520/-.
 
Respondent’s Contention-  The learned AR appearing for the Revenue relies on the impugned order.
 
Reasoning of Judgment-  The amounts deposited by the appellant whether by way of tax or interest, it assumed the character of deposit when it was held in its favor that no Service Tax is payable and or exigible. Thus, the adjudicating authority has erred in rejecting the refund claim for Rs. 97,520/- on the ground of mismatch. Thus, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the adjudicating authority is directed to issue the refund of Rs. 97,520/- within a period of four weeks from production of a copy of this order.
 
 
Decision-Appeal allowed.
Comment– The gist of the case is that the distributor of pre paid cellular services is not eligible for paying service tax in respect of sim cards. Hence the whole service tax paid by the appellant is eligible for refund whether it has been matched or not.
 
Prepared by- Alakh Bhandari
 
 
 
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