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/2013-14/1922

Whether reimbursement of expenses includible in the taxable value of service if such expenses are integrally connected with provision of service?

Case:-COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., INDORE VERSUS INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS

Citation:-2013(31) S.T.R. 563 (Tri.-Del.)

Issue:-Whether reimbursement of expenses includible in the taxable value of service if such expenses are integrally connected with provision of service?

Brief Facts:-Revenue came in appeal being aggrieved by the First Appellate Order holding that the services of supply of manpower and security services involving reimbursement of expenses shall not form part of the assessable value in respect of taxable services of clearing and forwarding service provided by the appellant.
Representative for the Revenue submits that the expenses which are essentially required and integrally connected with the services of clearing and forwarding and cannot be disintegrated to make the services performable that shall not be excluded while determining taxable service. Decision of Adjudi­cating Authority was ruled out by the First Appellate Authority for no good rea­son. Therefore, adjudication order may be restored.
 
Appellant Contentions:-The Departmental Representative relies on the deci­sion of Larger Bench in M/s. Sri Bhagavathy Traders in Service Tax Appeal No. 111 of 2008 [2011 (24) S.T.R. 290 (Tribunal-LB)] holding reimbursement of expenses shall form part of assessable value.

Respondent Contentions:-The respondent submits that the law is clear about no inclusion of expenses to the assessable value. Therefore, the res­pondent did not include the expenditure incurred for manpower and security services provided. It was grievance of the respondent before the Appellate Au­thority that in case adjudication is upheld, the respondent is entitled to the bene­fit of Cenvat credit. That was specifically pleaded in paragraph (viii) of the First Appellate Order because the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal in toto. That particular point was not specifically dealt by the order appealed. It was also submitted by the respondent that it had filed respective balance sheets and re­turns before the authorities and there was no suppression made. Therefore, pe­nalty cannot be imposed when the law was in a debatable stage.          
Ld. Representative for the assessee repeatedly prays that if at all lia­bility is determined, it should be re-quantified granting benefit of Cenvat credit and waiving penalty.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-We have considered the submission from both sides and perused the record. We have no disagreement to hold that expenses incurred to provide taxable services shall be part of assessable value if such expenses are inseparable and are integrally connected with the performance of the taxable services. Such expenses shall necessarily form part of the assessable value. This has been consistent view of the Tribunal in several cases on this count. Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sri Bhagavathy Traders, which has been cited by the Representative for the revenue has held that expenses which are connected providing taxable service shall be taxable. Therefore, respondent is not entitled any relief on account of expenses not disputed for inclusion while determining assessable value.
Permissibility of Cenvat credit is subject to verification and decision of lower Authority while determining the ultimate quantum of demand of Service tax. Since the claim is to set off Cenvat credit against liability incurred, it is the respondent who shall lead entire evidence before the Adjudicating Authority, to support its claim and satisfy him. Accordingly holding assessable value shall include reimbursable expenses, matter needs remand to consider Cenvat issue.
No doubt, law was in debatable stage and the matters travelled to the Larger Bench for reaching to finality. Consequently, there shall be no penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. By this, we do not say that mere filing of balance sheet and return amounts to disclosure of the fact to the Revenue Authorities.
In view of the above, Revenue succeeds partly to the extent indicated above and the matter goes back to the Adjudicating Authority for re-determination of the quantum of tax payable deciding Cenvat issue afresh by a reasoned and speaking order.
 
Decision:-Appeal partly allowed.

Comment:-The essence of this case is that the reimbursable expenses that are integrally connected with the provision of service should form part of the taxable value of service for the purpose of service tax and as the issue under consideration was a matter of constant litigation, penalties are not imposable. It is also worth mentioning here that recently, Delhi High Court has declared Rule 5 regarding inclusion of reimbursable expenses in the taxable value of service as ultra vires the charging section in the case of Intercontinental & Technocrafts Pvt. Ltd. 

Comments

  • MEHUL SHAH on 25 February, 2014 wrote:

    Thanks for the same meaning if we provide service and even if we have inccured exps and same is one to one reimbursed then also it is taxable ... say for example if we took responsibility of organising event and have spent money on hotel stay of artists and the same is reimbursed then it is taxable ..Am I right ???
  • MEHUL SHAH on 09 December, 2013 wrote:

    thanks for this but still I want to ask your advice in this case that is reimbursement of expenses are liable to service tax ?? please guide us ....

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