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-2013/14-1579

Whether service tax is leviable for providing Mid day Meal services to Government schools?

Case:-  NAANDI FOUNDATION VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-II

Citation:-2013(30) S.T.R. 364(Tri- Del.)

Brief Facts:-  The prayer in the application is to dispense with condition of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 6,65,837/- which stands confirmed against the applicant/appellant for the period from October, 2007 to September, 2008 along with imposition of penalty of identical amount under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. In addition a penalty stands imposed under Section 76 &77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The proceedings were initiated culminated into the impugned order passed by the original authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal along with stay petition.

Appellant’s Contention:-The appellant submits that they are a trust and entered into a joint venture agreement with Government of Rajasthan in providing mid-day meal to school children studying in Government schools, government aided school and EGS centres etc. The food is cooked at Centralized Kitchen at Kishangath. The wheat and rice is supplied by Government. The entire cost of programme is shared between the appellant and the Government as per terms of MOU signed between the two. As per the appellant there is no consideration received by the appellant from the Government. Hence it is not service and not liable to service tax.

Respondent’s Contention:- The respondent submits that the activity undertaken by the appellant amount to providing of outdoor caterer’s service. Hence it is liable to pay service tax along with imposition of penalty of identical amount under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. In addition a penalty stands imposed under Section 76 &77 of the Finance Act, 1994.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-  We have considered the submission from both the parties and perused the record, we find that outdoor caterer’s service stands defined in Section 65(76a) of Finance Act, 1994 as under:

“Outdoor caterer’s means a caterer engaged in providing services in connection with catering at a place other than his own, but include a place provided by way of tenancy or otherwise by the person receiving services.”

After going through the MOU entered into by appellant with Government of Rajasthan, we find that mid-day meal provided by the appellant, is being cooked at centralized kitchen and is in the nature of joint venture programme between the appellant and the Government of Rajasthan. The appellant is under an obligation to supply monthly report about the food grains lifted from the FIC godown and utilization of food grain and is required to submit statement on number of school children under the programme as also to submit annual report along with audited the statement of accounts. The clause of agreement also reveal that the appellant is an autonomous non profit making charitable trust for providing mid-day meal to school children and the government and appellant are working on principal to principal basis 

Vide Notification No. 47/2010-S.T., dated 3-9-2010, the activities of providing mid-day meal by NGO have been held to be exempted from the taxable service on outdoor catering, similarly vide ad-hoc exemption Notification No, 2/2/2011 issued from F. No. 137/97/2010-CX.4 by Ministry of Finance, it has been held that mid-day meal provided by non government organization registered under any Central Act or State Act, under Centrally assisted Mid-Day Meal Scheme, from the whole of service tax leviable thereon under Section 66 of the Finance Act, during the period 10-9-2004 to 2-9-2010.

In view of the above, prima facie, we allow stay petition unconditionally.

Decision:-Stay application allowed.

Comment:- The crux of this case is appellant is a trust providing mid-day meal services to the government and as the activities of providing mid-day meal by NGO have been exempted from the levy of service tax as ‘outdoor catering’, hence, the same is not taxable prima facie.

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