Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2780

Whether service tax is payable on interest on loan?

Case:-SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX.

Citation:-2015 (37) S.T.R. 491 (Tri. - Mumbai)

Brief Facts:-The facts of the case are that the appellant is Non-banking Finance Company and engaged in the activity of providing services of hire purchase and financial leasing of commercial vehicles. The service provided by the applicant having three components
(a) Principal amount
(b) Interest amount
(c) Processing/Management fees.
 The applicant is paying Service Tax on processing/management fees of the service provided by them. They are not paying Service tax on the principal and interest amount. Revenue is of the view that as the applicant is engaged in financial leasing service, therefore, as per Notification No. 4/2006, dated 1-3-2006, the applicant is entitled for 90% exemption of the interest charges by them and remaining 10% collected by them is includible in the taxable service. Therefore three show cause notices were issued for the impugned period. The adjudication took place and the ld. Commissioner confirmed the demand of Service Tax along with interest and penalties were also loaded on the applicants. The applicant is praying for waiver of pre-deposit of the impugned demands.

Appellant contentions:-The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that as per decision of Leasing & Financial Service Companies v. Union of India reported in 2010 (20) S.T.R. 417 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that applicants are nothing but a company engaged in the business of financing loan and as per Finance Act, 1994, explanation of Section 67 of the Act, interest on loan is not includible in taxable service. He further submits that in 2006, Service Tax Valuation Rules were introduced and as per Rule 6(2)(iv) of the said Rules, the interest on loan was not includible in taxable service. Therefore, the applicants are not required to pay Service Tax on interest components as demanded by the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order. Therefore waiver of pre-deposit be granted.

Respondent contentions:-The ld. AR strongly opposed the contention of the ld. Counsel and submits that the applicant is engaged in the activity of financial leasing service and the Notification No. 4/2006; dated 1-3-2006 clearly provides exemption upto 90% of the interest collected by them. Therefore as per the notification, they are required to pay Service Tax on 10% of interest collected by them. Therefore, for the impugned demands, the applicant is directed to make pre-deposit at this stage.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- On perusal of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Association of Leasing & Financial Service Companies v. Union of India (supra), various provisions of Finance Act and Service Tax Rules, prima facie we do agree with the contention of the Id. Counsel for the applicant that applicant is engaged in the activity of giving loan for earning interest through leasing the vehicles under financial leasing services. As per explanation to Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, interest on loan is exempted from Service Tax is not to be included in the taxable service and same has been followed by Rule 6(2)(iv) of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2004 (sic). In these circumstances, prima facie we find that applicants have made out a case for complete waiver of pre-deposit. Therefore, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of entire amount of Service Tax, interest and penalty and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeals.

Decision:-Stay granted.

Comment:-The crux of the case is that as per explanation to section 67 of the finance Act 1994,  interest on loan is exempted from the service tax and it is not included in the taxable service. This is also substantiated by the rule 6(2)(iv) of the service tax valuation rules,2004. Hence, unconditional stay was granted for service tax demand for interest on loan.

Prepared By:- Anash Kachaliya

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