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 Laws/2011-12/1117

Whether Service Tax paid on cab service for official of company for their timely completion of Job deniable for cenvat credit or not?

Prepared By:
CA. Rajani Thanvi & 
Bharat Rathore

 

Case:Commr. of C.Ex., Vishakhapatnam Vs Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd.

Citation:2011(22) S.T.R. 126 (Tri. Bang.)

Issue:
The issues involved in this case were as follows:-

  1. Whether Service Tax paid on cab service for official of company for their timely completion of Job deniable for cenvat credit or not? 
  2. Whether service tax paid on Landline phones installed in residences of Directors and officials deniable for cenvat credit or not?
  3. Whether Service Tax paid on Professional Charges of Chartered Accountant are directly related to business deniable for cenvat credit or not?

Brief Facts:  Respondenthad taken credit on various services namely:

  1. Service Tax paid on Cab Service for officials of company.
  2. Service Tax paid on Landline phones installed in residences of Director and officials,
  3. Service Tax paid on professional charges of Chartered Accountant.
Respondent filed an appeal before commissioner (Appeals) against order of adjudicating authority and commissioner (Appeals) has given order in favour of Appellant. Appellant filed appeal against commissioner (Appeals) order, which has been decided against the appellant.

Respondent’s Contention:Respondent’scontention on each of the dispute are as follows:-

  1. Cab Services:- The respondent submit that providing  transport to officials is an important requirement for timely completion of job and it cannot be considered in the nature of GTA service for denial of credit.
  2. Landline Telephone installed in residences of Director and officials:-The respondent submit that these bills were paid by the company. The respondent also relied upon the case of Keltech Energies Ltd. V/s Commissioner of C. Ex. Mangalore [2008(10)STR 280] as per this case credit of service tax paid on the landline phones installed in the Director’s and Company officials residences is rightly available to the appellants as Cenvat Credit, as the bills are paid by the company.

 

  1. Professional Charges of Chartered Accountant:- The respondents submit that professional charges of chartered accountant are directly related to business activity and these charges incurred were paid by the company.  
 
Appellant’s contention:-Appellant’scontention on each of the dispute are as follows:-
  1. Cab Services:-The Appellant submit that cab service were utilised for the conveyance of company’s officers/ managers and other individuals of the organization. In other words it is a facility given by the company to their officers for their personal comfort. It is neither for inward transportation of goods/ inputs or capital goods nor used in or in relation to the manufacture of goods. And the respondent could not produce any evidence to indicate that these Cabs are used for the services mentioned in the definition of “Input Services”. Hence, the service tax should be recoverable form respondent.
  2. Landline Telephone installed in residences of Director and officials:The Appellant submits that telephone service were utilised for the conveyance of company’s Director/officers. This facility given by the company to their Director/officers for their personal comfort. There is could be misuse of this facility.
  3. Professional Charges of Chartered Accountant:- The Appellant submit that the service of professional charges of chartered accountant service is not relating to business activity and It is neither for in ward transportation of goods/ inputs or capital goods nor used in or in relation to the manufacture of goods. 

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Hon’ble Tribunal relied on the cases of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore-III [2009 (14) S.T.R.316]. and  Keltech Energies Ltd. V/s Commissioner of C. Ex. Mangalore [2008(10)STR 280] . The Tribunal find that the issue of eligibility of Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on telephone service as well as Rent –a –cab service has been settled in favour of the respondent and professional charges paid by the assessee to the Chartered Accountants, it can be directly related to business.

Judgment:Appeals filed by Revenue are rejected.

Comment:As the definition of input service covers the services relating to activities of business hence the cenvat credit of those services will be allowed even though these are not used in manufacturing of dutiable goods or providing of output service directly.

 

****************

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