Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2014-15/2537

Whether service tax payable on commission paid to foreign agent can be avoided by exporter contending that refund is admissible?

Case:- M/S LAXMI EXPORTS V/S COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT-I
 
Citation:- 2014-TIOL-1637-CESTAT-AHM
 
Brief facts:- The stay application has been filed by the appellant for staying the operation of OIO No.SUR-EXCUS-001-COM-002-13-14, dt.29.11.2013, under which a Service Tax demand of Rs.1,13,34,954/- has been confirmed against the appellant along with interest. Penalties have also been imposed upon the appellant under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994.
 
Appellant’s  contention:- The advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the issue involved is regarding commission allowed in the invoices which is to be paid to an unidentified overseas agent through the buyer of the exported goods and that according to the Revenue the same is chargeable to Service Tax under Business Auxiliary Service under Section 65 (105)(zzb) of Finance Act, 1994 under reverse charge mechanism. It was his case that appellant is not liable to pay any Service tax as they have not received any services in India from any foreign agent. That such services, if any, are provided to the buyers of the exported goods and the payments to such unidentified overseas agents are also made by the buyers of the goods. That appellant has accordingly reduced the price in the invoices for making payment to the foreign agent of their buyer. That all the Customs documents like Shipping bills, invoices bank certificates of export and realisation etc furnished to the Department clearly show that 11% discount given and, therefore, majority of the demand is time barred. That an amount of Service Tax of Rs.8,55,443/- already stand paid with respect to commission paid in excess of 10% as per an exemption notification.

Ld. Advocate made the bench go through the representative shipping bills, invoices and bank certificate of export and realization to drive home the point that 11% commission reduced in the documents is clearly reflected. He relied upon the order passed by us in the case of Sanghi Industries Ltd Vs CC Kandla [2014 (302) ELT 459 (Tri-Ahmd)] to argue that in the case of exports only the goods are required to be exported and not the taxes. That the whole exercise of demanding Service Tax will be revenue neutral in view of refund available under Notification No.41/2007-ST, dt.6.10.2007.
 
Respondent’s contention:- Shri Alok Srivastava, (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that the declarations were made in the documents produced by the appellants only before the Customs authorities and not the Service Tax authorities. It was his case that extended period in this case would be applicable as no intimation was made to the jurisdictional Service tax authorities. It was strongly argued by the ld. A.R. that value of commissions are deducted from the invoices which means that the amount is paid to the foreign agent directly through their buyer. It was also his case that the declaration made in the invoices cannot be considered as a 'discount' because appellant has also availed export incentives on these commissions under DGFT Policy circulars on revenue neutrality. Ld. A.R. argued that refund of Service Tax paid under Notification No.41.2007-ST, dt.06.10.2007 is admissible only after payment of Service Tax under reverse charge and that too subject to fulfilling the conditions specified in the notification as discussed by Commissioner in Para 2.3 and 2.4 of the OIO dt.29.11.13.
 
Reasoning of judgement:- Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is the case of the appellant that commission to the unidentified foreign agent is paid by the buyer and the same is never paid directly by the appellant and only the price is reduced to that extent. However, it is observed from the export related documents that the price of the goods is paid less on account of a commission paid. As the appellant has also availed DGFT benefit on these payments as 'commissions', prima facie, it appears that commissions are paid to the foreign agents through the buyer of the goods but are directly borne by the appellant. Adjudicating authority has also brought out in Para 1.7 of the adjudication order dt.29.11.2013 that the role of such agent is to contact the appellant for requirement, then negotiate the price and other conditions and to ensure that the consignment reaches in time and the same is delivered to the consignees without any problem. That the agent also ensures that payment is made in time to the consignor. It is also felt on revenue neutrality that the exemption under Notification No.41/2007-ST, dt.06.10.2007 is by way of refund only after Service Tax is paid under reverse charge as per Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 and that too after fulfilling certain conditions. The refund of Service Tax so payable is not automatic. Similar procedure and conditions have been specified under Notification No.18/2009-ST, dt.7.7.2009 as discussed by adjudicating authority in Para 2.3 of the OIO dt.29.11.2013. Appellant has, therefore, not made out a case for complete waiver of the confirmed dues and is required to be put to certain conditions. Taking into consideration an amount of Rs.8,55,443/-, already paid by the appellant, it is ordered that appellant should pre-deposit an additional amount of Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs only) within eight weeks and report compliance to the Deputy Registrar by 08.09.2014. Deputy Registrar on verification of the amounts paid by the appellant will put up the papers to the Bench on 15.09.2014 for further orders. Subject to payment of additional amount of Rs.5 lakhs, there will be stay on the recovery of the remaining amounts till the disposal of appeal.
 
Decision:- Pre deposit ordered.
 
 Comment:- The crux of the case is that the service tax on the commission paid to foreign agents payable under the reverse charge mechanism cannot be contested on the ground that the assessee being exporter of goods was otherwise entitled to refund and the situation is revenue neutral. The reason for the same being that for claiming refund of service tax, the exporter is required to fulfil certain conditions.
 
Prepared by: Neelam Jain
 
 

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