Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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