Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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