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/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