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/2014-15/2299

Whether service tax payment for GTA service valid from cenvat credit?

Case:-UNION OF INDIA VS. FLOWSERVE MICROFINISH VALVES PVT. LTD.

Citation:-2014(33) S.T.R. 634 (Kar.)

Brief facts:-The respondent assessee in under Service Tax as well as manufacture of excise goods and since it was found that the credit accumulated for the payment of Service Tax of goods etc. on the ground that the goods transport service cannot be treated as Service Tax as they are providing service to other users and credit had been wrongly availed, the Adjudicating Authority held that the assessee was not entitled to avail Cenvat Credit and accordingly passed the original order on 27-6-2006 to the extent of Rs. 5910 & Rs. 3920. And education cess amount of Rs. 119 & Rs. 2523 utilized towards payment of Service Tax on GRA services by the assessee for the period from Jan., 2005 to sept. 2005, respectively is irregular and confirmed the demand of Service Tax amount of Rs. 5910 & Rs. 3920. And education cess amount of Rs. 119 & Rs. 2523 respectively under sub section (2) of section 73 of the Act and further confirmed the demand of interest at the appropriate rate under section 75 of the act on the above said amount. Being aggrieved by the above orders, the instant appeals were preferred before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority passed a common order holding that the availing of credit on Service Tax on goods transported service paid by the recipient of such service is not available unless the person concerned is also providing some other output services or is manufacturing dutiable goods on which Cenvat Credit taken on input service as well as input goods is available for utilization and there is no one to one correlation between credit availed and utilized and in view of the Circular dated 3-10-2005 issued by the Department C.B.E. & C., does not bar the appellant from availing the credit on good transport input services or on manufactured goods and accordingly allowed the appeals.

Appellant’s contention:-Being aggrieved by the said order, these appeals are preferred by the Revenue contending that the assessee was not entitled to make use of Cenvat credit as rightly held by the Original Authority and the Appellate Authority was not justified in reversing the order passed by the Original Authority. Therefore the order of the Tribunal may be set aside and the order of the Original Authority may be restored.

Respondent’s contention:- The learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued in support of the order passed by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal.

Reasoning of judgement:-We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized the materials on record.

The fact that the respondent has been assessed both under the Excise Act and the Service Tax is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that in view of the Circular issued by C.B.E. &C, dated 3-10-2005 referred to in order of the Appellate Authority, when the person discharging Service Tax liability is not the provider of output services, such recipient of taxable service even if they discharge their service tax liability under section 68(2) are not entitled to avail credit of the Service Tax paid on taxable services. However, there is no prohibition for utilizing the credit for the payment of Service Tax. Therefore the concurrent finding arrived at by the appellate authority and the Tribunal and in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. M/s Nahar Industries Enterprises Ltd. [2007- TIOL-555-CESTAT-MAD = 2007(7) S.T.R. 569 (Tri.- Chennai)] andThe India Cements Ltd. Vs. CCE, Salem [2007-TIOL-645-CESTAT-MAD = 2007(7) S.T.R. 569 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein similar issue as involved in this case has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

In view of the above, we hold that the order passed by the appellate authority and the Tribunal is justified and in the facts of the case do not give rise to any question of law to be decided in these appeals.

Decision:-Appeals dismissed.
 

Comment:-The substance of the case is that the credit utilisation for payment of service tax for GTA service has been confirmed by the High Court in the case of Nahar Industries Enterprises and The India Cements Ltd. In view of the said decisions, it was concluded that the issue is settled and the appeal filed by the revenue department was dismissed.


Prepared by: - Lovina Surana
 
 

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