Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1498

Whether Services provided by assessee falling under BAS

Case: Grey Worldwide Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd VS Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai
 
Citation: 2011 (24) S.T.R. 555 (Tri- Mumbai)
 
Issue:- Whether applicant liable to pay Service Tax on writeback & discount received by them from media on Advertisement under Business Auxiliary Service?
 
Brief Fact:- Applicants are providing the service of advertisement to their clients on payment of certain amounts on account of service rendered to them. As per the agreement the applicants are claiming certain amount paid by them to media and claim deduction of reimbursement from the gross amount of service rendered to their client i.e. media costs + commission + service tax. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the applicants are not paying service tax on the amount which they have written-backs due rate differences in media cost and they are receiving discount from the media on their volume of work. A demand was also proposed for the service tax on co-ordination cost paid to overseas entities during the period 1-10-2001 to 31-12- 2006. The show-cause notices were adjudicated demands were confirmed in both the show-cause notices for write-backs, discount received from media, the demand of Rs. 75,68,236/-. A demand was also confirmed on account of non-payment of service tax on co-ordination costs paid to overseas entities for the period 1-7-2003 to 31-12-2006 along with interest and various penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. By these appeals, the Applicants are seeking waiver of pre-deposit at this stage.
 
Appellant’s Contention:- The learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants are not liable to pay service tax on write-backs and volume discount as these are not the amount of service rendered by them as the service rendered by the applicants are covered under the commission received by them as per the agreement i.e. 15% of the total gross value of the service rendered by them. He further submitted that prior to 18-4-2006, the applicants are not liable to pay service tax on co-ordination costs paid to the over-seas entities. He further submitted that as media is not their client, therefore the discount or write-backs received from media are not to be includible in their tax-able services. He also relied on the decision of Euro RSCG Advertising Ltd. v. Com-missioner of C.S.T., Bangalore reported in 2007 (7) S.T.R. 277 (Tri.-Bang.).
 
Respondent’s Contention:-  The learned JCDR strongly opposed the stay application and submitted that the service tax demand has been made under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service" against for promoting the business of media against rendering of those services the media has given them entities discount and write-backs. Therefore the applicants are liable to pay service tax on these services as they are providing services to the media also.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- The allegation against the Applicants is based on the agreement entered by the applicants with Sony Entertainment Television. As per that agreement, the applicants are providing the services of media bookings and issue release instruction on your behalf. Supervise the production of media such as programmes for sponsored telecasts. Negotiate rates, positions, payment terms and other such matters involving the placement of advertisements with the media. Implement media strategy against objectives. Therefore, as per the agreement prima facie the applicants are providing services to media under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service". Therefore, we are of the prima facie view that the applicants have rendered the services to media. Therefore, the applicants are liable to pay service tax on write-backs and discount received by them from media on advertisements. Further, we are of the prima facie view that the service tax on co-ordination cost paid to overseas entities for the period prior 18-4-2006 are not payable by the Applicants. From the above discussion, the applicants have not made out a case of 100% waiver of pre-deposit. Accordingly, we direct the Applicants to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 85,00,000/- (Rupees eighty five lakhs only) within eight weeks and report compliance on 11-11-2011. On such compliance the balance amount of service tax, interest and various penalties under the Finance Act, 1994 shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
 
Decision:- Application disposed off

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