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 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