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 LAW/2015-16/2602

Whether the billing services provided by the appellant are eligible for exemption under Notification No.45/2010?

CASE-STERLING TRANSFORMERS Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., CUS. & S. T., TIRUPATI
 
CITATION- 2014(35) S.T.R.396 (Tri.-Bang.)

BRIEF FACTS-The appellant is engaged in preparation of spot bills on hand held computers by taking the meter readings of electricity consumption, distributing the bills, verifying whether there is any tampering of bill at the time of taking the reading, verifying any malfunctioning of the meter, whether any theft of power has been resorted. Further appellants also attend to the disconnection of the default consumers, replacement of old meters, installation of new meters and GIS mapping of all consumers. Taking a view that appellant is liable to pay service tax on these categories under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’, demand for service tax of Rs. 2,58,43,331/- with interest has been demanded and penalties under various sections of Finance Act has been imposed.
 
APPELANTS CONTENTION-It was submitted by the learned counsel that liability no longer subsists and is covered by the Notification which has retrospective effect. He refers to Notification No. 45/2010-S.T., dated 20-7-2010. This Notification exempts all taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by a person to any other person during the period up to 26-2-2010 for all taxable services relating to transmission of electricity and up to 21-6-2010 for all taxable services relating to distribution of electricity.
 
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION-The Commissioner has taken the view that the services rendered by the appellants are in the nature of services rendered beyond transmission and distribution of electricity and therefore he has denied the benefit of Notification.

REASONING OF JUDGMENT-On going through the order, The tribunal find that the Commissioner has taken the view that the services rendered by the appellants are in the nature of services rendered beyond transmission and distribution of electricity and therefore he has denied the benefit of Notification. It cannot be said that the items of work undertaken by the appellants discussed above are not in relation to distribution of electricity and tribunal do not find ourselves in agreement with the findings of the Commissioner. Therefore, tribunal hold that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of this Notification. Further,tribunal notice that portion of the demand relates to the period subsequent to 21-6-2010 and therefore this portion may be liable to service tax. Since this aspect has not been considered by the learned Commissioner and the finding has been limited to applicability of Notification and once it was held that Notification is not applicable there was no need to consider the period subsequent to 21-6-2010, therefore tribunal consider that the matter is required to be remanded for requantifying the demand if it is sustainable in accordance with statutory provisions for levy of service tax. Instead of postponing the decision to a subsequent date, tribunal consider it appropriate that matter is remanded at this stage itself. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority with a request to decide the matter afresh in the light of observations made by us hereinabove.
 
DECISION-Appeal partly allowed

COMMENT-The vital point in this case is that the exemption under Notification No.45/2010 is relating to thetransmission and distribution of electricity provided by a person to any other person during the period up to 26-2-2010 for all taxable services relating to transmission of electricity and up to 21-6-2010 for all taxable services relating to distribution of electricity and if some services relating to transmission & distribution of electricity are provided after period specified in the notification then that portion is liable for service tax and once it was held that notification is not applicable there was no need to consider the period subsequent to 21-6-2010.

.PREPARED BY-Neelam Jain

Post a Comment
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