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/2012-13/1403

Whether the effective rate of service tax would be date of provision of service or date of billing?

Case:  COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX V/S CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES (I) PVT LTD
 
Citation: 2013-TIOL-60-HC-DEL-ST

Brief Facts: - The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 16.03.2012 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Service Tax Appeal No.424 /2008 where this question has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the rate of service tax would be 5% inasmuch as the services had been provided prior to 14.05.2003. While doing so, the Tribunal placed reliance on a decision of the Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot:2008 (10) STR 243 (Tri- Ahmd.) = 2008-TIOL-283-CESTAT-AHM. Thematter had travelled to the Gujarat High Court and the Gujarat High Court, itself, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd .: 2010 (19) STR 807 (Guj.) had affirmed the decision of the Ahmedabad Tribunal. However, this fact had not been brought to the notice of the Tribunal in the present case. In fact, the matter had travelled even up to the Supreme Court wherein the Supreme Court did not enter into the question because the same had become academic in that case. In other words, the Supreme Court had not expressed any view on this issue. However, the view of the Gujarat High Court is clear. The view of the Gujarat High Court is that the effective rate of service tax would be based on the date on which the service is provided and not the date of billing.
 
Appellant’s Contention: - The appellant revenue contended that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court is not binding on this Court and based upon this submission he sought to place reliance on Rule 5B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. He also placed reliance on Rule 4(a)(i) of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 as also Section 67A of the Finance Act, 1994.
 
Reasoning of Judgment: - The Hon’ble High Court held that none of the provisions as ascertained by the appellant are applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as Rule 5B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 came into effect on 01.04.2011 and was out of the statute books on 01.07.2012. Section 67A of the Finance Act, 1994, was inserted in the said Act by virtue of the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 28.05.2012. In the present case, the relevant period is April, 2003 to September, 2003. Therefore, none of those provisions apply. Moreover, even Rule 4(a)(i) of the Point of Taxation Rules 2011 is not applicable because those Rules came into effect on 01.03.2011. In the absence of any Rules, they will have to examine as to what is the taxable event. The taxable event as per the Finance Act, 1994 is the providing of the taxable service. In the present case, they find that not only were the services admittedly provided prior of 14.05.2003 but also the bills have been raised prior to 14.05.2003. The only thing that happened after 14.05.2003 was that the payments were received after that date. That, in their view would not change the date on which the taxable event had taken place. Since the taxable event in the present case took place prior to 14.05.2003, the rate of tax applicable prior to that date would be the one that would apply. In the present case, the rate of 5% would be applicable and not the rate of 8%. Consequently, the decision went in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.
 
Decision: - The appeal was dismissed.

Comment:-The substance of this case is that prior to the Point of Taxation Rules, the rate of service tax is to be determined on the basis of taxable event i.e. rate prevailing at the time of provision of service.

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