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/2012-13/1394

Whether the Railways, being part of the Ministry of Railways not liable to pay service tax?

Case: CENTRAL RAILWAY V/S COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR
 
Citation: 2013-TIOL-75-CESTAT-MUM

Brief Facts: - The appellant, Central Railway undertook maintenance and repairs of Railway sidings owned by private parties under agreements entered into with such owners. The revenue was of the view that the activities undertaken by the Railways comes under the taxable service of "management, maintenance and repair services" as defined under section 65(105)(zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with section 65(64) ibid with effect from 16/06/2005. Therefore, two show cause notices, one dated 13/10/2010 demanding service tax for the period 2005-06 to 2007-08 and another dated 03/05/2011 for the period 2010-11 were issued demanding Service tax of Rs. 2.51 crores approximately and Rs.74.22 lakhs approximately. The notices also proposed demand of interest on the service tax demanded and imposition of penalties. Notices were adjudicated vide the impugned order and the demands were confirmed along with interest thereon. Equivalent amount of penalties were also imposed under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 apart from penalties under sections 77 and 76 and also fees for non-filing returns levied under rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, 1994. By aggrieving these order, the appellants filed the present appeals.

Appellant’s Contention: - The appellant contended that Railways are a Government undertaking, being part of the Ministry of Railways and hence, they are not liable to any service tax. Secondly, they have not even recovered the cost of rendering the service, hence, they are not liable to pay any service tax. Thirdly, the they submits that vide notification no. 54/2010-ST dated 21/12/2010 which amended notification 24/2009-ST dated 27/07/2009, exemption is available in respect of management, maintenance or repairs of Railways also and therefore for the period 21/12/2010 onwards, they are not liable to pay any service tax. To support their contention, they relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation vs. CCE, Nashik dated 12/07/2012 reported in = (2012-TIOL-1290-CESTAT-MUM) wherein it was held that Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation being a public authority, the activities performed by them are not taxable under the Finance Act, 1994 and accordingly, stay has been granted against the dues adjudged in the said case. Therefore, in the instant case also stay is to be granted.

Respondent’s Contention: - The respondent argued that for the levy of service tax, it is immaterial whether the service provider is a Government undertaking or not and the levy applies equally to both Government undertakings as also non-Government undertakings. Therefore, in the absence of any specific exemption notification exempting the activities undertaken in respect of maintenance, management or repairs of Railways sidings, the appellant is liable to pay service tax.
 
Reasoning of Judgment: - The Hon’ble Tribunal held that under section 65(64) as per "Management, maintenance or repair" means any service provided by:
(i) Any person under a contract or an agreement; or
(ii) A manufacturer or any person authorised by him, in relation to, -
     (a) Management of properties, whether immovable or not;
     (b) Maintenance or repair of properties, whether immovable or not; or
     (c) Maintenance or repair including reconditioning or restoration or servicing of any goods, excluding a motor vehicle.
Further, as per section 65(105)(zzg) taxable services rendered to any person by any person in relation to management, maintenance or repair is leviable to service tax. Prior to 01.05.2006, the taxable service was defined as any service rendered to a customer by any person in relation to management, maintenance or repair. In the instant case, the appellant has entered into contracts with various private Railway sidings owners for the maintenance and repairs of Railway sidings and, therefore, the activity undertaken by the appellant would come within the purview of management, maintenance or repair service and hence, they are rightly liable to pay service tax. Reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Maharashtraindustrial Development Corporation cited supra is of no help to the appellant. In that case, the said corporation was collecting a fee fixed by the Government of Maharashtra under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. In other words, what was collected by the said corporation was a statutory fee. It is in the facts of that case, this Tribunal granted interim stay on the ground that the activities performed by a public authority under the provisions of law are not taxable as per the clarification given by the CBEC in Circular no. 89/7/2006 dated 18/12/2006. In the present case, the Railways are not collecting any statutory fee but are collecting service charges for the services rendered and, therefore, the said decision does not appear to be applicable to the facts of the present case. There is also no financial hardship pleaded by the appellant. In this view, they held that the appellant has not made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of dues adjudged against them and accordingly, they direct the appellant to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the service tax adjudged against them within a period of eight weeks and report compliance by 11/02/2013. On such compliance being reported, the balance of service tax, interest and penalties adjudged against the appellant shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeals.

Decision: - Pre-deposit ordered.

Comment:-The analogy drawn from this case is that service tax is not leviable on the statutory functions performed by the government departments. 

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