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/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