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 STUDY/2010-11/41
09 February 2011

Adjustment of deposition of excess service tax in subsequent period.
 
PJ/Case Study/2010-11/41  

CASE STUDY

Prepared By:
CA Pradeep Jain,
Sukhvinder Kaur, LLB [FYIC]

Introduction: -
 
If an assessee has deposited excess amount toward service tax liability for one period then can the assessee adjust the excess amount paid in the service tax liability to be adjusted for the next period. This is the issue involved in the case under study.   

In the matter of M/s Raj and Associates, Jodhpur
[Order-In-Original no. 519/ST/2009-10 dated: 23.6.2010]

 

Brief facts of the case: -
 
-           On scrutiny of ST-3 Return of the Noticee filed for the half year ending March, 2005, the Department noticed that there was certain amount was payable as service tax liability. The Noticee had paid lesser amount through TR 6 challan and part was paid through Cenvat credit. After adjusting these amounts, there was still some shortfall. A note was put in the ST-3 saying that the rest of amount has been excess paid in ST-3 half year ending September, 03.
 
-           Department alleged that there was no provisions of adjustment in Service Tax Rules, 1994 and by thus act, the Noticee had paid short service tax and have thereby contravened the provisions of Section 66 & 68 of Finance Act, 1994 readwith Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.
 
-           Show cause notice was issued to the Noticee demanding short paid service tax with interest and also proposing to impose penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.   

Noticee’s Contentions: -
 
Noticee replied to the Show Cause Notice on the following contentions: 

  • The Noticee submitted that in ST-3 return for half year ending Sept, 03 they had paid excess service tax and had filed refund claim on 3.12.2003. But the refund claim has not been sanctioned.    
  • The Noticee has given many reminders to the department but till date the refund claim has not been sanctioned. 
  • So on 25.01.2005 they informed the department about adjustment of excess amount paid by them towards the service tax liability pertaining to the half year ending March, 2005. 

Reasoning of the Judgment: - 

The learned Adjudicating Authority held as under: - 
  • On perusal of ST-3 Return for the half year ending Sept.03 and found that during the quarter ending Sept. 03 the noticee had excess paid the service tax vide TR-6 hallan dated 24.10.2003. Thus, there is no doubt from the perusal of return, records, calculation of service tax as well as from TR-6 Challan that the Noticee had paid excess service tax. 
  • The Adjudicating Authority also noted that the Noticee had filed refund claim on 3.1.2003 for refund of excess amount deposited as service tax. 
  • It was also noted that the noticee has reminded the matter to the department and asked them to refund of the service tax. The receipt copy of reminders has been produced by the noticee which clearly shows that the aforesaid letters have been received in the department. But no action has been taken by the department to refund the same. 
  • It was noted that the Noticee had informed the department and adjusted this excess deposit against the service tax liability for the half year ending March, 2005. The Noticee also gave an undertaking that they have not received this refund claim from the department. 
  • It was also confirmed from the Superintendent (Refunds) and found that neither the claim has been passed nor pending with the department. Moreover after giving due intimation the Noticee had adjusted the excess deposit. 

Decision of the Deputy Commissioner: -
 
The proceedings initiated by the Show Cause Notice were dropped.
 
Conclusion: -
 
The learned Adjudicating Authority rightfully decided the matter in favour of the assessee. The assessee has deposited excess Service tax. They have filed refund claim for the same but department has not sanctioned the said refund claim. Only thereafter the assessee has adjusted this excess deposit against the service tax liability for the half year ending March, 005.
 
It has been seen that the department does not sanctioned refund claim of Service tax and when assessee adjusted the excess amount. They simply issued the show cause notice then the demand is dropped later on. If the refund claim sanctioned on time then the valuable time and value of department and service providers are not wasted. 

******

 
 
 
 
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