Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE STUDY/2011-12/34
30 November 2011

Before 19.04.2006 - Payment of service tax on service received from abroad from Cenvat Credit - Allowed
 
PJ/Case Study/2011-12/34
 
 

CASE STUDY

 

Prepared By:
CA Pradeep Jain,
CA. Nishit Shah
And Megha Jain, B. Com

 
Introduction: -
 

- Basically, the liability of providing service tax on service provided is of service provider. But, if the service provider is situated outside India, then in terms of section 68 (2) of the Finance Act and in terms of Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the service receiver is deemed as service provider and liable to pay service tax . In this case Assessee discharges the service tax liability on Intellectual Property Service received from outside India by using Cenvat credit available from other input services such as advertisement, freight, manpower recruitment, courier service, maintenance, repair and construction services. 

 
 

Commissioner of S. Tax versus M/s Arvind Fashions Ltd.
[2011-TIOL-748-HC-Kar-ST]

 
Relevant Legal Provisions:
 

Rule 68 of Finance Act, 1994 – Payment of service tax:
(1)     Every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay service tax at the rate specified in section 66 in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed.
(2)     Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in respect of any taxable service notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, the service tax thereon shall be paid by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed at the rate specified in section 66 and all the provisions of this chapter shall apply to such person as if he is the person liable for paying the service tax in relation to such service.
Rule 2(1)(d)( iv ) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994
in relation to any taxable service provided or to be provided by any person from a country other than India and received by any person in India under section 66A of the Act, the recipient of such service
 

Brief facts of the case: -
 

-          The assessee is a Company engaged in the manufacture and sale of readymade garments bearing the brand names like 'Wrangler' and 'Lee' which belong to foreign Companies. The foreign Companies provided Intellectual Property Service (IPS) with effect from 10.9.2001 to the assessee and the assessee Company being the service provider was made liable to pay service tax in terms of Section 68(2) of the Finance Act and 2(1)(d)( iv ) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Service Tax liability was discharged by the assessee using Cenvat credit availed on 'Intellectual Property Service' which was objected to by the Department.
-          The assessee filed a revised returns and used credit relating to other input services such as advertisement, freight, manpower recruitment, courier services, maintenance, repair and construction services for discharging Service Tax under the category of 'Intellectual Property Service' in the capacity of the service receiver. The Revenue proceeded against the assessee on the ground that Cenvat was wrongly used for paying Service Tax on 'Intellectual Property Service' purported service when he is not a service provider but the receiver of service. Therefore overruling the objections of the assessee the demand was confirmed.
-          Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that though the assessee is a recipient of services in law as the service provider is outside the country he is deemed to be the service provider and tax is levied on him. But to discharge that liability he can use the Cenvat credit which is to his credit and therefore they set aside the order passed by the Commissioner.
-          Aggrieved by the said order the Revenue filed this appeal.
 

Issue:
 

(i)      Whether Cenvat credit can be utilized for the payment of service tax on service received from the abroad?

 
Judgment of the Appellate Authority:-
 

-          In the instant case, though he is the recipient of service tax, the service provider is outside the country. In law, he is treated as a service provider and is levied tax.  It is also can be said that the liability to pay tax on the service which he has received is foisted on him under law.
-          So, the tribunal’s order of allowing the assessee to pay the service tax from the Cenvat Credit is sustainable.
 

Decision:-

.           Revenue appeal dismissed.

 
Conclusion:-

-                      In the instant case, the service provider is situated outside India, so the liability to pay tax on the service which he has received is foisted on him under law. So, he is allowed to pay duty from Cenvat credit.  However, the period involved in the above case was before 19.4.2006 when the imported services were not taxable. It would be interesting to see the implications of the above decision.

 
 

******

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