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 STUDY/2010-11/24
02 October 2010

Payment of Service Tax

 

PJ/Case Study/2010-11/24

 

 

Case Study

 

Prepared By:

Sukhvinder Kaur LLB [FYIC]

And Mayank Palgauta

Introduction:

 

Most of the time, the service provider raises the bill charging service tax to the recipient of service before the service provided but the payment of the service provided is not done immediately but is done after some time. In such a situation whether the service tax is to be calculated at the receipt basis or on the billed basis? This is the issue involved in the case under study.

 

Relevant Legal Provisions:

 

Rule 6 (1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994

 

6. Payment of service tax: 

 

(1) The service tax shall be paid to the credit of the Central Government,- 

 

(i) by the 6th day of the month, if the duty is deposited electronically through internet banking; and 

 

(ii) by the 5th day of the month, in any other case, 

 

immediately following the calendar month in which the payments are received, towards the value of taxable services: 

 

Provided that where the assessee is an individual or proprietary firm or partnership firm, the service tax shall be paid to the credit of the Central Government by the 6th day of the month if the duty is deposited electronically through internet banking, or, in any other case, the 5th day of the month, as the case may be, immediately following the quarter in which the payments are received, towards the value of taxable services: 

 

Provided further that notwithstanding the time of receipt of payment towards the value of services, no service tax shall be payable for the part or whole of the value of services, which is attributable to services provided during the period when such services were not taxable: 

 

Provided also that the service tax on the value of taxable services received during the month of March, or the quarter ending in March, as the case may be, shall be paid to the credit of the Central Government by the 31st day of March of the calendar year.

 

Explanation - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where the transaction of taxable service is with any associated enterprise, any payment received towards the value of taxable service, in such case shall include any amount credited or debited, as the case may be, to any account, whether called ‘Suspense account’ or by any other name, in the books of account of a person liable to pay service tax.

 

In the matter of M/s K. D. Motors, Jodhpur

[Order-in-Original No. 543 (ST) 2009-10, dated 29.06.2010]

 

Brief Facts:

 

-           The Noticee is engaged in providing the services of authorised service station and is registered with under service tax.

 

-           Department issued show cause notice for the period from April 2006 to September 2006 alleging that the noticee has short paid the service tax amount of Rs. 31677/-. Recovery of the said amount was proposed in terms of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 with interest in terms of Section 75. Department also proposed to impose penalty under Section 76.

 

Noticee’s Contentions:

 

The Noticee filed reply to the show cause notice raising the following contentions:

 

¨                    It was submitted that the noticee had correctly calculated and paid the service tax. They have paid the service tax on receipt basis.

 

¨                    Noticee contended that the show cause notice was issued on the basis of amount billed rather than the amount received resulting into the variation.

 

¨                    Noticee relied upon the provisions of Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 which prescribe the service tax payment on receipt basis. Thus, when the amount is actually received, then only liability to pay Service Tax arises, though the rate remains what was charged at the time of billing.

 

Issue Involved:

 

The issue involved in this case was that

 

Whether the service tax is to be paid on receipt basis or billed basis?

 

Decision of the Deputy Commissioner:

 

Ø                   The Deputy Commissioner scrutinized the ST-3 Return filed by the Noticee for the half year ending September 2006 and found that the service tax was calculated on the receipt basis.

 

Ø                   It was held that the Department wrongly demanded service tax on amount billed which was unwarranted in view of Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1944.

 

Ø                   In the end it was held that there was no short payment of service tax.

 

Order of the Deputy Commissioner :

 

Proceedings initiated vide the impugned show cause notice were dropped.

 

Conclusion:

 

The Deputy Commissioner rightly held that the service tax is to be calculated on the amount actually received. The liability service tax of a particular period arises on the amount which is actually received and not on the amount which has not yet been received.

 

********

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