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/2011-12/39
04 January 2012

Payment of Service tax from Cenvat Credit - Import of Service
PJ/Case Study/2011-12/39
 

CASE STUDY

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

Introduction:-
 
In the case of import of service, the liability to pay the service tax is on the recipient of service under the reverse charge method. The provisions of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 impose the liability on the service recipient located in India by treating the said service as an output service. The major debate involved herein is that whether the service recipient can utilize the cenvat credit rightfully earned by him to discharge the service tax liability. Revenue has denied the availment of cenvat credit for paying the service tax on the ground that the service is treated as an output service only by legal fiction and the payment of the service received from abroad is to be made in cash. In the case under study, the High Court has dealt with this issue.
 
Legal Provisions:-
 
- Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994: -   
 
66A. (1) Where any service specified in clause (105) of section 65 is,—

(a) provided or to be provided by a person who has established a business or has a fixed establishment from which the service is provided or to be provided or has his permanent address or usual place of residence, in a country other than India, and

(b) received by a person (hereinafter referred to as the recipient) who has his place of business, fixed establishment, permanent address or usual place of residence, in India, such service shall, for the purposes of this section, be taxable service, and such taxable service shall be treated as if the recipient had himself provided the service in India, and accordingly all the provisions of this Chapter shall apply:

Provided that where the recipient of the service is an individual and such service received by him is otherwise than for the purpose of use in any business or commerce, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply:

Provided further that where the provider of the service has his business establishment both in that country and elsewhere, the country, where the establishment of the provider of service directly concerned with the provision of service is located, shall be treated as the country from which the service is provided or to be provided.

(2) Where a person is carrying on a business through a permanent establishment in India and through another permanent establishment in a country other than India, such permanent establishments shall be treated as separate persons for the purposes of this section.

Explanation 1.— A person carrying on a business through a branch or agency in any country shall be treated as having a business establishment in that country.

Explanation 2.—Usual place of residence, in relation to a body corporate, means the place where it is incorporated or otherwise legally constituted.
- Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994: -
 
(d) "person liable for paying the service tax" means -

(i) …….

(ii) ………

(iii) …………

(iv) 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;

Commissioner of Service Tax v/s M/s Aravind Fashions Ltd
[2011-TIOL-748-HC-KAR-ST]

Brief Facts:-
 
- The Assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of ready made garments bearing the brand name like ‘Wrangler’ and ‘Lee’ which belong to foreign companies.
 
- The foreign companies provided Intellectual Property Service (IPS) with effect from 10.09.2001 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 read with Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv)of the service Tax Rules, 1994.
 
- Assessee filed 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.
 
- Revenue issued show cause notice to the assessee on the ground that 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.
 
- The Adjudicating Authority overruled the objections of the assessee and the demand was confirmed.
 
- Aggrieved appellant filed appeal before 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, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Commissioner.
 
- Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue is in appeal before the High Court.  
 
Reasoning of the High Court:-
 
The High Court held that in the instant case, though the assessee 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. In other words, the liability to pay tax on the service which he has received is foisted on him under law. It is to discharge the liability he is entitled to use the cenvat credit which was available with him and therefore the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the order passed by the Commissioner.
 
- In that view of the matter, the Tribunal held that there is no merit in appeal of the Revenue.
 
- With regard to penal liability, it was held that as there is no liability to pay tax the question of imposing penalty would not arise.
 
- The High Court answered the substantial question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
 
Decision of the High Court:-
 
Appeals dismissed.
 
Conclusion:-
 
This judgment of the High Court has a far reaching effect. The assessee who has rightfully accumulated cenvat credit can utilize it to discharge the liability cast upon him vide Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.

******

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