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/2010-11/14
31 July 2010

Short Payment of service tax

 

PJ/Case Study/2010-11/14

 

 

Case Study

 

Prepared By:

Parag Ghate, B.Com and

Sukhvinder Kaur, LLB [FYIC]

 

Introduction:

 

In the case under study, the assessee was availing abatement on one of the service provided by it. But the Department did not take the said fact while checking the Service Tax return filed by the assessee and issued show cause alleging short payment of service tax and raising demand of short paid duty.

 

In the matter of The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd [Unit: Taj Hari Mahal]

[Order-in-Original No. 520/ST/2009-10-R dated 28.06.2010]

 

Brief Facts:

 

-        The noticee is engaged in the Hotel business and are registered with the Service Tax Department. They were filing ST-3 returns regularly with the Department.         

-        On scrutiny of the ST-3 Return filed for the half year ending Sept., 2005 the Department alleged that there was short payment of service tax by a margin of Rs 155501/-.

-        Show cause notice was issued to the noticee alleging that they had contravened the provisions of Section 66 & 68 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Demand was raised for paying the amount of service tax short paid alongwith interest. Penalty was also proposed to be imposed under Section 76.

 

Noticee’s Contention:

 

Before the Deputy Commissioner, the noticee raised the following contentions:

¨                    That there was no short payment of service tax for the half year ending Sept., 05. But the Department has flatly calculated the service tax by applying the rate of 10.2% on gross amount received. The noticee is providing two types of services which are as following:

 

a.                  Mandap Keeper Service: On this service the noticee is availing the abatement benefit of 40%. Thus, the service tax leviable on this service will be at the rate of 6.12% and not @ 10.2%. The abatement is claimed under the provisions of Notification No. 21/2007-ST dated 26.06.2007.

 

b.                  Health & Fitness service: The other service provided by the noticee is the Health and Fitness Service on which the service tax @ 10.2% will be applicable.

 

¨                    It was further contended that as per ST-3 Return for the period half year ending Sept., 05 the noticee had paid a total amount through Cenvat & cash whereas service tax liability is less than that amount. So, there is excess payment of service tax by small amount. This is due to approximation and rounding of the figures.

 

¨                    In the end, it was contended that since there was no short payment of service tax, the show cause notice should be set aside.

 

Issue Involved:

 

The issued involved in this matter was whether there was short payment of service tax on behalf of the noticee?

 

Order of the Deputy Commissioner:

 

Ø                   The Deputy Commissioner held that there was no short payment of service tax as the Noticee was also providing the Mandap Keeper Services and had opted for the benefit of abatement as per provisions of Notification No. 21/97-ST dated 26.06.2007. The noticee was entitled to abatement at the rate of 40% as

 

(i)            It was providing catering services.

 

(ii)          It did not take credit of input/capital goods.

 

(iii)         It had not availed benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003.

 

 

Ø                   It was held that on checking ST-3 Return, it was noticed that the noticee had deposited the total amount through Cenvat & Cash. The utilization of Cenvat credit was checked and found to be in order. In fact, the noticee had made excess payment of service tax by small amount This excess may be due to approximation and rounding of the figures.

 

Ø                   Thus, it was held that there was no short payment of service tax.

 

 

Decision of the Deputy Commissioner: -

 

The proceedings initiated vide impugned show cause notice were dropped.

 

Conclusion:

 

Thus, the Deputy Commissioner rightly dropped the proceedings initiated by the Department by accepting the reasoning of the assessee. Such frivolous litigation can be avoided if the Department will be a little vigilant while scrutinizing the records of assessees and accepting the explanation given by the assessee.

 

********

 

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