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/2010-11/45
16 March 2011

Short payment of service tax
 
PJ/Case Study/2010-11/45  

CASE STUDY

Prepared By:
Sukhvinder Kaur, LLB [FYIC]
And Parag Ghate, B. Com

Introduction: -
 
An assessee who is registered under the Department is required to deposit the service tax within prescribed time and has to file returns within the stipulated time. If there is delay then interest liability arises and even penal provisions can be invoked against the defaulter-assessee. However, in case there is reasonable cause for delay like the assessee is new to the levy and is depositing the tax for the first time or is filing the return for the first time, then should such an assessee be penalized. 

In the matter of M/s Shubham Sales, Jodhpur
[Order-In-Original no. 797/ST/2009-10 dated: 31.08.2010]

Brief facts of the case: -
 
The Noticee is registered under Service Tax and were filing ST-3 return. The Department scrutinized the half-year ending March, 2005 on 06.07.2005. The Department alleged that the Noticee had short paid service tax by a margin of Rs. 5559/- in as much as against the service tax liability of Rs. 38823/- and the Noticee had deposited only Rs. 28264/-.
 
Department also alleged that the Noticee had not deposited interest on delayed deposit in as much as service tax of Rs. 28264/- which was payable on 31.03.2005 was paid on 13.05.2005 and ST-3 Return for the Half year ending March, 2005 was to be filed on 06.07.2005.
 
Thereafter, Department issued show cause notice alleging that the Noticee by this act had contravened the provisions of Section 66 & 68 of the Finance Act, 1994. Service tax was demanded with interest and penalty was proposed to be imposed under Section 76 & 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.
 
Noticee’s Contentions: -
 
Noticee replied to the Show Cause Notice on the following contentions: 

  • The Noticee had paid the service tax on receipt of the amount. It was submitted that they were new assessee and were not fully aware with the preparation of service tax return. They had mentioned the billed amount in the proper column.
  • It was submitted that they were aware that service tax is payable on receipt basis and since there was receipt in the relevant quarter, service tax was not paid.
  •  It was submitted that even the amount billed in January and February, 2005 was realized in the month of April, 2005. As such we have deposited the tax for that in the month of June, 2005.
  • It was submitted that the Noticee were new assessee, they had not mentioned the challan related to next return. And there was delay in submission of return as it was their first return.
  • It was submitted that as the service tax had been deposited, therefore, no penalty should be imposed on them. 

Finding of the Adjudicating Authority: -
 
The Adjudicating Authority stated that the issues involved was whether there was short payment of service tax or not.
 
The Adjudicating Authority checked the ST-3 return for the Half year ending March, 2005 and found that during the said period, the Noticee has realized an amount of Rs. 3316000/- on which it has paid correct service tax of Rs. 28264/- vide TR ^ Challan dated 13.06.2000.
 
Thus, it was held that there was no short payment of service tax. It was held that there was delay in filing the ST-3 return for the period Half Year ending March, 2005. The return was filed on 06.07.2005 but it was required to be filed by 25.04.2005.
 
It was held that since it was new levy, so the Adjudicating Authority opted for Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.
 
Decision of the Adjudicating Authority:-
 
The amount deposited was appropriated towards service tax under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and ordered recovery of interest under Section 75 of the said Act. No penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
 
Conclusion:-
 
The mistakes can be made by the assessee bona fidely and there might be a reasonable cause for such delay. For such mistakes the assessee cannot be penalized and therefore, Section 80 has been enacted in the Finance Act, 1994 to waive the imposition of penalty. In the instant case, the learned Adjudicating Authority rightly refrained from imposing any penalty on the Noticee as he had deposited the correct amount of service tax but the billed amount was mentioned in the ST-3.
 

******

 
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment
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