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/2010-11/45
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