Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Study/2018-19/124
23 June 2018

Whether non submission of the copy of work orders along with the option letter prior to payment of service tax the, the benefit of composition scheme will be denied to the assessee?
CASE STUDY
 
Prepared By: Pushpa Choudhary & CA Akanksha Anchaliya
 
Whether non submission of the copy of work orders along with the option letter prior to payment of service tax the, the benefit of composition scheme will be denied to the assessee?
 
  
Introduction:
M/S Swift Engineering & Technology [OIO NO. 38/ST/JDR/2016-Additional commissioner, DT. 21.03.2016]

Theassessee, M/S SWIFT ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGYis engaged in providing taxable service namely Erection Commissioning, Commercial construction and Works Contract Service. The show cause notice C. No. V (ST) Adj.-II/JPR-II/314/13/3390 dated 11.10.2013 was issued to the appellant alleging that they have not paid the Service Tax amounting to Rs. 21,58,505/-  by wrong availment of benefit of rule 3 of the Works Contract (Composition Scheme for payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007 and wrongly assessing the taxable value in terms of Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 during Financial year 2010-11 and 2011-12. Service tax along with interest and penalty under section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was proposed to be recovered from them. The learned Adjudicating Officer did not adhere to the submissions made by the appellant and passed the impugned order in original no. 38/ST/JDR/2016-ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER DT 21.03.2016, confirming the demand of service tax and interest and penalty under section 78. However, the penalty under section 76 was dropped. Aggrieved by the part of Order in Original confirming the demand of service tax, interest and penalty and is liable to be set aside.

 
Relevant Legal Provisions:
  • Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the works contract reads as under:-
In terms of sub rule (1) of the Rule 3 of the Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007, as amended and as explained under above clarification dated 6.7.2009, the service provider was required to add the value of all goods used in or in relation to the execution of the works contract whether purchased directly or material supplied free by the service recipient and only thereafter the service provider was entitled for payment of service tax at the composite rate 4%, whereas, the service provider did not follow the conditions laid down under composition scheme, by not adding the gross value of material supplied free by the service recipient M/s Suzlon Infrastructure Services Limited while paying the service tax at reduced rate during the F/Y 2010-11.”
 
Issue Involved:The issue involved in this case before the adjudicating authority was that  they have not paid the Service Tax amounting to Rs. 21,58,505/-  by wrong availment of benefit of rule 3 of the Works Contract (Composition Scheme for payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007
 
Brief Facts:Briefly stated the facts of the case are that M/S SWIFT ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) is engaged in providing taxable service namely Erection Commissioning, Commercial construction and Works Contract Service and is having Service Tax Registration No. ABTFS7686QSD001.A show cause notice dated 19.08.2015 was issued to them alleging that they had not paid the service tax amounting Rs.2158505/- by wrong availment of benefit of rule 3 of the Works Contract Service tax alongwith interest and penalty under section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act,1994 was proposed to be recovered from them.  Considering the replies and argument placed during personal hearing, the Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order in original no.38/ST/JDR/2016-Additional Commissioner Dated 21.03.2016, confirming the Demand of service Tax of Rs. 1905042 /- and ordered to be recovered along with interest. Penalty under section 78 was also imposed. The appellant submit that the impugned Order-In-Original passed by the learned adjudicating authority is wholly and totally erroneous in confirming the demand of service tax, interest and penalty and is liable to be set aside.
 
Assessee’s Contention: The assessee made following submissions before the adjudicating authority:- 
 
 
  1. Submit that the impugned Order-In-Original passed by the learned adjudicating authority is wholly and totally erroneous in confirming the demand of service tax, interest and penalty and is liable to be set aside.
  2. Submit that the impugned order is alleging that the benefit of composition scheme is not available to them since they had not submitted the copy of option letter prior to payment of service tax. It has further been contended that the appellant have not submitted the copies of work orders or details to satisfy the requirements of composition rules.
  3. Submitted that the denial of benefit of composition scheme on the grounds of non filing of option letter is wholly and totally erroneous.
  4. Submits that since the allegation of non-filing of option letter for availing the benefit of Composition Scheme is non-est. the computation of service tax demand by the impugned order by resorting to the provisions of Rule 2A of the Service Tax Determination of Value Rules, 2006.
  5. Submits that when they have timely exercised the option to avail the benefit of composition scheme, the benefit cannot be denied by the learned adjudicating authority.
  6. Submits that practically there is no dispute as regards availment of benefit of composition scheme because all the conditions for availing the said benefit have been duly complied by them.
  7. Submits that they have correctly discharged their service tax liability under the composition scheme for both the financial years 2010-11 and 2011-12, under consideration.
  8. Submits that due to change of accountant, there was some mis-computation of service tax demand and consequently, there was short payment of service tax for the financial year 2011-12. However, the said short payment was made good by the appellant along with appropriate interest. Hence, the appellant have discharged their entire service tax liability under the composition scheme.
  9.  Submits that the impugned order in original has not acknowledged the differential challans paid by them with respect to their service tax liability for the financial year 2011-12. Consequently, the amount of Rs. 3,83,203/- which is not considered by the impugned order in original ought to have been accounted for while computing the service tax liability. Moreover, by considering the entire set of challans, it is found that the appellant have discharged their entire service tax liability under the works contract composition scheme and no further service tax is payable by them.
  10. Submit that the impugned order is confusing and ambiguous to the extent that it has been passed on the grounds other than the allegations made in the show cause notice.
  11. Submits that various overheads incurred with respect to materials such as transportation expenses, handling expenses etc. associated with the materials will also be recovered from the service receiver. Moreover, for the Financial Year 2011-12, deduction of materials such as cutting material, Unregistered Dealer Material etc. has not been allowed to them. Furthermore, the claim regarding deduction of profit, administrative overheads etc. has been rejected by stating that no documentary evidence indicating profit element was provided by the appellant.
  12. Submitted that no service provider would indicate profit element in the invoice raised by it towards provision of service including supply of certain materials that were used during the provision of such service.
  13. Submit that the impugned order in original has confirmed service tax demand by invoking the extended period of limitation. However, the extended period of limitation is not invocable in the present case as there is no deliberate suppression on our part to evade payment of duty. They submit that the appellant had duly filed option letter for availing the benefit of composition scheme and had discharged their service tax liability and have also duly filed Service Tax Returns.
 
Decision:Appeal Allowed
 
Conclusion: The inference of the case is that the appellant has paid the service tax for the year 2010-2011 and 2011-12 on the amount of their contract receipts under composition scheme @ 4.12%. However the adjudicating authority has not allowed the benefit of composition scheme on the grounds that the appellant had not filed the option letter. Later on it was observed that since the option was exercised prior to payment of service tax the benefit of composition scheme was allowed. Though the appellant has not filed the option letter for the works undertaken during the period of 2011-12, it was held that non filing of option for specific contract cannot debar them from substantial benefits of service tax rate moreover there is no law to charge service tax on the cost of the material used during the course of providing the services. And further there was intention to pay service tax under composition scheme in the invoices issued by mentioning the fact that it was issued by them under the said scheme. But in the view of the findings it was gripped that there was a short payment of service tax during the year 2011-2012 and thus the appellant was directed to deposit the same along with interest.
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