Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  No Service Tax On Reimbursed Salary of Seconded Employee: CESTAT *  Customs Dept. Can’t Deny Exemption Benefits Based On Laboratory Test Reports Not Drawn As Per ISI: CESTAT *  Service Tax Not Payable on Hostel Buildings Rented to Educational Institutions: CESTAT *  GST Penalty on Partners Valid Even for Pre-2021 Transactions U/s 122(1A): Gauhati High Court  *  KYC Verification Of Importer By Customs Broker Through Govt. Portals Enough, No Physical Verification Required: CESTAT  *  GSTN Extends Timeline for implementation of mandatory “Ship To GSTIN” and Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities.  *  Customs Dept. Can’t Indefinitely Suspend Cargo License Without Inquiry: CESTAT  *  No Evidence of Customs Broker’s Knowledge of Mis declared Sugar Export: CESTAT Quashes Penalty Under CBLR.  *  Transportation Charges Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT  *  No Gold Seizure Without Proof of Smuggling or Foreign Origin: CESTAT *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines
Subject News *  Personal Hearing Before Reply Deadline: Uttarakhand HC Quashes GST Assessment Order. *  GST Assessment Order Invalid Where Notice, Reply, Hearing Dates Were Fixed on Same Day: Allahabad High Court *  GST Assessment Order Quashed for Denial of Personal Hearing Despite Taxpayer Opting ‘No’ in DRC-06: Gujarat High Court *  Reversal of CENVAT Credit Equals Non-Availment: CESTAT *  Rule 9(1)(bb) Can’t Be Invoked to Deny CENVAT Credit When Penalty Proceedings Fail: CESTAT *  • Customs Duty Exemption on Edible-Grade Oils Used in Cosmetics: CESTAT  *  Bona Fide Purchaser Can’t Be Denied ITC Merely For Seller’s Deposit Tax Failure: Gauhati High Court  *  Reversal of CENVAT Credit Equals Non-Availment: CESTAT  *  Sec. 73 & 74 Permit Consolidated Proceedings Across FY: Gauhati High Court Upholds Multi-Year GST SCN  *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case   

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1496

Determining Gross amount of providing service - inclusion of cost of free material supplied for completing contract

Case: ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LTD. Versus U.O.I
 
Citation: 2008 (11) S.T.R. 3 (Del.)
 
Issue:- Gross Amount for providing service – computation of – Material supplied free of Cost by service recipient for completing the contract – not includible.
 
Brief Facts:- A show cause notice has been issued to the Petitioner on 13th June. 2007 proposing to include the free supply of material as a part of the gross amount charged for the purposes of levying Service tax. The Petitioner has filed a reply to the show cause notice an 24th September, 2007 and we are told that the matter has not yet been adjudicated.
 
Petitioner’s Contention:- For the purposes of levying service tax the Respondents can only include the service element provided for in the contract that the petitioner enters Into with other parties, In this came the other contracting party being NTPC. It Is the case of the Petitioner that materials that are supplied free of cost by NTPC to the Petitioner for the purposes of completing the contract cannot be included in the gross amount charged by the Petitioner for the purposes of denim hung the Service tax payable.
 
According to the Petitioner, the "gross amount charged" has been defined in Section 67(3) of the Finance Ad. 1994.
 
It is submitted that any material that is supplied by NTPC free of charge cannot he included in the "gross amount charged" as defined above. Therefore, it cannot be included in the taxable service which is provided for in Section 67 of the Finance Art, 1994.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- It was held that prima facie it appears that the respondent cannot include in the gross amount charged any material that is supplied free of charge by NTPC or by any other party in respect of a contract of service.
 
Attention has been drawn to an order passel by the Madras High Court in M/s Larsen and Turbo Ltd. v. Union of India, wherein the Madras High Court has come to the prima facie view that instances on value of goods supplied and provided free by the client of an assessee cannot be included for the purpose of calculating taxable service.
 
In view of the facts that the High court narrated above as well as the interim order passed by the Madras High Court, the High Court is of the opinion that while the adjudication proceedings may go on and be concluded by the Respondents, they will not include for the purposes of & determining the taxable service the sup­ply of free material to the Petitioner and to this extent the Explanation appearing against Serial No 7 in the table given in the Notification dated 1st Mirth, 2006 will nut be applied to the detriment of the Petitioner.
 
Decision:- Appeal is disposed off.

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