Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT. *  Services to singapore head office not ‘Intermediary Services’: CESTAT. *  Satellite transponder capacity received from foreign providers not taxable as business support service: CESTAT *  Sugar export ban upheld: Bombay High Court says private contracts and advance payments can’t override govt. policy. *  No CA or CMA certification required for interest on already-sanctioned GST refund: Telangana High Court. *  GST demand order uploaded only on common portal doesn’t trigger appeal limitation: Delhi High Court. *  GST refund can’t remain locked in ITC when business has closed: Allahabad High Court. *  Sec. 129 Penalty can’t be imposed on stock transfer without e-way bill: GSTAT. *  Subsequent supplier’s GST registration cancellation by itself, doesn’t establish fraudulent ITC availment: Karnataka High Court. *  DGGI Jaipur | Rajasthan High Court denies bail in central excise duty evasion case, cites seriousness of alleged unregistered tobacco Manufacturing. *  Dept. can’t force assessee to adopt more punitive CENVAT credit option under rule 6: Calcutta High Court. *  GST levy on corporate guarantees upheld: Gujarat High Court. *  Calcutta High Court allows appeal against Ex-parte GST order after medical emergencies prevented reply to SCN. *  Legality of gold confiscation based on retracted statement questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court frames 8 substantial questions of law. *  Interest on delayed duty drawback runs from 1month after ‘Let Export Order’, not final adjudication: Delhi High Court. *  High Courts can’t grant post-dismissal arrest protection in GST pre-arrest bail matters; Sec. 69 arrest order must be communicated: Supreme Court. *  Whether RERA registration can determine GST classification of ‘Ongoing Project’: Rajasthan High Court issues stay notice. *  GSTAT admits Bharti Airtel’s appeal on ITC dispute involving section 17(5)(c) and (d) of CGST Act. *  Showroom interior fit-outs constitutes “Original Works”, CESTAT quashes ?2.61 crore service tax demand. *  CESTAT upholds extended limitation for inadmissible CENVAT credit availed during area-based exemption. *  Refund can’t be denied merely for not challenging Bill of entry when exempt duty was paid inadvertently: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST Appeal limitation must run from DRC-07 communication, not detailed adjudication order: Madras High Court. *  GST amnesty waiver covers self-assessed tax: Madras High Court. *  AIFTP seeks one-time GST amnesty to revive appeals dismissed for delay under section. 107. *  Customs cargo service provider suspension can’t continue indefinitely under regulation 11(2) of HCCAR: CESTAT *  Madras High Court stays GST demand after finding prima facie double taxation in ongoing housing project. *  GST appeal filed before extended deadline can’t be rejected on limitation without considering CBIC relief notification: Gujarat High Court. *  No right to representation against Anti-dumping findings: Delhi High Court *  Wrong service classification alone can’t justify extended limitation without proof of tax evasion: Rajasthan High Court. *  Importer can’t be penalised when exporter’s DFIA licence remained valid, fraud allegations failed: CESTAT.
Subject News *  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. *  Madras High court stays GST recovery initiated under section. 79 without prior determination under section 73. *  GST Dept. must establish deliberate tax evasion before using extended limitation: GSTAT. *  GST officers can’t keep business premises sealed after search ends: Gauhati High Court. *  GST adjudication order ignoring CBIC circular challenged: Bombay HC grants ad-interim protection to Skoda Auto Volkswagen. *  Alleged evidentiary errors, cross-examination issues, earlier GST audit questions must be raised before Appellate authority: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected on erroneous limitation calculation: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Adjudication and Appellate orders passed without supplying seized documents to assessee quashed: Bombay High Court stays coercive GST recovery. *  GST search without sharing DIN violates transparency safeguards, but doesn’t invalidate search: Madras High Court. *  Statutory GST appeal can’t be circumvented by mere natural justice allegations: Bombay HC. *  Whether banks can simultaneously avail ITC u/s 17(2) and 17(4)? - Madras High Court stays GST adjudication against City Union Bank. *  Driver’s statement on plain paper has ‘Very Little Evidentiary Value’: Allahabad High Court quashes GST penalty order. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied on duty-paid inputs from area-based exempt units: CESTAT. *  Ignoring taxpayer’s reply while rejecting GST refund is illegal: Bombay High Court. *  Dept. can’t allege suppression after earlier audit on same issue: CESTAT quashes Excise demand on limitation. *  Sales-tax concession cannot be denied unless government notification is expressly rescinded: Telangana High Court. *  GST appeal delay condoned after portal continued to show case as ‘Pending for order’: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs duty exemption can’t be denied without test report to support reclassification: CESTAT. *  Recovery can’t continue during pending GST appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court directs ITC unblocking after statutory pre-deposit. *  Revenue neutrality must be proven with evidence, not assumptions: Madras High Court restores Rs. 20.37 crore Excise demand. *  GST limitation applies to issuance of assessment order, not its service: Calcutta High Court. *  Time barred SCN can’t sustain service tax demand against sub-contractor: CESTAT.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1237

Whether the pick up and drop facility of employees by bus is liable to service tax?
 
 


Case:-   M/S PEARL TRAVELS VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DAMAN

Citation: - 2012-TIOL-1195-CESTAT-AHM

 
Brief fact: - The Stay application is filed for the waiver of pre-deposit of Service tax of Rs 16,84,057/- and penalties under various section of Finance Act,1994 which was confirmed by the lower authorities on the ground that the appellant herein is providing Rent-a-Cab Service and Business Support Service to Welspun India Ltd.

Appellant Contention: The Appellant submitted that various decisions of the Tribunal have already taken a view that transportation of employees based upon per kilometer running of the vehicles, which is in control of the appellant, would not be liable for tax under Rent-a-Cab service. It is also his submission that out of the demand for Rent-a-Cab service, they have already deposited approximately an amount of Rs. 1.44 Lakhs. As regards the service tax liability under Business Support Service, he further submitted that as per the agreement/contract entered into with M/s. Welspun India Limited, the appellant is required to maintain the buses, fill the fuel, pay the RTO Taxes and in turn the appellant is reimbursed the amount at the rate of Rs. 16.12 per kilometer for big buses and Rs. 10.94 per kilometer for small buses. As the appellant is managing the buses which are procured by M/s. Welspun India Limited and given to them for running the same for transportation of the employees, therefore it would fall under the category of support service of business and commerce. He further analyzed the definition of Business Support Services and submits that the revenue is trying to put these services under the Category of Infrastructural Support Service, which is not mentioned in the said definition.
 
Respondent Contention:- The  Learned departmental representative  reiterate the finding of the lower authorities.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:  The Tribunal held that the definition of Support Services of Business and Commerce indicates that it means - "services provided in relation to Business or Commerce" and also has an inclusive definition after this sentence. At this juncture, the Tribunal Contended that the transportation of the employees from their residence to factory premises or vice versa, could be in relation to the business of the said M/s. Welspun India Limited of manufacturing activity. The issue in this regard is needs to be gone into detail and in depth, which can be done only at the time of final disposal of appeal. Considering the fact that appellant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 1.44 Lakhs and the issue being debatable, Therefore Tribunal direct the appellant to further deposit an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two Lakhs fifty thousand only) within eight weeks from today and report compliance on 20.09.2012. Subject to such compliance being reported, the application for waiver of pre-deposit of balance amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeal.
 
 
Decision:- Conditional Stay granted
 
Comments:-  Although it is a stay matter only but this matter is still very disputed. Even after the introduction of negative list, whether this service will fall under service tax? The “contract carriage” and “ stage carriage” is still exempted. Whether this activity will fall under this category? The times to come will decide.
 
 
 
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