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

(S SAMPATH) Posted On: 11 Feb, 2014

Facts of the Case: Our company is sending various equipments to Overseas OEMs/OEM Authorized service centers. These equipments were overhauled & we are paying charges towards overhaul charges, spares consumed & testing charges. The machines after overhauls, return back to India . Custom duty is being paid by us on total amount paid to vendor i.e overhauling charges, spares consumed & other Charges . Further, we are also paying service tax on overhaul charges under reverse mechanism & cenvat credit is being claimed on service tax paid on overhaul charges. Query : Can overhaul service charges paid to foreign vendors for above services at their premises( located outside taxable territory) be qualified as services provided in the taxable territory ? . If not , payment of service tax under Reverse Mechanism is applicable to our company ?. Relevant provisions of Service Tax Act & Rules are given below: Section 66 B: Charge of services tax on and after finance Act 2012 There shall be levied a tax at the rate of 12% on the value of all services, other than those services specified in the negative list, provided or agreed to be provided in the taxable territory by one person to another and collected in such manner as may be prescribed. Section 66 C: Determination of place of provision of services: (1) The central Govt may, having regard to the nature and description of various services, by rules made in this regard, determine the place where such services are provided or deemed to have been provided or agreed to be provided or deemed to have been agreed to be provided. (2) Any Rule made under sub section (1) shall not be invalid merely on the ground that either the service provider or the service receiver or both are located at a place being outside the taxable territory. Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 Clause 4 : Place of provision of performance based services : The place of provision of services shall be the location where the services are actually performed, namely:- (a) Services provided in the respect of goods that are required to be made physically available by the recipient of the services to the provider of services, or to a person acting on behalf of the provider of service, in order to provide the service: Provided that when such services are provided from a remote location by way of electronic means the place of provision shall be the location where goods are situated at the time of provision of services ; Provided further that this sub-rule is not apply in the case of a service provided in respect of goods that are temporally imported ….. Section 68 : Payment of service tax (1) Every person providing taxable services to any person shall pay service tax at the rate specified in section 66 in such manner and within such period as may be specified. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1) , in respect of such taxable services as may be notified by Central Govt in the Official Gazzatte, the service tax thereon shall be paid by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed at the rates specified in section 66 and all the provision of this chapter shall apply to such person as if he is the person liable for paying the service tax in relation to such service. Provided that the Central Govt may notify the services and the extent of services tax which shall be payable by such person and the provision of this chapter shall apply to such person to the extent so specified and the remaining part of the service tax shall be paid by the service provider. Reverse Charges Notification Under Section 68 (2) : Para 1 ( B) The taxable services provided or agreed to be provided by any person which is located in a non-taxable territory and received by any person located in the taxable territory ; The extent of service tax payable thereon by the person who provides the services and the person who receives the services for the taxable services specified in (1) shall be as specified in the following table , namely :- Sl no Description of services Percentage of service tax payable by the person providing services Percentage of service tax payable by the person receiving the service 10 In respect of any taxable services provided or agreed to be provided by any person who is located in a non taxable territory and received by any person located in the taxable territory Nil 100%

As per Rule 4 of POPS Rules, Place of Provision of performance based services is where the goods are physically made available to service provider or to person acting on behalf of provider of services. In the present case, services are related to repair of equipments that are necessarily required to be sent to overseas Authorised Service Stations for repair purpose. Hence, the transaction is covered by Rule 4 of POPS Rules as the essential characteristic of a service to be covered under this rule is that the goods temporarily come into the physical possession or control of the service provider, and without this happening, the service cannot be rendered. Since, overhaul service charges paid to foreign vendors for above services at their premises located outside taxable territory are covered under this Rule, hence the place of provision shall be where performance takes place. Since the place of provision is a non taxable territory service tax shall not be applicable on the same. Consequently, there is no liability under reverse charge mechanism on overhaul charges paid to overseas Authorised Service Station
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