Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Delhi High Court - Issue of fake ITC - Court declined to entertain the writ petition against the GST demand, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy *  Patna High Court - Availability of an effective statutory remedy is a strong ground for High Court to decline interference in writ proceedings, unless exceptional circumstances are established. *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026. 
Subject News *  Delhi High Court - An Advocate cannot claim client privilege as an absolute bar to a GST investigation where there is prima facie material suggesting his own involvement in the affairs under investigation. *  Madras High Court - SEZ unit is eligible to claim refund of unutilised ITC; such entitlement cannot be restricted merely because Rule 89 specifically refers to a supplier to an SEZ. *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President.  

Comments

(Alex) Posted On: 03 Mar, 2015

Our business is manufacturing Ice cream (CETSH No.21050000). There are 4 manufacturing units (say A,B,C & D) registered as 4 partnership firms in different parts of Kerala having separate registration for Sales Tax, Central Excise, Service Tax and separate PANs. These units are manufacturing Ice cream under common brand name (units are located in rural area –but SSI exemption is not available currently as TO exceeds limits). We are paying Excise Duty after claiming exemption under Notification No.1/2011-C.E. @ 2% and hence no CENVAT credit is available. We are presently facing a service tax issue as described below. During FY 2013-14 unit “A” incurred huge amount on advertisement expenses (celebrity payment and media advertisement) for establishing the brand name in the market (on behalf of all the units). At the end of the FY (i.e. In March 2014) unit “A” issued two service tax invoices as brand promotion services-one each on unit “B & C”(unit “D” was excluded because of loss made during the year) after adding advertisement services to its Service Tax registration certificate. These invoices were raised proportionately based on some internal calculations. Unfortunately we didn’t include these two invoice in the service tax Return filed for the 6 months period ending March 2014 due to some misunderstanding and/or misguidance on the part of employees and management were unaware of this situation. During one month back an intelligence officer from Central excise office visited the office of unit “ A” and found that in the audited Financial statement this brand promotion service charges have been credited in the P & L and verified the corresponding invoice. It is clear from the invoice that service tax have been billed in the invoice and now they have issued a summons u/s 14 of Central Excise Act (made applicable to Service Tax u/s 83 of Finance Act 1994) to produce documents such as audited Financial Statements, copy of Brand promotion service charge invoices etc. My queries in this connection are as follows:- 1. Was there anything wrong ( a) in taking registration as advertisement service provider by the Ice cream manufacturing unit(partnership firm)-some officer orally told us to cancel registration earlier??!! ( b) invoicing other brand name sharing units and taking input service tax credit on advertisement in media and celebrity payment. (We consider this as separate business and hence hope that non availability CENVAT due to availing of exemption notification for ice cream will not affect this. Further we do not want to claim input tax on unit A’s portion of brand promotion expenses.) 2. If queries explained in point one are favorable to us then how to rectify the Service Tax Return (only GTA-reverse tax have been included in the STR) as 90 days of filing the return are already over? 3. What stand should we take while appearing before the intelligence officer as he has already issued a summons? 4. Any other advice in this connection.

There was nothing wrong in taking registration as an advertisement service provider and passing on the cenvat credit as far as Unit A has charged service tax from B and C and has paid the service tax to the government exchequer. The reason for the same being that unit A has passed on credit in the capacity of advertisement service provider. Further, unit A has correctly not availed the cenvat credit of service tax pertaining to its share as the said service was in relation to excisable goods cleared under notification no. 1/2011. We submit that as the time limit to revise the STR has been expired, Unit A may intimate the service tax department by way of letter that they failed to reflect the transactions in STR. {Query replied by: CA Neetu Sukhwani}
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