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

(kunal reshamwala) Posted On: 17 Sep, 2012

Whether there is no cenvat credit possible when the service provided is 'Renting of Immovable Property' Kindly clarify.

Under negative list, every such activity which falls in the definition of “service” as given in clause 44 of section 65B of the Finance Act are taxable unless otherwise exempted. The exemptions to certain services have been given in the negative list and also in notification no. 25/2012-ST DT 20.6.12. The following exemptions are related to renting of immovable property services as given in negative list and mega exemption notification:- Under Negative list:- •At clause no. (m) of section 44:- Renting of residential dwelling for use as residence. Under mega exemption notification:- •At entry no. 5:- Renting of precincts of a religious place meant for general public. • At entry no. 9:- Services provided to or by an educational institution in respect of education exempted from service tax, by way of,- (a) auxiliary educational services; or (b) renting of immovable property; • At entry no. 18:- Renting of hotels, inn, guest house, club, campsite or other commercial places meant for residential or lodging purpose, having declared tariff of a room below rupees one thousand per day or equivalent is exempt. Since the above referred services are totally exempted under service tax law, no Cenvat Credit is available if the service provider is SOLELY providing these services. However, concept of declared service has also been introduced in the negative list era where certain activities are declared to be a service for the purpose of levying the service tax. The list of declared services has been prescribed in section 66E which reads as follows:- “66E. The following shall constitute declared services, namely:- (a) renting of immovable property; (b) construction of a complex, building, civil structure or a part thereof, including a complex or building intended for sale to a buyer, wholly or partly, except where the entire consideration is received after issuance of completion certificate by the competent authority. Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause,- (I) the expression "competent authority" means the Government or any authority authorised to issue completion certificate under any law for the time being in force and in case of non-requirement of such certificate from such authority, from any of the following, namely:- (A) architect registered with the Council of Architecture constituted under the Architects Act, 1972; or (20 of 1972.) (B) chartered engineer registered with the Institution of Engineers (India); or (C) licensed surveyor of the respective local body of the city or town or village or development or planning authority; (II) the expression "construction" includes additions, alterations, replacements or remodelling of any existing civil structure; (c) temporary transfer or permitting the use or enjoyment of any intellectual property right; (d) development, design, programming, customisation, adaptation, upgradation, enhancement, implementation of information technology software; (e) agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act; (f) transfer of goods by way of hiring, leasing, licensing or in any such manner without transfer of right to use such goods; (g) activities in relation to delivery of goods on hire purchase or any system of payment by installments; (h) service portion in the execution of a works contract; (i) service portion in an activity wherein goods, being food or any other article of human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating) is supplied in any manner as a part of the activity.” Thus, the list of services prescribed under “Declared services” includes the “Renting of immovable property services”. Thus, all the types of renting of immovable property services are taxable undoubtedly other than those prescribed under negative list and mega exemption notification as discussed above. Further, Notification no. 26/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012 prescribes the abatement of 40% in case of "6. Renting of hotels, inns, guest houses, clubs, campsites or other commercial places meant for residential or lodging purposes." Thus, the abatement of 40% is allowed in case of renting of hotels, inns, guest houses, clubs, campsites or other commercial places meant for residential or lodging purposes. Further, where the abatement is claimed for these services, the credit is not allowed on ‘Inputs’ and ‘Capital goods’. As such, where these services are provided; the credit of “Input services” is allowed alongwith abatement. In respect of all the other types of immovable properties (which are taxable beyond any doubt by virtue of section 66E); the service tax is payable to the full applicable rates. Further, no specific prohibition has been imposed regarding the allowability of Cenvat Credit on these services. As such, we are of opinion that the Cenvat Credit is allowed on all the other types of renting of immovable property services. However, if the various types of immovable property services are provided, some exempted and some taxable, provisions of rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 will apply accordingly. Lastly, in context of service tax by way of positive list, circular no. 98/1/2008-ST dated 4.1.2008 was issued regarding Cenvat Credit on renting of immovable property service. The relevant portion of this circular is as follows:- Reference Code- 096.01 / 04.01.08 Issue:- Commercial or industrial construction service [section 65(105)(zzq)] or works contract service [section 65(105)(zzzza)] is used for construction of an immovable property. Renting of an immovable property is leviable to service tax [section 65(105)(zzzz)]. Whether or not, commercial or industrial construction service or works contract service used for construction of an immovable property, could be treated as input service for the output service namely renting of immovable property service under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004? Clarification:- Right to use immovable property is leviable to service tax under renting of immovable property service. Commercial or industrial construction service or works contract service is an input service for the output namely immovable property. Immovable property is neither subjected to central excise duty nor to service tax. Input credit of service tax can be taken only if the output is a ‘service’ liable to service tax or a ‘goods’ liable to excise duty. Since immovable property is neither ‘service’ or ‘goods’ as referred to above, input credit cannot be taken. Thus, in the above referred circular, it was clarified that the credit on input services is not available if the services provided by the assessee are renting of immovable property services. However, now the immovable property has been specifically declared as taxable service under section 66E. Further no specific restriction has been imposed regarding the availment of Cenvat Credit on these services in context of negative list. Thus, we can say that the above circular will not hold good now under negative list scenario. We hope the above will satisfy your query. Disclaimer: This opinion is given to best of knowledge and belief. The service tax is a complicated law and interpretations of the law keep on changing based on judicial discipline and Board’s clarifications. Our opinion is also subject to the same.
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