Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Tax Updates - TMI e-Newsletters

Home e-Newsletters Index Year 2024 November Day 5 - Tuesday

TMI e-Newsletters FAQ
You need to Subscribe a package.

Newsletter: Where Service Meets Reader Approval.

TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
November 5, 2024

Case Laws in this Newsletter:

GST Income Tax Customs Insolvency & Bankruptcy PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Indian Laws



Highlights / Catch Notes

    GST

  • Opportunity for personal hearing under GST Act: Mandatory if requested, not if ignored show-cause notice.

    The court held that u/s 75(4) of the GST Act, an opportunity for personal hearing must be granted if requested in writing by the person liable for tax or penalty, or if an adverse decision is contemplated against such person. However, if the person chooses not to appear before the authority after receiving the show-cause notice, neither filing a reply nor requesting a personal hearing, then after the final order is passed, they cannot claim that an opportunity for hearing was denied. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the principle that a personal hearing is an entitlement only when requested, and not providing it cannot be grounds for challenging the order if the person failed to make such a request.

  • Violation of Natural Justice: GST Input Tax Credit from Fictitious Firm Challenged.

    Violation of principles of natural justice and the challenge to the show cause notice (SCN). The SCN was challenged on the ground that it was in the nature of a final order, and the order-in-original was passed without providing an opportunity for a hearing. The issue pertained to the availment of input tax credit (ITC) from a fictitious firm, resulting in a contravention of Section 16(2) of the GST Act. The High Court observed that the SCNs predetermined the demand and were worded identically, resembling an order-in-original, which cannot be sustained under the law. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned SCNs and the subsequent order dated 29.12.2023, remanding the matter back to the respondent authorities to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the law within twelve weeks from the receipt of the order's copy. The petition was allowed by way of remand.

  • Education services provider denied GST refund for inverted duty structure.

    The High Court held that Section 17(2) of the CGST Act is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution to the extent it restricts refund under the inverted duty structure. The petitioner does not have a vested right to claim refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit on goods and services due to the inverted duty structure under the first proviso to Section 54(3) of the CGST Act. The restrictions imposed on the petitioner on availing credits used for exempted services u/s 17(2) and claiming refund of taxes on inputs and input services under the first proviso to Section 54(3) are valid. The right to avail Input Tax Credit and the benefit of taxes paid on inputs and input services does not extend to exempted supplies. The petitioner, providing education services, falls under the category of fully exempt supply and is not entitled to Input Tax Credit refund. The legislature has rightly excluded supplies with Nil or exempted rate from the refund provision for the inverted rate structure u/s 54(3). As there is no constitutional or statutory entitlement to refund, the petitioner's claim for refund of ITC on exempt output services cannot be accepted. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition.

  • Taxpayer seeks refund of double GST & interest for late filing.

    Refund of double tax paid by petitioner along with interest for November and December 2020 sought. Non-filing of GSTR-3B from July to December 2020. Petitioner to claim refund by appropriate application to authority as Insolvency Resolution Professional obtained GST registration in petitioner's name, now suspended. Impugned order confirming levy of interest and penalty quashed due to lack of show-cause notice u/s 126(3) of Act denying opportunity of hearing. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority to issue fresh show-cause notice enabling petitioner to avail hearing opportunity within 12 weeks. Petition disposed by way of remand.

  • Lack of reasoning in court order violates principles of natural justice.

    The main order rejecting condonation of delay lacks reasons, violating principles of natural justice. It is a well-settled legal position that an affidavit-in-reply cannot supplement the main order under challenge by assigning reasons when the main order itself does not contain any reasons. The Supreme Court has emphasized the need for courts, quasi-judicial, or administrative authorities to provide reasons for their orders to enable higher forums or courts to consider such reasons when the order is challenged. The impugned order dated 12.06.2023, devoid of any reasoning, is liable to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the respondent to pass a fresh order with detailed reasons in accordance with the law.

  • Utility companies' ancillary services under scrutiny for tax exemption eligibility.

    Dispute centered on whether exemption granted for transmission or distribution of electricity extends to ancillary services offered by utility companies. Court ordered stay on penalty proceedings until Supreme Court delivers judgment on exemption applicability to ancillary services. If ruled against assessee, penalty imposition to be independently evaluated based on governing principles. Petitions disposed, maintaining status quo on payments and penalty proceedings pending Supreme Court's final decision.

  • Income Tax

  • Mandatory e-filing of Forms 3CEDA & 3C-O for Advance Pricing Agreement rollback & Research & Development approval from Oct 31, 2024.

    This notification specifies that Form 3CEDA (Application for rollback of an Advance Pricing Agreement) and Form 3C-O (Application form for approval under sub-section (1) of section 35CCC of the Income-tax Act, 1961) prescribed in Appendix-II of the Income Tax Rules 1962 shall be furnished electronically and verified as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 131 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The notification comes into effect from 31st October 2024.

  • Extension for co-op societies to claim 80P deduction for delays in account audits for AY 2023-24.

    This circular relates to condonation of delay under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for returns of income claiming deduction u/s 80P for the Assessment Year 2023-24. The Central Board of Direct Taxes received applications from co-operative societies seeking condonation of delay in furnishing returns due to delay in getting accounts audited under respective State Laws. To mitigate genuine hardship, the Board exercised powers u/s 119 and extended the applicability of Circular No.13/2023 dated 26.07.2023 to AY 2023-24, subject to conditions stipulated therein. The circular aims to provide relief to assessees facing delays in filing returns claiming deduction u/s 80P.

  • Loan restructuring costs allowed as business expense for lower interest rate.

    Expenditure incurred for payment of foreclosure premium for restructuring loan and obtaining fresh loan at a lower rate of interest is allowable as business expenditure u/s 37(1). The pre-closure premium can be claimed as revenue expenditure u/s 37. The foreclosure of the loan to contain exorbitant charges stems from a business decision and commercial expediency governing the assessee's business dealings. An assessee can decide the best way to conduct business and maximize profits, subject to compliance with the law. The decision in Overseas Sanmar Financial Limited, where foreclosure premium was allowed as business expenditure on similar facts, has attained finality as it was not challenged by the Income-Tax Department. The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee.

  • Tax evasion scrutiny: Time limits, assessment validity, unexplained income additions upheld.

    The key points from the legal text are: Section 153A assessment - Limitation period applies based on when seized materials were handed over to the Assessing Officer (AO), not the search date. Despite 60-day limit in Section 132(9A) for handing over seized assets, non-adherence does not invalidate assessment if within extended limitation u/s 153B(1) proviso. Validity of satisfaction notes u/s 153C - Separate notes recorded for each year, concluding seized materials pertained to assessee and impacted income. Satisfied threshold u/s 153C(1) despite not explicitly mentioning all earlier years. Transfer order u/s 127 - Mixed questions of fact and law involved in determining if consent/consultation requirements were met. No findings recorded due to lack of pleadings. Addition u/s 69 read with 115BBE - Applicable for unexplained investments not recorded in books, even if no books maintained. Computation of income and tax liability upheld.

  • Cash incentives accrue on claim submission date, not actual receipt - rules High Court, siding with assessee over tax dept.

    The High Court held that cash incentives accrue to the assessee on the date when the application for claim is submitted to the Competent Authority, and not from the date of actual receipt or disbursement of the incentive. This view aligns with the court's earlier decision in a similar case. The reference was decided in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue authorities regarding the timing of accrual recognition for cash incentives.

  • Inherited Property Cost for Capital Gains Tax: Family Settlement Trumps Will.

    Capital gains computation - cost of acquisition relates back to date of transfer through will/family settlement to beneficiary. Determination of indexed cost of acquisition for residential property acquired through family settlement. Additional evidence not admissible before ITAT without following rules. Family settlement is not a transfer, cost of acquisition relates back to previous owner's acquisition. Family settlement need not be registered if recording prior arrangement. For capital gains, cost inflation index calculated from year property acquired by previous owner through registered deed. Family arrangement does not involve transfer, hence no capital gains tax. Calculation based on indexed cost from previous owner's acquisition date, even if will disregarded. Order of CIT(A) upheld, decided in favor of assessee.

  • Lack of evidence prevented reopening income tax assessment for alleged bogus share profits.

    The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked sufficient material or evidence to reopen the assessment u/s 147 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 in respect of transactions involving shares of Cubical. The notice u/s 148A(b) and order u/s 148A(d) failed to demonstrate that the AO possessed books of account, documents, or evidence revealing that the assessee's income from Cubical transactions, treated as capital gains, had escaped assessment. The mere allegation of bogus profits from Cubical shares and the tabular statement reflecting figures did not substantiate that the income was undisclosed or a camouflage. Without concrete evidence suggesting the Cubical transactions were bogus, the amount of Rs. 30,71,263/- could not be included as income escaping assessment. Excluding this amount, the remaining income from Gemstone share transactions fell short of the Rs. 50,00,000/- threshold for reopening assessments beyond three years. Consequently, the court decided in favor of the assessee.

  • Transfer of salary arrears to pension fund: Can tax be deducted at source?

    Deduction of tax from salary arrears appropriated for transfer to pension corpus set up under pension regulations. Constitutionality of Explanation to Section 17(2)(ii)(c) of Income Tax Act 1961 and relevant circulars challenged. High Court held the issue identical to previous case, extended liberty to petitioners to make requests for determination of tax deduction rate. Interim injunction to continue till specified date or disposal of representations. For house rent allowance arising from bipartite settlement, same direction applied as the legal position is identical.

  • Penalty Deleted for Non-Furnishing Evidence, Not Concealment of Income.

    The assessee was penalized u/s 271(1)(c) for addition of sale consideration due to lack of vouchers. The CIT(A) partly confirmed the addition for want of vouchers. The assessee argued that no penalty is maintainable as the transaction was truly disclosed, and long-term capital gains were reported. The ITAT held that the CIT(A) restricted the addition after examining the evidence, indicating the assessee succeeded partially. The AO imposed the penalty solely for non-submission of supporting vouchers. Relying on the CAFCO SYNDICATE SHIPPING CO. case, the ITAT ruled that penalty cannot be imposed for non-furnishing evidence as it does not amount to concealment of income. Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO was deleted, and the assessee's grounds were allowed.

  • Interest income from disputed FD awaits final court decision on ownership before taxation.

    The Appellate Tribunal adjudicated on the issue of addition of interest income and penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee contended that the interest income from a Fixed Deposit (FD) with the State Bank of India never crystallized due to a legal dispute over the ownership of the funds. The Tribunal held that where the ownership itself is in question, the decision to delete the addition becomes questionable. The assessee cannot be permanently excluded from taxation on interest earned from the FD. However, the assessee cannot be taxed on an asset over which it does not have conclusive ownership. The issue of final ownership is yet to be decided by the court. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the taxation of interest income once the High Court decides the ownership. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to decide on the imposition of penalty based on the decision regarding taxation of interest income.

  • Advance Money Investment: Tax Benefit Confirmed for NHAI Bonds.

    The Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s 54EC of the Income Tax Act for investment in bonds of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI). The assessee had invested the advance money received towards the sale of a property in the specified NHAI bonds before the date of transfer. This is in line with Circular No. 359 and the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Subhash Vinayak Supnekar, which ruled that when an advance received under an agreement to sell a capital asset is invested in specified bonds, the benefit of Section 54EC is available. The Tribunal observed a direct nexus between the advance received and the investment made, thereby allowing the assessee's appeal.

  • Salaried Employee Denied Foreign Tax Credit Due to Late Filing Technicality.

    The assessee, a salaried employee working for Tessolve Semiconductor Pvt. Ltd. and Tessolve Inc., earned income from salary, house property, capital gains, dividend, and interest. The assessee claimed foreign tax credit, which was denied by the CPC due to the late filing of Form 67 along with the return of income u/s 139. The Tribunal, relying on a previous Bangalore Bench decision, held that Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form 67. Filing Form 67 is a directory requirement, and the DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow Foreign Tax Credit after due verification of Form 67, allowing the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes.

  • Tax credit allowed despite delayed filing of Form 67; DTAA overrides domestic provisions.

    The Tribunal held that Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) in case of delay in filing Form No. 67. Filing of Form No. 67 is a directory requirement, and the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) overrides the provisions of the Act and Rules. The issue was not debatable, and there was only one possible view. In such circumstances, proceedings u/s 154 of the Act can be resorted to, even if it involves a long-drawn process of reasoning. The Assessing Officer was directed to give credit for foreign tax as per Form 67 filed by the assessee prior to filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), after due verification.

  • Determining "purchase" date for tax deduction: Possession & payment key, not just registration delay.

    The case pertains to the determination of the date of "purchase" for claiming deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act. The issue revolves around whether the assessee has purchased the new house property within the stipulated time limit of 24 months from the date of transfer of the capital asset. The assessee had paid the entire sale consideration and obtained possession of the property on the same day, albeit the registration was delayed beyond the prescribed time limit. The Delhi High Court in Balraj's case held that deduction u/s 54 should not be rejected merely due to pending registration if the consideration is paid. The Karnataka High Court in Sambandam Udaykumar's case also ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the benefit u/s 54F cannot be denied if the entire payment is made, even if the registered sale deed is executed after the stipulated period. The ITAT decided in favor of the assessee, considering that the condition precedent for claiming deduction is the investment of capital gains in purchasing or constructing a residential house, and mere delay in registration should not lead to denial of the benefit.

  • Customs

  • Revised jurisdictions for seizure/confiscation of 24K gold by Customs - Mumbai Mint to handle cases from Telangana & AP.

    This instruction revises the mapping of Customs jurisdictions to Focal Customs Commissionerates (FCCs) and India Government (IG) Mints for disposal of seized/confiscated gold of 24 carat purity. Due to operational requirements of SPMCIL, seized/confiscated gold from Customs Zones in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh will now be lifted and processed by IG Mint, Mumbai instead of IG Mint, Hyderabad. The updated mapping table shows the IG Mints, corresponding FCCs, and mapped Commissionerates. Kolkata IG Mint covers Customs Zones of Kolkata, Patna, and CGST Zones of Bhubaneshwar, Guwahati. Mumbai IG Mint covers Customs Zones of Ahmedabad, Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, Chennai, Tiruchirappalli, and CGST Zones of Thiruvananthapuram, Bhopal, Meerut, Nagpur, Pune, Hyderabad, Vishakhapatnam. Other aspects of previous instructions remain unchanged.

  • New import/export rules for synthetic diamonds from Dec 2024 - declare production method for faster clearance.

    Circular mandates additional qualifiers for import/export declarations of synthetic or reconstructed diamonds effective 01.12.2024 to improve assessment and facilitate clearance. Importers/exporters must declare method used for producing these diamonds - Chemical Vapour Deposition (LGD001), High Pressure High Temperature (LGD002), or Other (LGD003) under CTHs 71042110, 71042120, 71049110, 71049120. Providing this information enhances assessment quality, avoids queries, and increases trade facilitation. Public notice to guide trade must be issued. Difficulties in implementation to be reported to the Board.

  • Extended deadlines for Sea Cargo Manifest filing: Nov 15 '24, Nov 30 '24 & Jan 15 '25 respectively.

    The notification amends the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transshipment Regulations, 2018, extending the deadlines for compliance with certain provisions. The due dates for Sr. No. 4, 5 and 6 in the Table after FORM-XII have been revised to 15.11.2024, 30.11.2024 and 15.01.2025 respectively. The amendment regulations are called the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transshipment (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2024 and come into force on the date of publication in the Official Gazette.

  • New import tariff values for edible oils, gold, silver, brass scrap & areca nuts effective 31/10/24.

    This notification from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs under the Ministry of Finance revises the tariff values for import of certain goods like edible oils, brass scrap, areca nuts, gold, and silver. Table 1 specifies the tariff values per metric ton for various forms of crude and refined palm oil, crude soya bean oil, and brass scrap. Table 2 prescribes tariff values for import of gold in different forms like bars, coins, and findings, as well as silver in the form of bars, coins, and semi-manufactured items. Table 3 maintains the existing tariff value for import of areca nuts. The revised tariff values are effective from 31st October 2024.

  • Customs duty exemption saga for aquaculture imports & exports despite conflicting notifications.

    Notification 188/93-Cus extended exemption to 100% EOUs for import of specified goods, including raw materials, for use in integrated aquaculture farms and export of farm products. Notification 183/93-Cus amended Notification 13/1981, appearing to restrict exemption for aquaculture units. However, Notification 188/93-Cus maintained exemption during the interim period till rescinded by Notification 196/1994. Clause 9 of Notification 196/1994 ensured seamless continuity of exemption granted under Notification 13/1981, including the interim period, rendering invocation of bank guarantees by Customs erroneous. Section 159A of Customs Act inapplicable due to contrary intention expressed in Notification 196/1994 regarding continuance of exemption benefits.

  • Importers win duty concession on scrap steel import, classified as re-rollable not defective/second-grade material.

    The appellants imported 251.300 MTs of re-rollable scrap on a high sea sales basis and classified it under CTH 7214 1090 as re-rollable scrap. However, the Department treated it as defectives and seconds, denying the benefit of Customs Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. The Tribunal held that seconds and defective steel products refer to non-standard dimensions or downgraded products with surface defects and internal faults. If the imported cargo is meant for sale as defective or second goods, the notification benefit can be denied. Since there was no allegation or finding that the appellants disposed of the cargo as such, and considering they are manufacturers regularly importing scrap for melting and re-rolling, the imported cargo cannot be treated as seconds and defectives. Therefore, the appellants are eligible for the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. at Sl.No. 330.

  • Importers face rejection of declared value for aluminium scrap, valuation method at issue.

    The case pertains to the rejection of self-assessed value of imported aluminium scrap and determination of the method for valuation. The key points are: rejection of the transaction value declared by importers in Bills of Entry is permissible u/s 14 of the Customs Act and Valuation Rules if the proper officer has reasonable doubts about its truth or accuracy, even without payment of additional consideration. The proper officer followed due procedure by recording reasons and communicating them to importers. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that transaction value could not be rejected. After rejecting the declared value, the Deputy Commissioner was required to re-determine the value as per the Valuation Rules. However, the reasoning for applying Rule 5 was cryptic and not examined by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner for re-determining the value in accordance with the Customs Act and Valuation Rules.

  • Customs duty dispute on poppy seeds import: Importers prevail against revenue over valuation issue.

    The case pertains to the demand for differential duty of customs on the import of poppy seeds, alleging undervaluation. The respondent's declared price for poppy seeds imported from Turkey was significantly lower compared to other importers. The Tribunal relied on its previous decision in Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata v. Sawetri Trading Company, where it observed that if the transaction values of contemporaneous imports were accepted by the revenue, the same values should have been used for comparison purposes in the present case. Additionally, the Tribunal cited the case of M/S CHIRAG INTERNATIONAL VERSUS C.C. KANDLA, which held that the enhancement of price and consequential demand, interest, etc., are not sustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, deciding against the revenue.

  • Classification Dispute: Battery-Powered Vehicle Parts or Mere "Spare Parts"?

    The case pertains to the classification of imported goods declared as "Spare Parts of E-rickshaw" by the respondent. The lower authority classified the goods under CTH 8703.80, covering vehicles propelled through a motor powered by a battery. However, the Tribunal held that the imported goods, if assembled, would not provide the basic function of propulsion required for classification under CTH 8703.80. Referring to the Twinkle Tradecom case, the Tribunal stated that for a machine or vehicle's essential characteristics, the parts involved in manufacturing should fulfill the basic principle of that vehicle or machine. Since the mis-declaration of description, classification, and value alleged by the Department was not established, the Tribunal ruled that the imported goods were not liable for confiscation. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the enhancement of value without following due process, the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and principles of natural justice was deemed unsustainable.

  • IBC

  • Mandated e-auction platform eBKray for liquidators to streamline asset sales, boost transparency & returns.

    This circular mandates the use of a centralized electronic listing and auction platform, eBKray, for the sale of assets under the liquidation process. Key points are: Liquidators must list all unsold assets on eBKray, providing comprehensive details like photographs, videos, and coordinates. For ongoing cases, assets must be listed within 7 days of submitting the asset memorandum. Liquidators may use eBKray for auctions in all ongoing cases from the circular's effective date of November 1, 2024. The platform aims to enhance transparency, increase bidder participation, streamline operations, and maximize creditor returns through advanced technology. Initially deployed as a pilot, it will be improved based on usage experience before full-fledged rollout. The circular is issued u/s 196 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

  • Indian Laws

  • Life Insurance Claim Wrongly Denied - Onus on Insurer to Prove Non-Disclosure.

    Insurance claim repudiation is governed by Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938, barring questioning of policies after a stipulated period unless proven by the insurer. The burden rests on the insurer to establish materiality of suppressed facts and insured's knowledge for justifying repudiation. Insurance contracts demand utmost good faith (uberrimae fidei), requiring disclosure of previous policies. Materiality depends on whether prudent insurers would be affected in risk assessment or premium fixation. The insurer failed to provide documentary evidence proving the deceased insured possessed multiple undisclosed policies from other companies. Consequently, the repudiation was held unjustified, and the insurer was directed to pay the claim amounts with interest.

  • Service Tax

  • Property rental service tax dispute: Lack of reasoning on estimate variation, 50% demand confirmed.

    Impugned order suffered from lack of reasoning regarding variation in service tax estimate between declarant/petitioner and designated authority. 50% of demand confirmed, with petitioner submitting lessee paid said amount eligible for set-off under Sabka Vishwas Scheme. Court held petitioner liable for service tax on immovable property rentals from 2007 under Finance Act, 1994, though lessees unsuccessfully challenged levy before various High Courts. Supreme Court ordered lessees to pay 50% property tax despite not being liable under Finance Act. Impugned order passed by two officers, one not hearing petitioner, violating natural justice. Circular on Sabka Vishwas Scheme unclear on appropriating lessee's deposited amount towards declarant's liability and refund mechanism. Court quashed impugned order, remitting case for fresh orders on merits due to element of doubt.

  • Service tax only on service part, not goods in works contracts - Larsen & Toubro ruling.

    Service tax on works contracts and the taxability of the value of goods used in such contracts. It clarifies that service tax can only be levied on the service component, not the goods component, of works contracts u/s 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994. Other clauses of Section 65(105) cover only services simpliciter and cannot be invoked for works contracts, as held in Larsen & Toubro case. The demand of service tax u/s 65(105)(zzzh) for construction of residential complexes rendered as works contracts cannot be sustained. The Tribunal concludes that the demand, interest, and penalties on the appellant cannot be upheld and need to be set aside.

  • Service tax evasion confirmed for unpaid/short-paid amounts, penalties imposed for non-filing returns.

    Dispute regarding non-payment/short payment of service tax, tax demand and interest u/ss 73(2) and 75, penalties u/ss 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and extended period for demand invoked under the proviso to Section 73(1). Both authorities found no fault with non-payment/short payment of service tax. Appellant admitted short payment, differing only on deductions claimed for provident fund amounts, which the adjudicating authority excluded as not part of the present show cause notice. Service tax rightly demanded and confirmed after allowing deductions for services provided before 16.06.2005 and deducting service tax included in gross amount. Appellant aware of providing taxable services, short-paying service tax, issuing invoices indicating payable service tax, and collecting it from service recipients. Appellant did not file ST-3 returns during the entire period, suppressing information with intent to evade taxes. Extended period of limitation and penalties imposed cannot be disputed. Assessee's appeal dismissed by CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal).

  • Customs Agent Wins: Reimbursed Charges Not Taxable as Services Rendered by Third Parties.

    The appellant, a customs house agent (CHA), collected reimbursement charges from clients for services availed from various service providers. The department demanded service tax on these reimbursed charges, contending they were part of business auxiliary services provided by the appellant. However, the Tribunal held that the appellant merely recovered actual expenses incurred on behalf of clients, with a small commission added. The nature of services remained unchanged, rendered by the service providers to the clients. The appellant acted as a pure agent, and the commission did not alter the character of services. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling that service tax demand on reimbursed charges was legally unsustainable.

  • Central Excise

  • Appeal dismissed over misunderstanding of remarks as remanding matter.

    The appeal challenged the legality of remanding the matter to the original authority and the legal authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) to do so during the relevant period. The Tribunal examined the impugned order and the appeal filed by the appellant in Form-4. It held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not remanded the matter but had merely remarked that if challans evidencing deposit of service tax were produced, the amount already deposited may be adjusted against the demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the order-in-original and rejected the appeal. The appellant's counsel had misunderstood these remarks as remanding the matter. The Tribunal found the impugned order correct and proper, dismissing the appeal.


Articles


Notifications


Circulars / Instructions / Orders


News


Case Laws:

  • GST

  • 2024 (11) TMI 43
  • 2024 (11) TMI 42
  • 2024 (11) TMI 41
  • 2024 (11) TMI 40
  • 2024 (11) TMI 39
  • 2024 (11) TMI 38
  • 2024 (11) TMI 37
  • 2024 (11) TMI 36
  • Income Tax

  • 2024 (11) TMI 35
  • 2024 (11) TMI 34
  • 2024 (11) TMI 33
  • 2024 (11) TMI 32
  • 2024 (11) TMI 31
  • 2024 (11) TMI 30
  • 2024 (11) TMI 29
  • 2024 (11) TMI 28
  • 2024 (11) TMI 27
  • 2024 (11) TMI 26
  • 2024 (11) TMI 25
  • 2024 (11) TMI 24
  • 2024 (11) TMI 23
  • 2024 (11) TMI 22
  • Customs

  • 2024 (11) TMI 21
  • 2024 (11) TMI 20
  • 2024 (11) TMI 19
  • 2024 (11) TMI 18
  • 2024 (11) TMI 17
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy

  • 2024 (11) TMI 16
  • PMLA

  • 2024 (11) TMI 15
  • 2024 (11) TMI 14
  • Service Tax

  • 2024 (11) TMI 13
  • 2024 (11) TMI 12
  • 2024 (11) TMI 11
  • 2024 (11) TMI 10
  • 2024 (11) TMI 9
  • 2024 (11) TMI 8
  • Central Excise

  • 2024 (11) TMI 7
  • 2024 (11) TMI 6
  • 2024 (11) TMI 5
  • 2024 (11) TMI 4
  • 2024 (11) TMI 3
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax

  • 2024 (11) TMI 2
  • Indian Laws

  • 2024 (11) TMI 1
 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates