News Update

FM reviews CAPEX of CPSEsGovt writes to over 2800 corporates to clear MSME duesGovt carrying out reforms in every sector of economy to prop up growth: PMIgnoring limitation proves costlyInverted duty structure - A Case study (See 'TOG Insight' in Taxongo.com)CBIC promotes four officers as Pr Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise + posts Sameer Pandey as DS in GST Council SecretariatSC cannot be a place for Govts to walk in when they choose, ignoring period of limitation prescribed - Petition dismissed as time barred; costs imposed on State for wasting judicial time - amount to be recovered from officers responsible: SCIs penalty compulsorily attracted on late payment of GST?No mutation of COVID-19 detected in India: Health MinisterCus - Goods re-imported for repair and re-exported - Merely because Assessee could claim duty drawback later on and it may give rise to a revenue neutral situation, it cannot be said that period of one year prescribed in 158/95-Cus is without any meaning: HCST - Payment of mobilization advance is a separate financial transaction within contract for providing of service & so is not to be included in gross taxable value as per Section 67 of Finance Act 1994 - duty demand cannot be raised thereon when there is no allegation of any part of contracted value having evaded taxation: CESTATBSVI introduction a revolutionary step: JavadekarCX - It is settled position in law that an assessee is entitled to interest on delayed disbursal of refund after three months from date of filing of refund claim till date of its realisation: CESTATCus - Drawback - After turning down request for taking test samples, Revenue cannot brush aside report given by an expert Committee simply for the reason that sample was not drawn and referred by Department: CESTATPayment made to a trust formed for the benefit of employees of the company, of which the assessee was a shareholder & whose shares the assessee had sold, does not qualify as expenditure incurred wholly in connection with transfer of asset: HCBogus purchases - only the profit element embedded therein is to be disallowed, rather than the entire quantum of purchases made: ITATSearch assessment is invalid where it is completed even before search operations are conducted or where any material incriminating the assessee has not yet been found: ITATWhere assessee did not claim exemption in respect of one residential property, the assessee can avail such benefit in respect of a second house or plot of land: ITATIndia successfully test-fires cruise missile from Indian Navy’s destroyer INS ChennaiCOVID-19: Global tally goes past FOUR Crore with 11.15 lakh deaths; America has close to 27 lakh active cases against 8 lakh in IndiaCOVID-19 - Almost 80% new cases coming from 10 StatesCountrywide S&T infrastructure facilities to be accessible to industry & startups: GovtPM calls for speedy access to vaccines once readyNew Zealand PM earns second term for managing COVID-19 wellDigital Media - Govt to extend all benefits available to othersGovt not considering any DA for Govt employees: GangwarCBDT issues transfer order of 395 Addl / JCITs on All India basisSBI given nod for sale of electoral bonds for 10 daysEducation CESS - the spoilt fruit
 
Service tax on GTAs : Make it 2.5 per cent with no strings attached

By TIOL Edit Team

SERVICE Tax on Goods Transport Agency has come into effect from 1st Jan 2005, with a number of Notifications issued by the MoF on various issues. After one month of experience, it is worthwhile to review the difficulties faced by all those concerned with the policy decision. Given the fact that the Goods Transport Agents were up in arms against this levy on them, the Government followed the recommendations of the Bhardwaj Committee and shifted the liability of paying Tax from the GTAs to either consignors or consignees. This peculiar concept of making the recipient of the Service liable to pay tax has created serious problems for the taxpayers.

As per Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, the consignee or consignor falling under the categories specified therein is liable to pay the tax. But the amount of tax to be paid is governed by the Notification 32/2004 dated 3.12.2004. This Notification exempts 75% of the gross amount charged from service tax, subject to the condition that no credit shall be availed on the inputs/capital goods used under the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for providing such taxable service. If the gross amount paid is Rs 100, the duty liability under this notification would be Rs 2.5 (10% on Rs 25). Thus, the effective tax liability would be at 2.5% on the gross amount charged (for the sake of brevity, education cess is ignored). This amount has to be assessed by the consignee or consignor and the condition of “not availing the credit” has to be fulfilled by the GTA! How can the consignor or consignee ensure that the GTA stationed at a far off place has taken credit or not? So the consignors/consignees who are willing to take registration and pay tax are in utter confusion as to whether they can avail the benefit of Notification 32/2004 or not and also how it is possible for them to ensure that the GTA has not availed any credit. And what is the machinery available to check this?

And, what would happen if the consignor /consignee pays 2.5% tax and the GTA takes credit without the knowledge of the consignee/consignor? Can the department ask them to pay 10% instead of 2.5% from the consignor/consignee for a violation by the GTA on which they have no control? Going by the past experience in input credit disputes, it is all likely that the consignor /consignee cannot be penalized for the violation on part of the GTA.

But, why there should be such condition in the Notification? Obviously no inputs are required for providing the Service of a GTA ( HSD and MS are excluded from the definition of inputs). The only item they can take credit is perhaps a one time excise duty paid on a Truck. But that would make not only their consignee/consignors not entitled for exemption under Notification 32/2004 , but also the GTA himself, in cases where the GTA is liable to pay service tax. Between the options of paying service tax at full rate by availing onetime credit on the Truck, and paying only 2.5% by not availing the credit, more and more GTA s would choose only the later option.

Instead of the above, it is better that the Government exclude the GTAs from the purview of Cenvat Credit and make the tax effective at 2.5% across the board and give wide publicity. A tax rate at 2.5% is not a very horrifying and perhaps this kind of presentation would make more and more assessees voluntarily contribute to the kitty and thus make this difficult task of taxing the truckers a smooth ride. Perhaps North Block needs to borrow a few marketing strategies from the corporate houses too!


 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: Service tax on GTAs Make it 2 5 per cent with no strings attached

Sir,


I am working in manufacturing industry and we are purchasing raw material through transport like AFL Logistics,Gatti Cargo and we are paying freight charges but the transporter himself collected the freight charges and with service tax.

We are registered with Service tax dept in GTA service.Dept asking to pay service tax for freight.But Transporter also charging service tax.

Kindly reply



Posted by ramesh ramesh