News Update

CBDT invites inputs from taxpayers on drafting of New Direct Tax LawI-T - When assessee has failed to deduct tax at source and even deductee has not paid tax on payment received as it filed loss return, assessee certainly cannot escape from consequences of Ss 201(1) & 40(a)(ia): HCGovt withdraws export duty on sugar exportsAdmission in PG Medical Courses - Govt hikes quota to 5% for differently abledGovt has sanctioned prosecution only against 12 IAS & IPS in DA cases in 3 yrsGovt withdraws export duty of 20% on sugar to stabilise prices in domestic marketACC appoints 1988 batch IRS Simanchala Dash as Pr Special Director in Enforcement Directorate for two yearsAfter UK India also warns Facebook & others of action if they try to influence electoral process through unfair meansDraft agri export policy seeks reform in 'APMC Act'GST should be considered as the start of a process, not the end (See 'JEST GST on GST Home Page')Anti-dumping duty imposed on Dimethylacetamide imported from PR China & TurkeyAnti-dumping duty on Meta Phenylene Diamine (MPDA) imported from PR China - levy extended till 21 March 2019Tariff Item 0713 20 Chickpeas sub-divided further into Kabuli Chana, Bengal gram (desi chana) & OthersSl. no. 21A to Notification 50/2017-Cus, Entry Kabuli Chana amended to reflect change in first scheduleExport duty on raw sugar, white or refined, reduced from 20% to NilST - There is no scope to exclude 'Academic Courses' conducted by respondent IIPM from purview of Service tax levy: CESTATIs notification 1/2018-CT(R) relating to Real Estate Services retrospective?I-T - CBDT Circular prohibiting 'freebies' to doctors for promotion of sales is not retrospective in nature: ITATRow over Royalty on Mineral RightsCus - S.19of CA, 1962 is an empowerment for classification, and not valuation - Matter remanded: CESTATWrit petition challenging constitutional validity of Section 140(3)(iv) of CGST Act dismissed by Bombay High Court; refuses to strike down 1 year time limit for transitional credit availment; holds transitional credit under GST law is a clear case of concession; no discrimination of dealers vis-a-vis manufacturers/service providersSC admits misuse of SC/ST Act; says no immediate arrest of public servantsSushma Swaraj admits that 39 Indians kidnapped by ISIS are officially deadICLS should promote ethics in business, says PresidentPostal Department inks MoUs to design new stamps & promote PhilatelyGovt partners with private entities to protect cyber-spaceCX - A Writ Petition would lie against an OiO, against which an appeal was filed and dismissed as time-barred - HC to exercise discretion, no straightjacket formula: HC Full BenchST VCES, 2013 is not an open ended scheme - benefits thereunder cannot be derived dehors scheme or after its life or duration has come to an end: High Court
ST - Appellant in ST-3 declared the amount of PF and ESI on which no tax was shown to have been paid under the belief that reimbursement is not taxable - Demand time barred: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, OCT 11, 2017: THE appellants are engaged in providing manpower recruitment service and discharging the service tax.

It was observed that during the period 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 they had not paid the service tax on amount of provident fund and ESI of the amount collected from the service recipient.

SCN was issued and demand of differential service tax was confirmed.

In appeal before the CESTAT, the appellant submitted that as per the definition of manpower recruitment services, upto 15/06/2005, the supply of manpower was not covered under the definition, therefore, till this date no service tax demand is sustainable, consequently the demand on Provident Fund and ESI is also not payable. Reliance is placed on the Circular No. B1/6/2005-TRU dated 27/07/2005, Azur Cyber Pvt Ltd . - 2008-TIOL-2239-CESTAT-AHM, Seed Infotech Ltd . - 2014-TIOL-1690-CESTAT-MUM.

Moreover, as regards the amounts collected on account of provident fund and ESI since the same are reimbursement of actual amount which is deposited in the Provident Fund and ESI accounts, the same are excludible from the gross value of the service. In this regard, the appellant draws support from -

+ Circular No. 187/107/2010-CX.4 dated 17/09/2010

+ Bizsol India Services Pvt. Ltd. - 2013-TIOL-222-CESTAT-MUM

+ Shri Bhagvathy Traders - 2011-TIOL-478-CESTAT-BANG

+ Pharmalinks Agency (I) Pvt Ltd. - 2014-TIOL-1948-CESTAT-MUM

+ Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrafts Pvt. Ltd. - 2012-TIOL-966-HC-DEL-ST

+ Sercon India Pvt. Ltd. - 2013-TIOL-223-HC-DEL-ST

Furthermore, the demand is time barred as there is no suppression of facts; that the amounts of Provident Fund and ESIwere clearly declared in the ST-3 returns; that they were under bonafide belief that these amounts being a reimbursement is not taxable; that no penalty is imposable since there being no malafide .

The Bench observed -

"4. … We find that as per the fact, the case can be disposed of only on limitation. We find that the period of demand is 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, whereas the show-cause notice was issued on 21/10/2010. The appellant in their ST-3 return clearly declared the amount of provident fund and ESI on which no service tax was shown to have been paid under the belief that the reimbursement is not taxable. The department was not prevented from raising the issue that such amount is also liable to be taxed. However, no action was taken by the department on receipt of ST-3 return. As per the disclosure of the value towards provident fund and ESI in the ST-3 return, there is neither any suppression of fact nor any malafide intention on the part of the appellant. The appellants were otherwise discharging the service tax on the value other than the value representing the provident fund and ESI. As per this undisputed fact, in our considered view the demand is clearly time barred…."

In fine, the demand was set aside and the appeal was allowed only on limitation without going into the merits of the case.

(See 2017-TIOL-3680-CESTAT-MUM)