News Update

Brazil’s proposal to tax super-rich globally finds many takers in G20 GroupCPM manifesto promising annihilation of all weapons of mass destructions including nuclear, draws flak from Defence MinisterBiden favours higher steel tariff on ‘cheating’ China + may up tariff on dominant solar tech suppliersUS Poll: Biden trumps Trump in money race by USD 75 mnNetanyahu says Israel to decide how and when to respond to Iran’s aggressionGoogle slays costs by laying off staffers & shifting roles outside USCoast Guard apprehends Indian fishing boat with unauthorised cashI-T - Sales supported by payments through banking channel which were not only disclosed in VAT returns but duly verified & accepted by VAT Department, cannot be treated as bogus to invoke Sec 68: ITATSPACE, testing & evaluation hub for sonar systems, set up by DRDO, inaugurated in KeralaGST - Malabar 'Parota' Is Akin To 'Bread', Exigible To 5% GST: HCST - Principles of constructive res judicata applies - Petitioner cannot seek to assail proceedings on grounds which were available to be raised in first round of litigation: HCHeavy downpours drown Dubai; Airport issues travel advisoryGST - If the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought before passing any order - Matter remitted: HCHM pledges to make India completely Maoist-freeGST - Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted and has merely held it to be devoid of merits - Order set aside and matter remitted: HCGST - Order was issued without hearing the petitioner - It is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to petitioner to contest the tax demand on merits: HCGST - Classification - It is incumbent on the respondent to duly consider all contentions raised by petitioner objectively without any pre-determination: HCGST - Whether the amount reflected as ITC tallies with the value of credit notes issued - Petitioner's explanation not duly examined - Matter remanded: HCGST Penalty of Rs. 3731 Crores on an employee!CCI okays acquisition of additional shareholding of Thyssenkrupp by Protos EngineeringMicrosoft to inject USD 1.5 bn in AI Group G42 of UAEDRDO organises workshop on 'Emerging Technologies & Challenges for Exoskeleton'Canadian budget proposes more taxes on higher income groups & tax credits for EVsI-T - Since application filed for condonation of delay is rejected by order without stating reason is set aside and application is restored for reconsideration: HCWorld leaders appeal for quick ratification of UN Ocean TreatyI-T- Re-assessment - if assessee submits objections thereto, then AO must pass order dealing with objections & also establish that facts presented by assessee are prima facie incorrect: HCUK House debates ban on smokingI-T- Deduction u/s 43B in respect of GST cannot be disallowed, where assessee is found to have paid GST before due date of filing ITR: ITATGlobal economy to grow at 3.2% in current year and also 2025: IMFGreat Barrier Reef in Australia suffers serious bleachingVAT - Input Credit - mere production of invoices or payment made by cheques/RTGS is enough to discharge burden of proof upon assessee: HCUS to impose fresh sanctions on Iran’s missile programmeDelhi Police nabs woman for thieving luxury SUVs
 
ST - Appellant seeking detail of income head considered for taxable value is legitimate as without such detail neither SCN is justified nor it satisfies principles of natural justice: CESTAT

 

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JUNE 14, 2018: APPELLANT is Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. engaged in providing Banking and Financial Services.

On scrutiny of the ST-3 returns and Profit and Loss Accounts, the jurisdictional authorities observed that the appellant paid an amount of Rs.64,03,284/- as Service Tax on the taxable value of Rs.5,33,61,913/-. But, as per Profit and Loss account, service tax amount of Rs.86,00,732/- was payable on the taxable value of Rs.7,12,46,826/- resulting in short payment of Rs.21,97,448/- for the period from 2005-06 to 2008-09.

The demand was confirmed by the original authority but in appeal, the Commissioner(A) extended the benefit of cum-tax benefits and thereby the demand was revised to Rs.13,10,200/-. Penalty u/s 76 was set aside but penalties u/ss 77 and 78 were upheld to the extent of the revised liability. Penalty u/r 7C of STR, 1994 was also upheld.

The appellant is before the CESTAT and submits that they have been discharging the correct tax liability from time to time and in the proceedings below have been enquiring with the original and appellate authority the ‘accounts head' under which the taxable value of Rs.7,12,46,826/- was attributed so as to demand the service tax, but none of the authorities disclosed the same. Inasmuch as without providing such information, confirmation of demand is in violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the demand is liable to be set aside, the appellant pleaded.

The AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

The Bench inter alia observed -

++ The show cause notice was issued on the basis of Profit and Loss account of the appellant but total taxable value shown in the show cause notice is Rs.7,12,46,826/-, however, the show cause notice has not given any bifurcation of this consolidated amount. It is obvious that appellant being a provider of banking and financial services is providing taxable and exempted service. Therefore it is necessary to show the individual account head and the amount of such account before ascertaining that whether all such accounts heads are on account of taxable service or otherwise.

++ It is clear that the appellant in the reply seeking the detail of income head considered for taxable value is legitimate and without such detail neither show cause notice is justified nor it is on the principles of natural justice. We are surprised that despite the appellant's request for providing detail, the adjudicating authority went on confirming the demand in an arbitrary manner.

++ It is also observed that the value of Rs.7,12,46,826/- is nowhere appearing in the profit and loss account. The same plea was made by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) but he also conveniently ignored the same and arbitrarily followed the order of the adjudicating authority.

Concluding that the impugned order cannot be sustained, the same was set aside and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority.

(See 2018-TIOL-1836-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.




Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.