News Update

Maneka Gandhi declares assets worth Rs 97 Cr and files nomination papers from SultanpurGlobal Debt & Fiscal Silhouette rising! Do Elections contribute to fiscal slippages?ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersGST - Statutory requirement to carry the necessary documents should not be made redundant - Mistake committed by appellant is not extending e-way bill after the expiry, despite such liberty being granted under the Rules attracts penalty: HCBiden says migration has been good for US economyGST - Tax paid under wrong head of IGST instead of CGST/SGST - 'Relevant Date' for refund would be the date when tax is paid under the correct head: HCUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelGST - Petitioner was given no opportunity to object to retrospective cancellation of registration - Order is also bereft of any details: HCMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedGST - Proper officer should have at least considered the reply on merits before forming an opinion - Ex facie, proper officer has not applied his mind: HCSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseGST - A Rs.17.90 crores demand confirmed on Kendriya Bhandar by observing that reply is insufficient - Non-application of mind is clearly written all over the order: HCDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftGST - Neither the SCN nor the order spell the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, they are set aside: HCIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemST - Appellant was performing statutory functions as mandated by EPF & MP Act, and the Constitution of India, as per Board's Circular 96/7/2007-ST , services provided under Statutory obligations are not taxable: CESTATKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamI-T - Scrutiny assessment order cannot be assailed where assessee confuses it with order passed pursuant to invocation of revisionary power u/s 263: HCHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningI-T - Assessment order invalidated where passed in rushed manner to avoid being hit by impending end of limitation period: HCColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashI-T - Additions framed on account of bogus purchases merits being restricted to profit element embedded therein, where AO has not doubted sales made out of such purchases: HCIndia to host prestigious 46th Antarctic Treaty Consultative MeetingI-T - Miscellaneous Application before ITAT delayed by 1279 days without any just causes or bona fide; no relief for assessee: HCAdani Port & SEZ secures AAA RatingI-T - Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54EC on account of investment made in REC Bonds, provided both investments were made within period of six months as prescribed u/s 54EC: ITATNominations for Padma Awards 2025 beginsI-T - PCIT cannot invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 when there is no case of lack of enquiry or adequate enquiry on part of AO: ITATMissile-Assisted Release of Torpedo system successfully flight-tested by DRDOI-T - If purchases & corresponding sales were duly matched, it cannot be said that same were made out of disclosed sources of income: ITATViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockI-T - Reopening of assessment is invalid as while recording reasons for reopening of assessment, AO has not thoroughly examined materials available in his own record : ITAT
 
ST - Since respondent discharged service tax liability in capacity of recipient of service, Rule 5B should be equated with Rule 5 of CCR for grant of refund of service tax paid: CESTAT

 

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, AUG 09, 2018: THIS is a Revenue appeal.

The respondent is engaged in manufacturing of fruit pulp, juices and vegetable products [Ch.8] and is also registered with the Service Tax department in respect of the taxable services viz. GTA, Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service and Security Service.

Being a recipient of taxable service, the respondent discharges the service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism in terms of s.68(2) of FA, 1994.

The respondent had filed a claim u/r 5B of the CCR, 2004 seeking refund of service tax paid on the taxable services received by it.

This claim was rejected as non-maintainable on the ground that the respondent being a recipient of taxable service is not a service provider and the provisions of Rule 5B r/w Notification No. 12/2014-CE(N.T.) are not applicable.

The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order and, therefore, Revenue is in appeal.

The AR relied upon the Tribunal [SMB] decision dated 29.11.2017 - 2018-TIOL-492-CESTAT-MUM passed in the respondent's own case and where it is held that rule 5B does not have any application in the assessees case.

The respondent relied upon the decision in United News of India - 2017-TIOL-311-CESTAT-DEL in support of the impugned order.

The Bench considered the submissions and observed –

+ It is an admitted fact on record that the respondent does not provide any taxable service and is also not registered with the Service Tax department for providing any taxable service.

+ However, the respondent is registered with the department for payment of service tax on the taxable services received by it and discharged the service tax liability on reverse charge mechanism, as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994.

+ Since the respondent discharged the service tax liability in the capacity of recipient of service, Rule 5B should be equated with Rule 5 of the rules, for grant of refund of service tax paid on the taxable services.

Noting that the Tribunal in the case of United News of India - 2017-TIOL-311-CESTAT-DEL and Cummins Technologies India Ltd. – 2017-TIOL-3470-CESTAT-DEL have held that when the recipient pays service tax on receiving the taxable service, the provisions of section 66 of the Act [pari-materia with Section 68(2)] should be available for claim of the benefit contained in the Notification 17/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004, the Single Member Bench constituted by the Member (Judicial) concluded that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (A).

As for the case of the respondent viz. - 2018-TIOL-492-CESTAT-MUM cited by the AR in support of the appeal filed, the Member(J) viewed that the Tribunal in that case had not specifically discussed the issue of liability to pay service tax by the recipient of service and its implication for claiming the benefit through refund claim; that such aspect had not been discussed by the Tribunal, owing to the reason that the same was not pleaded by the parties to such appeal. Inasmuch as the said decision will not have any binding precedent for deciding the case in hand, held the Member(J).

In fine, the Revenue appeal was dismissed.

(See 2018-TIOL-2457-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.