Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

Profession Tax Enrolment Amnesty Scheme 2016

fiogf49gjkf0d

Trade Circular 12T of 2016 dated 06.05.2016

Government of Maharashtra has declared Amnesty Scheme for persons who have not obtained Enrollment Certificate yet. Accordingly, if a person makes an application for enrolment during the period from 1.4.2016 to 30.9.2016 or his application for enrolment is pending on 1.4.2016 and if enrolment certificate is obtained under the “Professional Tax Enrolment Amnesty Scheme 2016” then Profession tax and Interest prior to 1.4.2013 will be waived in full and penalty u/s. 5(5) of the Profession Tax Act, 1975 will not be imposed. Detailed procedure has been explained in this Circular.

Grant of Administrative Relief

fiogf49gjkf0d

Trade Circular 13T of 2016 dated 06.05.2016

This Circular explains amendments in the authorities to whom application for administrative relief is to be made.

Amendments to Acts, Rules and Notifications to give effect of Budget Proposals

fiogf49gjkf0d

Trade Circular 14T of 2016 dated 07.05.2016

To give effect of Budget proposals for the year 2016-17 a bill (Legislative Assembly Bill No. XVIII of 2016) to amend various Acts, administered by the Sales Tax Department has been passed by the legislature and has received assent of the Governor on 26.04.2016. The Act (Maharashtra Act No.XV of 2016) is published in the Maharashtra Government gazette dated 26.04.2016. In this Circular, all the amendments have been explained in detail.

Registration- Permanent Place of Residence- Documents required as proof

fiogf49gjkf0d

Trade Circular 15T of 2016 dated 09.05.2016

By this Circular, regarding proof of permanent place of registration, more relaxation has been provided by allowing to submit any two documents from the list of 13 documents specified in Trade Circular 7T of 2015 & 4T of 2016 as proof permanent residential place at the time of registration.

Designation of Wednesday as Taxpayers’ Day

fiogf49gjkf0d

Trade Circular 17T of 2016 dated 09.05.2016

Maharashtra Vat department has designated one day of the week viz. the Wednesday (2pm to 5pm) as Taxpayers’ Day wherein Zonal/Divisional/Unit heads of all offices will meet the taxpayers/other stakeholders in their chamber without any prior appointments in order to address their grievances relating to sales tax expeditiously.

SAP based new registration functionality

fiogf49gjkf0d

MVAT UPDATES

Trade Circular 18T of 2016 dated 24.05.2016

Maharashtra VAT department is implementing new SAP based system in phased manner. In this Circular, changes in the process of registration, free billing software, transition issues relating to registration and about providing help from offices have been explained. The new functionality of registration based on SAP will go LIVE after 3 pm of 25.05.2016.

No Service Tax on pilgrimage to Haj Mansarovar from 01.07.2012 to 19.08.2014

fiogf49gjkf0d

Notification No. 25/2016 dated 17.05.2016

Service Tax on Services provided by the specified organisation in respect of a religious pilgrimage facilitated by the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of lndia, under bilateral arrangement is not required to be paid for the period commencing on and from the 1st day of July, 2012 and ending with the 19th day of August, 2014.

Extension to file Service Tax Return upto 29.042016

fiogf49gjkf0d

SERVICE TAX UPDATES

Order No. 01/2016-ST dated 25.04.2016

Due to difficulties faced by the Service Tax Assessees in accessing Service Tax Applications, CBEC vide this Order has extended time to file Service Tax Return (ST-3) for the period 01.102015 to 31.03.2016 upto 29-04-2016.

State of Tamil Nadu vs. M/s. Plastic Craft Industries, [2013] 66 VST 62 (Mad).

fiogf49gjkf0d
Central Sales Tax- Sales Price-Excise Duty Paid on Past Transaction – In absence of Evidence of Its Collection-Does Not Form Part of Sale Price- Section 2(h) of The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Facts
The assesse manufacturer of plastic components did not charge excise duty on certain transaction of sales on a bonafide belief that it is not payable. However, later on paid excise duty after taking licence under Central Excise provisions but did not collected the same from the buyers. The department based on proceedings from the excise authority, levied tax on excise duty paid by the dealer for past transactions although not collected from buyers. On appeal tribunal allowed appeal against which the department filed revision petition before the Madras High Court.

Held
As per definition of sale price contained in section 2(h) of the CST Act, what is charged as consideration alone could be considered as turnover of sales. Admittedly, the fact is, on the date of sale, the petitioner had collected as sale consideration and did not collect excise duty paid by it from the buyers and no evidence was available subsequent to payment of excise duty whether the portion of such payment had been passed over to the customer as a part of consideration. Therefore, the excise duty paid by the dealer and not collected from the customer cannot form part of sales turnover for levy of tax. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the department and confirmed the order of the Tribunal.

State of AP vs. M/s. Sree Akkamamba Textiles Ltd. [2013] 66 VST 37 (AP).

fiogf49gjkf0d
Central Sales Tax – Inter-State Sale or Stock Transfer-Dispatch of Goods to Branch Outside the State to Agents/Branch- In Absence of Documentary Evidence of Prior Contract – Is Stock Transfer. Section 6A of The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

FACTS
M/s. Akkamamba Textiles Ltd., Tanuku was manufacturing, selling and transferring the cotton yarn and waste. It was finally assessed by the C.T.O., Tanuku-I circle, for assessment year 1993-94, under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessing authority had allowed exemption on inter-state stock transfer to its Maharashtra (Bombay and Ichalkaranji), West Bengal and Tamil Nadu based four selling depot-agents under section 6A of the CST Act upon production of requisite Forms. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Eluru Division, took up suo moto revision of the CTO ‘s order, disallowing exemption as turnover, relating to the sales said to have been made through depots, branch in Maharashtra, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu on certain grounds. Aggrieved by the aforesaid revision orders of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Eluru division, the dealer preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the DC (CT), Eluru, to give fair and reasonable opportunity to the appellantsassessee. In pursuance of these remand orders, the revisional authority passed consequential orders levying tax once again on the disputed turnovers under section 3(a) of the CST Act. Aggrieved of these orders the dealer preferred another appeal before the STAT , A.P. This time the appeals were allowed in favour of the assesse holding that these disputed transactions are not inter-state sales but are mere stock transfers to the four non-resident selling depot agents. The department filed revision before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

HELD

In the considered opinion of the high court, the questions of law said to have been arisen are not the questions of law in as much as all the questions relate to the finding of facts. The assessing authority, after examination of returns filed by the dealer and on scrutiny of the books of accounts, granted exemption relating to depot/branch transfer of cotton yarn made from Tanuku to Maharashtra (Bombay-Ichalkaranji), West Bengal and Tamil Nadu and allowed the exemption of the turnovers in exercise of the powers conferred u/s. 6A of the CST Act. The tribunal also recorded finding of facts and stated in its order that the revisional authority had reversed the order of the dealer merely on surmises and conjecture without citing specific instances and without any additional material. The finding of facts recorded by the tribunal is not challenged before the High Court. Accordingly, the High Court held that there is no question of law that is required to be answered, thus dismissed the revision petitions filed by the department and confirmed the order of tribunal allowing claim of stock transfer under section 6A of the CST Act.

2016 (41) STR 330 (A.A.R.) North American Coal corporation India Pvt Ltd.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Salary paid to the secondment employees in terms of employment agreement is not liable for service tax.
Facts

The applicant is a subsidiary (Indian) of the foreign (US) company. It required services of a consultant who was in employment with the foreign company. Accordingly, a tripartite agreement was entered between employee, Indian company and US company for usage of the services of the employee by the Indian company for a particular term. During the consultants’ stay in India, he is to be treated as an employee of the Indian company while his social security interests continue to be taken care of by the foreign company. After the advent of the negative list, all earlier definitions got obliterated and new definition of ‘service’ was enacted under section 65(44) wherein service provided by an employee to the employer in the course of employment was granted exclusion from the definition of service. Social security costs were not reimbursed by the Indian company to the US company. Department contended that social security expenditure incurred by foreign company amounts to consideration paid by the applicant for employing the consultant and shall not be covered by the exclusion. Further, RBI circular was relied upon.

Held
The agreement explicitly mentioned that the consultant would be considered as an employee of the Indian company during his stay in India although his social security interests shall be borne by the US company. No salary was received from the US company during his stay in India and hence salary granted by Indian company and US company were mutually exclusive. In view of the clear provision, service of the consultant cannot be regarded as otherwise than a service provided by employee to the employer even though social security costs were paid by the US company. RBI circular is irrelevant for interpretation of the term ‘service’. Indian company is not liable to service tax on salary and allowances paid to the employee in terms of employment agreement.

[2016-TIOL-14-ARA-ST] M/s Akqa Media India P. Ltd

fiogf49gjkf0d
In absence of any legal/contractual obligation to pay volume discounts which is purely gratuitous and discretionary on the part of media owners, such receipts are not exigible to service tax.

Facts
The Applicant intends to provide services of an advertising agency providing professional services to the advertisers in relation to placement of advertisements in various media. They propose to follow two business models- viz. placement of advertisement on behalf of the advertiser wherein they would raise an invoice on the advertiser charging service tax on the agency commission and secondly engage in buying and selling of advertising inventory on its own account wherein the applicant charges a consolidated amount which includes the cost to the media owner and their margin. They could also entail incentive/volume discount from the media owners. The question before the authority was whether the incentive/ volume discount received in both the above business models is liable for service tax.

Held
The Authority noted the definition of ‘service’ provided u/s. 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 and stated that there has to be a nexus between activity and consideration. The term “activity for a consideration” involves an element of a contractual relationship which could be express or implied. The revenue has no evidence to indicate that an activity was undertaken resulting in giving volume discount by the media owner especially when the choice of selecting the media owner was of the advertiser. Further it was held 43 that volume discount is gratuitous and there is no legal/ contractual obligation to give such discounts and therefore the incidental receipt of incentives/volume discounts are not liable to service tax.

[2016] 68 taxmann.com 280 (Mumbai-CESTAT) – Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III

fiogf49gjkf0d
When TDS liability of foreign service provider is borne by service recipient and the service provider is paid entire consideration as per the contract, such TDS component would not constitute consideration for service.
Facts

Appellant received services of a foreign architect for designing and planning of various commercial buildings and service tax liability was discharged on actual consideration paid. As regards TDS liability under the income tax law, in respect of consideration paid to foreign architect, it was borne by the appellant as determined by the terms of agreement. Service tax demand was raised on said TDS component by contending that the TDS would also form part of consideration.

Held

On perusal of the agreement between the appellant and the foreign architect, it was found that the gross amount charged was exclusive of TDS. It was noted that the erstwhile Rule 7 of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 clearly stated that actual consultant charges needs to be taxed. Hon’ble Tribunal observed that combined reading of erstwhile section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 and the said Rule 7 indicates that amount billed by the service provider is liable for service tax. In present case, when it was found that service tax was paid on entire invoice amount and nothing was on record to provide that TDS component was collected from foreign architect, it was held that TDS liability borne by appellant and paid out of its own pocket cannot constitute consideration for service and accordingly there is no service tax liability.

[2016] 68 taxmann.com 280 (Mumbai-CESTAT) – Lavino Kapur Cottons (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II

fiogf49gjkf0d
Once the refund is allowed by Commissioner (Appeals) by speaking order, it is not open to adjudicating authority to revisit the refund claim on merits
Facts

The Appellant filed 3 refund claims of unutilized CENVAT credit availed on input services in terms of Rule 5 of the CENVAT credit Rules, 2004. The said claims were consequential refund claims arising out of Order-in- Appeal wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) had ordered the Original Authority to grant refund. The claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that they failed to declare in their ER-2 Returns the details of availment of CENVAT credit on input services and also failed to furnish the documents in support of their claim. It was contended that matter was remanded back with a direction to sanction refund claim and thus it was not within the power of the adjudicating authority to revisit the case and reject refund claim without filing any appeal to higher appellate authority. The First Appellate authority upheld the order rejecting the refund. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

Held

Hon’ble Tribunal observed that Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a speaking order granting refund and nothing was left for the lower authority to revisit the merits of the case. It was held that the lower authorities did not follow the judicial discipline as without contesting the order of Commissioner (Appeals) before higher judicial authority, it was not open for them to reject the refund claims by again getting into the merits of the case when the same is already dealt with by the superior authority. Appeal was therefore allowed.

2016 (42) S.T.R., 50 (Tri. Mumbai) C.S.T., Mumbai-I vs. Bluechip Corporate Investment Centre Ltd.

fiogf49gjkf0d
The amount received as consideration should be considered as cum-tax amount unless the amount of tax is recovered separately.
Facts

The respondent received commission on the sale of bonds of RBI. No service tax was charged on the commission amount. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax considering the commission received as inclusive of service tax. The department filed an appeal contesting that no evidence was provided to prove that amount received was inclusive of service tax and the decision in the case of Agro Industries Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2007 (210) E.L.T. 183 (SC) was relied upon and it was provided that the judgement in case of Advantage Media Consultant-2008 (10) S.T.R. 49 (Tri-Mumbai) was incorrectly relied by first appellate authority.

Held
Tribunal observed that service tax was not separately charged on the commission during the relevant time and since Supreme Court has dismissed the department’s appeal against the judgement in case of Advantage Media Consultant-2008 (10) S.T.R. 49 (Tri-Mumbai), the Revenue’s appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

[2016-TIOL-450-CESTAT-CHD] M/s. Carrier Air-conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV

fiogf49gjkf0d
CENVAT credit of service tax paid on renting of branch offices, health insurance of employees upto 31/03/2011, construction services upto 31/03/2011, travel agent services and interior decorator and architect service is allowable.

Facts
The Appellant paid rent for their branch offices which assisted in procurement of orders and delivery of goods and was used for provision of erection, commissioning and repair services. Insurance services were availed in relation to employees who travel for business meetings, sales, training etc. and for loss or damage to the goods. Further, credit was availed on construction services for dismantling of building and construction of a storage shed and on travel agent service used for travel for the purpose of business meetings, sales etc. Credit was also availed on interior decorator and architect’s services in relation to branch offices and showrooms. The department contended that the service of renting was utilised beyond the place of removal and the other services had no nexus with the manufacturing activity and thus credit was denied.

Held
The Tribunal relying on the decision of Oracle Granito Ltd. [2013-TIOL-822-CESTAT-AHM] wherein CENVAT credit on renting of immovable property for marketing offices was allowed, it was held that such service is eligible for CENVAT credit and also considering that the premises were used for provision of services credit was allowed. Further, relying on the decision of Stanzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd [2011 (23) STR 444 (Kar.)] credit on health insurance of employees was allowed upto 01/03/2011. Insurance for loss or damage of goods was allowed to the extent they covered journey of goods upto the place of removal. In relation to construction services it was noted that as per Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, input services includes service in relation to setting up, modernisation, renovation or repairs of a factory and relying on the decision of Commissioner of C. Ex. Delhi III vs. Bellsonica Auto Companies India Pvt. Ltd. [2015(40) STR 41 (P&H)] [Refer BCAJ December 2015] credit was allowed. Further relying on the decision of Goodluck Steel Tubes Ltd. [2013 (32) STR 123 (Tri.-Del)] credit was allowed on travel agent’s services. Credit on interior decorator and architect’s services was also allowed being in the nature of modernisation/renovation or repair of factory or an office relating to such factory or premises.

[2016-TIOL-576-CESTAT-MUM] Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU Mumbai

fiogf49gjkf0d
There is only one charging section in service tax i.e. section 66 and section 66A is only a deeming provision. Therefore when tax is paid u/s. 66, credit is admissible. Further when the tax is not required to be paid, credit is nothing but refund of the tax erroneously paid.

Facts
The Appellant paid service tax on commission paid by them to the foreign commission agents for the period January 2006 to April 2010 under the provisions of the Act read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and availed CENVAT credit of such amount. The department denied the credit on the ground that section 66A creating a charge of service tax on services received from outside India by a person in India is not specified in Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner allowed credit for the period from 18/04/2006 i.e. from retrospective insertion of section 66A in Rule 3 of the Rules. Being aggrieved by the order the present appeal is filed.

Held
In respect of omission of section 66A in Rule 3(1), the Tribunal noted that there is only one charging section i.e. section 66. Section 66A is merely a deeming provision and is not a charging section which is also made clear by circular 354/148/2009-TRU dated 16/07/2009 wherein it is provided that “provisions under section 66A state………….. and accordingly all the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 would apply. Therefore, it is clear that section 66A is not a charging section by itself. The charging section remains section 66 even for the services imported. In other words, the tax collected from the recipient in terms of section 66A is also tax chargeable under section 66”. Further, the said circular provides that there is no mistake or omission in the relevant provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and credit should be allowed if they are in the nature of input services. Further, while allowing the credit it was held that when tax itself was not required to be paid prior to 18/04/2006 the credit is nothing but a refund of the tax erroneously paid. Further, it was held that extended period cannot be invoked as the credits were reflected in the ER-1 returns and the matter involved interpretation of statutory provisions.

[2016-TIOL-337-CESTAT-BANG] M/s Gem Motors vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Coimbatore

fiogf49gjkf0d
Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 applies only when there is use of the common input without maintenance of separate accounts. When an area is allocated to be used for provision of taxable service CENVAT credit attributable thereto is available in full.

Facts
The Appellant uses an earmarked space for providing taxable services and the lease deed provides the sq. ft. area used for that purpose. Service tax paid on the rent for such area is availed as CENVAT credit. The department contended that the formula prescribed by Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 should be applied to determine the eligible CENVAT credit.

Held
On verifying the lease deed, the Tribunal observed that the document provided the area attributable to the provision of service. Therefore, it was held that in absence of any physical inspection report showing anything contrary, CENVAT credit of service tax paid on rent paid in respect of that space used was allowed.

2015 (41) STR 379 (Mad.) Transcoastal Cargo & Shipping Ltd. vs. UOI

fiogf49gjkf0d
Passing of adjudication order without personal hearing amounts to violation of principle of natural justice.

Facts
Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued for non-payment of service tax. Appellant filed its reply and thereafter, a personal hearing was fixed and an adjournment was sought. Next date for personal hearing was granted, but no notice was given. Meanwhile, an order confirming demand was passed citing non-appearance during personal hearing. The said order was challenged before the High Court.

Held
The High Court observed that the department had passed the order against the assessee on account of non-appearance. On being asked to produce the evidence of serving of letter for hearing, the department could not produce the acknowledgement for dispatch of such notice. It was held that it is imperative to give an opportunity of hearing where the question of law has to be properly dealt with as it may affect the Appellant with civil consequences. Taking note of non-production of evidence of service of notice, the department was directed to grant a hearing and then pass the order.

[2016] 66 taxmann.com 31 (Gujarat ) – Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Dashion Ltd.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Since detailed records were maintained, even though assessee failed
to take registration as input service distributor, utilisation of CENVAT
credit by one unit for discharging liability of another unit located in
the same place was allowed.

Facts
Assessee, having five
manufacturing units and also engaged in providing services, availed
CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs, input services and capital goods.
Without obtaining registration as input service distributor (ISD),
CENVAT credit of one unit was utilised for discharging liability of
another unit. However, detailed records were maintained in respect of
such cross utilisation. Revenue authorities denied credit on the ground
that ISD registration was not obtained and that credit of one unit is
utilised for discharging liability of another unit without pro-rata
distribution. However, the Tribunal decided the matter in assessee’s
favour. Revenue preferred appeal before the High Court.

Held
The
Hon’ble High Court observed that at the relevant time, there was no
restriction of pro-rata distribution in Rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules.
It further held that there is nothing in Registration Rules or in CENVAT
Credit Rules, which would automatically and without additional reasons
disentitle an ISD from availing CENVAT credit unless and until such
registration was applied and granted. The High Court affirmed the
decision of the Tribunal that in such circumstances, requirement of
registration is procedural and curable in nature, particularly when it
is found that full records were maintained and were available to
department verifying its correctness. Accordingly, appeal of the
department was dismissed.

2016 (41) STR 418 (Guj.) Devang Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India

fiogf49gjkf0d
Mere mentioning of incorrect code does not amount to non-payment of duty.

Facts
The Appellant by oversight deposited excise duty in an incorrect assessee code. This fact was informed to the department with a request to rectify the same. However, the department rejected the request and issued Show Cause Notice for recovery of duty with penalty and interest. The said notice was challenged by filing the present writ petition.

Held
The High Court held that merely mentioning of an incorrect code does not amount to non-payment of duty as government had received payment in that incorrect code and this fact was not denied. Further, it was noted that there was no separate manufacturing activity inviting separate duty liability under that code. Accordingly, the department directed the accounting division to give due credit.

[2016] 66 taxmann.com 196 (Gujarat) – Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd.

fiogf49gjkf0d
There cannot be said to be intention of duty evasion when assessee
relies upon favourable judgment which later on turns out to be against
assessee by order of higher judicial forum.

Facts
By
applying the ratio of a favourable Tribunal judgment, the assessee
availed CENVAT credit of service tax in respect of certain services.
However, said judgment was later reversed by jurisdictional High Court. A
Show Cause Notice for recovery of CENVAT credit was issued to assessee
by invoking extended period of limitation by alleging malafide intention
of evasion of duty. The assessee did not dispute tax demand, but
contended that extended period was not invokable as the Tribunal
judgment relied upon was in their favor at that point of time and there
was no intention of evasion of duty.

Held
The Hon’ble
High Court held that when the issue was disputable and at one point of
time, the view of the Tribunal was in favour of the assessee, extended
period of limitation was not invokable and penalty not leviable.

[2016] 66 taxmann.com 133 (Karnataka HC) – Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore vs. Kyocera Wireless (I) (P) Ltd.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Method of passing final order by making reference to paragraphs of common “interim order” passed by clubbing various cases on similar issues, is held to be invalid.

Facts
With a view to reduce pending appeals on identical issues relating to refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the Tribunal passed a common interim order by clubbing nearly 192 cases, and treating those cases as partly heard. Based on the said order, a final order was passed. Appellant contended that Tribunal erred in deciding the appeal in line with the observations made in the interim order, which is not in accordance with the law.

Held:
The Hon’ble High Court held that scope of interim order is very limited as it is temporary and effective only during the pendency of litigation and ceases to exist as soon as the final order is passed. No law can be laid down in an interim order and hence, passing final order referring to the paragraphs in the interim order is not a speaking order. Accordingly, it was held that passing a common interim order and applying the same to the final order of the individual cases is strange and contrary to the settled principles of law. It however suggested that instead of referring to interim order, the Tribunal can pass final order in one case and adopt the same in other batch of cases.

[2016-TIOL-433-HC-MUM-CX] Tien Yuan India Pvt. Ltd vs. The Union of India.

fiogf49gjkf0d
If duty ordered to be refunded is not refunded within three months
from the date of receipt of the application, then interest mandated by
section 11BB(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 must follow.

Facts
An
order sanctioning refund was passed by the Tribunal. The Revenue
appealed against the order and the same is admitted and pending in this
Court. However the order of the Tribunal was not stayed. The Assistant
Commissioner refunded the amount without interest.

Held
The
Court held that when the duty ordered to be refunded u/s. 11B(2) of the
Central Excise Act, 1944 is not refunded within three months from the
date of receipt of application u/s. 11B(1) of the Act, the award of
interest must follow as mandated by section 11BB(1) of the Act. The
Court directed the department to pay the interest @ 6% from the expiry
of three months of the receipt of application till the date of refund
within 2 weeks from the receipt of the Court’s order.

Transportation activity vis-à-vis Lease of Vehicles

fiogf49gjkf0d
Introduction
It is always a debatable issue as to whether transportation activity is a service or it is an activity involving leasing of vehicles. Transportation can be of goods or of passengers. Normally, in transportation activity the respective vehicles like trucks or buses are operated by the owners. However, there can be different kinds of agreements. If the relevant agreement is held to be an agreement for service then it may be liable for service tax, but there will not be any liability under the State VAT laws. However, if the transaction is determined to be a transaction of leasing vehicles, then VAT will apply.

The situation depends upon facts of each case. There are number of judgments having different interpretations. Recently, Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (MSTT) had an occasion to deal with one such issue.

Buthello Travels vs. State of Maharashtra (VAT A.No.1135 of 2015 dt.11.12.2015)

Facts
The Hon. Tribunal has noted the facts as under: “12. Now in this case the issue agitated before us, which is regarding the amount received by the appellant from PMPML towards hire charges of the buses. In this context it would be useful to refer the settled legal position. The legal position is referred by Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State Bank of India and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (70 STC 215). The principle is as under-

“With that there is a transfer of the right to use or not is a question of fact which has to be determined in each case having regard to the terms of contract under which there is said to be a transfer of right to use.”

The second principle laid down is that the agreement has to be read as a whole to determine the nature of transaction. Therefore, it is very essential to refer to the Lease Agreement for Hiring of Buses. In view of the above, we reproduce herewith some relevant portions of the agreement dated 22nd July 2004:

“Whereas
a) Pune Municipal Transport (PMT) intends to expand and augment its existing fleet of passenger buses.
b) to achieve the same, Pune Municipal Corporation suggested to hire passenger buses. Accordingly PMT published a tender notice as on 28/04/2003 in Marathi and English newspapers.
c) in response to the above advertisement 1 of the bidder is present contractor who is second part of this Agreement submitted his tender as per the terms and conditions thereof.

Now therefore this agreement witnesseth and it is hereby agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1

) This agreement will come into force only after buses are handed over by the contract work to PMT as per schedule “B”, duly registered with RTO Pune and permitted by RTO Pune to ply the buses on stage carriage permits held by PMT and no liability will be incurred on PMT till the agreement comes into force.

2) Buses must comply to the specification as enumerated in Annexure ‘A’ and the number and size of buses to be provided shall be as per Annexure ‘B’.

3) Tenure of the Agreement will be for a period of 5 (five) years from the date of permission to ply the buses of contract on PMT permit granted by RTO Pune.

4) The hired buses will be registered with RTO Pune in the name of PMT as lessee and will be operated as stage carriages within operational area of the PMT. The medium buses will be operated minimum 7,000 km per month, the minibuses will be operated minimum 6,000 km. per month, subject to the reasonable daily operation.

5) (i) the PMT will provide conductor with tickets, way bill and other conductor’s equipment.
(ii) It shall be the right of PMT to collect the fare charges. The fare charges will be credited to the account of PMT. The contractor shall not have any right to claim over the cash collection for any reason whatsoever.
(iii) The conductor of the bus alone shall collect all the fare and luggage charges. Neither the private bus contractor nor the driver who shall have any claim on the fare and luggage charges or any amount so collected.

6) The General Manager PMT shall have sole discretion to identify the routes on which hired buses shall be deployed. The contractor shall have no right to claim any particular route for operation.

(7) Responsibilities of the Contractor
(i) To provide the bus with driver possessing valid driving license with P.S.V. badge and complying PMT norms and certificate of medical fitness from competent authority. Driver shall follow the instructions of the authorities of the PMT. The driver will have to undergo training and test of driving. If necessary, driver should undergo medical examination by the medical officer of the corporation. Only successful driver will be approved. Expenditure of the training of the driver by PMT will have to be borne by the contractor. Driver must fulfill the norms prescribed by PMT. The driver should have knowledge of Pune City. However Contractor will be permitted to employ the surplus bus drivers employed with PMT where the post of drivers has become surplus on the Establishment of PMT.
(ii) It will be the responsibility of contractor to ensure that driver maintains close coordination with conductor and provide facilities to passengers and ensure that the passengers are not put to any inconvenience. The driver should have polite behavior with public and passengers and PMT staff.
(iii) The contractor shall not employ a person as a driver for operating a bus on hire basis who has been removed or dismissed, retired on superannuation from the service of PMT or any other Public Undertaking. Also driver must be of the age less than 58 years. Driver who has met with a fatal accident during the contract period should not be continued for 2 months.

Thereafter the driver will be continued by the contractor on his satisfaction given in writing to the PMT that the driver was not at fault for the accident.

(iv) The contractor shall provide uniform to the driver as prescribed by the PMT. The contractor shall provide an identity card with photo attested by contractor and PMT to the driver. Contractor shall furnish photo copy of the driving license of the driver to PMT.
(vi) The contractor/driver shall scrupulously follow instructions issued by the PMT periodically. As and when the PMT finds behaviour and conduct of the driver questionable, upon the notice, the contractor of hired buses shall replace him with the substitute driver immediately. If the private bus contractor fails to replace such a driver within a period of 7 days of notice thereafter, the bus assigned to that driver shall be liable to be discontinued without prior notice and no hire charges will be payable to contractor.
(xiv) The contractor shall produce the vehicle for inspection at the time of deployment and also subsequently whenever required by the PMT.
(xv) Contractor shall inform the place where he will be parking the vehicles and place where he will be repairing the vehicles. This may be checked by PMT authorities.

8) Calculation of kilometres of hired buses
(iii) Distance operated for making payment will be reckoned from appointed terminus for plying vehicles as per the kilometers of the trip distance as per time table.
(iv) Cancelled kilometers on account of mechanical breakdown enroute and any other reasons beyond the control of PMT shall be deducted.
(v) The contractor shall make available the bus for a minimum 16 hours a day. In case bus is not made available minimum 16 steering hours a day, it will not be counted as a day for the purpose of reckoning the number of days operated in a month.
(vi) In case of cancellation of trips for any reasons deduction shall be made and actual kilometres operated be reckoned for payment for hire charges.
(vii) In case of breakdowns PMT can divert the passengers to any other hired bus or bus of PMT. On such occasion the kilometers from the point of the breakdown to the destination point shall be deducted.
(viii) Increase in kilometers due to enforcement of law and order shall not be reckoned for hire charges where PMT has not changed its fare structure. …”

There are further terms which are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.

The Hon. Tribunal has referred to number of judgments cited byboth the sides about nature of lease transaction. Hon. Tribunal has referred to judgments including that of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (145 STC 91)(SC) and also considered the criteria laid down in the said judgment about nature of lease transaction.

After referring to citations, the Hon. Tribunal has arrived at the following conclusion.

“13. After having perused the copy of Agreement between the appellant and PMT, it becomes amply clear that the appellant has given the buses on hire to PMT for a specified period. During the entire period of contract, and when the buses are standing idle or have free time or are not being used by PMT, the contractor (appellant) is prohibited from using these same buses for his personal use or gain. This proves that, during this period of agreement the buses along with the drivers are completely at the disposal and under the control of PMT. Now we need to address the appellant’s claim that he is not a ‘dealer’ as defined under section 2 (8) of MVAT Act. In support of his claim the appellant has relied on the judgment of Honourable Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Mumbai vs. General Cranes [2015] 82 VST 560 (Bom).

14. In order to determine whether there is a transfer of right to use goods so as to make the contract one of sale under article 366 (29 A) (d) on the point of law, both the parties are unanimous that the test is of effective control and possession with respect to the goods.

In para 13 of the judgment of Honourable Bombay High Court, in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Mumbai vs. General Cranes [2015] 82 VST 560 (Bom), their Lordships observed that, “In the present case, the permissions and licenses with respect to the cabs are not available to the transferee and remained in control and possession of the respondent. It is the driver of the vehicle who keeps in his custody and control the permissions and licenses with respect to the Maruti Omni Cabs or the said permissions and licenses remained in possession of the respondent. These are never transferred to M/s NDPL. It, therefore, cannot be said that there is a sale of goods, as transfer of right to use in as much as a necessary ingredient of sale, the transfer of right to use the goods, is absent”.

15. In the present case before us, it is very crucial to understand the nature of transaction. It is broadly outlined, as we understand from the records and documents placed before us. The Pune Municipal Transport is a public transport undertaking established as per the provisions of section 66 (20) of the BPMC Act 1949, to cater to the needs of commuters in and around the Pune City, who holds the stage carriage permits. The appellant does not hold or own stage carriage permit.

It is agreed between the parties that, the buses must comply with the specification as enumerated in the terms and conditions of the agreement. Tenure of the agreement will be for a period of 5 years from the date of permission to ply these buses of contractor on PMT permit granted by RTO , Pune.

16. On perusal of the copy of the agreement before us, it clearly specifies that the buses should be registered in the name of PMT as lessee. Clause number 15 of the agreement indicates that, the copy of the RC book, insurance policy and fitness certificate of the bus be deposited with PMT or duly exhibit the copy of the documents in the bus. This clearly exhibits that, overall custody and control of the documents is with the PMT. The admitted position which emerges is that, PMT is made available with the legal consequence and legal right to use the goods, namely the permissions and licenses with respect to the goods. This being the factual difference in the present case and the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Mumbai vs. General Cranes [2015] 82 VST 560 (Bom), the appellant is rightly held as a dealer under the MVAT Act, and assessed as unregistered dealer.”

Thus, The Hon. Tribunal has considered the given transportation activity as liable to tax under MVAT Act as Transfer of Right to Use goods.

A further position considered by the Hon. Tribunal is that, there were receipts for other transportation where the facts were not same as discussed above. Hon. Tribunal has directed the deletion of tax on such receipts. The said direction is as under:

“17. In our considered opinion, all the criteria as set out by Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and Others [2006] 3 VST 95 (SC), are satisfied. Therefore, we have no hesitation to determine the impugned transaction with PMT as a sale, as per section 2 (24) Explanation – (b) (iv) of MVAT Act, liable to tax. However, on perusal of assessment order it is observed that the assessing officer has taxed the total income of the appellant, which includes bus hire receipts from other customers. In our considered opinion the appellant is entitled to relief of tax including consequential interest and penalty levied on the turnover of income from other customers, other than PMT.

Hence, we pass the following order.”

Conclusion
Thus, the situation about attraction of service tax or VAT in relation to transportation activity is to be seen in light of individual facts and terms of agreement. As different facts are considered by courts, broad principles will gradually emerge.

SERVICES PROVIDED BY A GOVERNMENT OR A LOCAL AUTHORITY TO BUSINESS ENTITIES

fiogf49gjkf0d
Preliminary
With effect from July 01, 2012, service tax regime has undergone a complete overhaul and most of the services are now covered under the service tax ambit. Earlier, every activity (service), which was liable for service tax was defined by way of specific nomenclature and a definition was provided for each service. However, since the definition of ‘service’ is now introduced, the onus is shifted to the service provider and in some cases to service receiver under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM), to ascertain whether a particular activity is a service or not and failure to do so would result into a tax liability or lead to a litigation.

One of the significant amendments made in the negative list based taxation of services governed u/s. 66D (a) (iv) of the Finance Act, 1994 (“Act”) comes into effect from April 01, 2016. For many business enterprises receiving services provided by a government or a local authority, this is very important as it is likely to have far reaching implications. To understand the said amendment in its entirety, one needs to go through section 66D (a) (iv) of the Act before the amendment was made which is reproduced below for easy reference:

Position before the amendment

“Section 66D of the Act (Negative List of Services)

“The Negative list shall comprise of the following services, namely:-

a) Services by Government or local authority excluding the following services to the extent they are not covered elsewhere
i) services by the Department of Posts by way of speed post, express parcel post, life insurance and agency service provided to a person other than Government;

ii) services in relation to an aircraft or a vessel, inside or outside the precincts of a port or an airport;

iii) Transport of goods or passengers; or

iv) Support services, other than services covered under clauses(i) to (iii) above, provided to business entities;”

b) ……….
c) ……….”.
………….

“Support Service” was defined u/s 65B (49) of the Act as under :

“support services” means infrastructural, operational, administrative, logistic, marketing or any other support of any kind comprising functions that entities carry out in ordinary course of operations themselves but may obtain as services by outsourcing from others for any reason whatsoever and shall include advertisement and promotion, construction or works contract, renting of immovable property, security, testing and analysis.”

If above stated support services are provided by the government or a local authority, the liability of discharging service tax is shifted to the services receiver under RCM in terms of Section 68(2) of the Act read with Notification No. 30/ 12 – ST dated 20/6/12 (as amended).

Position after the amendment

Section 66D(a)(iv) of the Act

Vide Clause 107 of the Finance Act, 2015, section 66D (a) (iv) of the Act has been amended, which has been made effective from April 01, 2016 vide Notification No 15/2016 – ST dated March 01/2016. The amended section 66D (a)

(iv) of the Act is reproduced below:

Section 66D (Negative List of Services)

The Negative List shall comprise of the following services, namely:-

“a) Services by government or a Local Authority excluding the following services to the extent they are not covered elsewhere-

i) (unchanged)
ii) “
iii) “
 iv) Any services, other than services covered under clauses i) to iii) above, provided to business entities.”

Also, vide clause 105 (h) of the Finance Act, 2015, the definition of “support service” as defined under section 65B (49) of the Act has been omitted with effect from April 01, 2016.

Notification No. 30/2012 – ST dated 20/6/12 (as amended vide Notification No. 18/2016 – ST dt. 1/3/16 (Relevant Extracts) I The taxable services – ……..

(A) (iv) provided or agreed to be provided by – …….

(C) Government or local authority excluding,-

1) Renting of immovable property, and

2) Services specified in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of the clause (a) of section 66D of the Finance A ct, 1994.

to any business entity located in the taxable territory;

II The extent of service tax payable thereon by the person who provides the service and any other person liable for paying service tax for the taxable services specified in paragraph I shall be as specified in the following Table, namely: –

Brief Analysis of Amendment

Criteria for taxability

A large number of the services provided by the government or a local authority to a business entity may get covered under the service tax net if they satisfy the following criteria for taxability:

Whether any activity carried out or done falls under the definition of ’service’ or not? (‘Service’)

Whether such service is provided or agreed to be provided by the government or a local authority? (‘Government’ / Local Authority)

Whether the recipient of such service is a Business Entity? (“Business Entity”)

Whether there is a consideration paid or payable for such activity/ service? (‘Consideration’)

Whether such activity carried out/ service provided is covered under exemption/ negative list of services or falls under exclusion portion of the definition of service?(Excluded/Exempted)

If the answers to the criteria stated in (a) to (d) above is ‘YES’ and the answer to the last criteria (e) is ‘NO’”, service tax would become payable by the recipient of the service under RCM

Criteria to ascertain whether any activity constitutes ‘service’ u/s. 65B (44) of the Act As mentioned earlier, the major task that would have to be decided is whether a particular activity performed by one person for another is still a service or not. Also, in view of a declared service definition u/s. 66E (e) of the Act [viz. “agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act”,] it is very difficult to arrive at a conclusion as to which activity amounts to service and which does not. To ascertain whether any activity falls under the definition of a service or not, the following criteria need to be applied:

Whether any activity constitutes merely – a transfer of title in goods or immovable property, by way of sale, gift or in any other manner?

Whether any activity constitutes- a transaction in money or actionable claim?

Whether any activity constitutes- a provision of service by an employee to the employer in the course of or in relation to his employment?

Whether any activity constitutes – fees taken in any Court or Tribunal established under any law for the time being in force?

Whether any activity constitutes – the functions performed by the members of Parliament, members of State Legislative, members of Panchayats, members of Municipalities and members of other local authorities who receive any consideration in performing the functions of that office as such member?

Whether any activity constitutes – the duties performed by any person who holds any post in pursuance of the provisions of the Constitution in that capacity?

Whether any activity constitutes – the duties performed by any person as a Chairperson or a Director in a body established by the Central Government or State Government or local authority and who is not deemed as an employee before the commencement of this section?

Whether such activity is covered under exempted list of services/negative list of services?

Determination of Taxability

It is important to note that, after ascertaining whether a particular activity is a service or not per se so as to attract service tax, taxability will be determined on satisfaction of the following two conditions viz.:

Whether such service is provided or agreed to be provided by a ‘person’ for “another person”?

Whether such service is provided for a consideration?

If the answers to the above two conditions is ‘YES’, then service tax becomes payable

For the correct interpretation of the amended section 66D (a) (iv) of the Act, understanding of the following important definitions would be very much essential:

“Business Entity” defined u/s. 65B (17) of the Act is as under:

“business entity” means any person ordinarily carrying out any activity relating to industries, commerce or any other business or profession.

“Government” defined u/s. 65B (26A) of the Act as under:

“Government” means the Departments of the Central Government, a State Government and its Departments and a Union Territory and its Departments, but shall not include any entity, whether created by a statute or otherwise, the accounts of which are not required to be kept in accordance with Article 150 of the Constitution or the rules made thereunder.

“Local Authority” defined u/s. 65B(31) of the Act as under :

“local authority” means –

a) a Panchayat as referred to in cause (d) of article 243 of the Constitution;

b) a Municipality as referred to in clause (e) of article 243P of the Constitution;

c) a Municipal Committee and a District Board, legally entitled to, or entrusted by the government with the control or management of a municipal or local fund;

d) a Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (41 of 2006);

e) a regional council or a district council constituted under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution;

f) a development board constituted under article 371 of the Constitution; or

g) a regional council constituted under article 371A of the Constitution.”;

Taxability Position
With effect from April 01, 2016, a large number of activities /services provided by government/local authority to business entities would come within the ambit of service tax under RCM. Hence, it would be a huge challenge to determine taxability, on the basis of criteria discussed above.

It needs to be expressly noted that, under RCM there is no threshold limit prescribed for payment of service tax. Hence, say when a trader who is not registered with service tax department makes a payment of fees for Rs. 10,000/- to government/local authority which is liable to service tax he would have to register and comply with the service tax law despite very low service tax liability of Rs.1,500/-. This is likely to enhance compliance burden on small and medium businesses, in particular and would be totally contrary to government’s initiative to promote “ease of doing business.”

Taxability Position is discussed hereafter with some illustrations :

Merchant Overtime Charge (MOT)

MOT charge paid for availing services of verification of export goods and sealing thereof by the Department of Excise, Government of India, provided to a business entity would get covered within service tax net under RCM since it fulfills all the conditions/criteria for taxability.

Registration Fees for registering title documents

Since registration fees are collected for providing the service by a state government department for registration of the title documents and preservation thereof in their records to a business entity, service tax under RCM would become payable. However, if the said fees are paid by an individual personally & not as business entity, service tax would not be payable.

Deduction made by government departments for the deposit of Service provider for poor service quality

Since tolerating an act by the government department of poor quality of construction is a service specified under a Declared Service [section 66E (e) of the Act,] and the consideration for such service is the amount so deducted from the deposit, service tax under RCM may become payable by the service provider as a service recipient.

Fees for Filing of Appeals etc paid to CESTAT

Such service falls under the exclusion portion of the definition of ‘Service’ and hence would be not taxable under service tax nor under RCM in terms of Clause (c) of section 65B (44) of the Act.

The above are only a few illustrations. However, facts of every case would have to be examined to determine taxability. Implications of taxability in cases like license fees for 3G/4G, Allocation of coal blocks for mining and related work could have a far reaching implications. The same would require a very detailed study and examination.

Conclusion
Considering far reaching implications of taxability of services provided by government/local authority to business entities with effect from April 01/2016, the following is suggested:

Applicability of RCM needs a serious consideration so as to ease compliance burden, particularly on small and medium business enterprises, who may not be registered with service tax department.

If taxability under RCM is maintained, it is essential that for ease of doing business a transaction threshold (say Rs. 50,000/-) is prescribed.

Detailed guidelines/clarifications need to be issued by CBEC with practical examples to facilitate understanding & avoid litigation.

Welcome GST Transitional Provisions under GST

fiogf49gjkf0d
Whenever there is a change in the existing system of taxing goods and services or introduction of a new tax in the nature of indirect taxes, there arises a need of designing appropriate provisions for its smooth transition. These transitional provisions play an important role in the successful implementation of the new system. Almost all countries, all over the world, have passed through such a situation. The Indian taxation system has also undergone various reforms in the past and the biggest reform in the field of indirect taxes is nearly ready for introduction.

We have discussed, in the past few months, on how successfully the system of VAT (GST) has been implemented worldwide, and, we have also discussed some important aspects of GST law and procedures of some of the leading countries. While our discussion will continue till our Government finalises an appropriate draft of Indian GST law, let us consider some basic issues concerning transition from existing multiple taxation system to one single law (called GST) to be operative all over India. In comparision to other countries, the law makers in India will have to devote little more efforts in designing the transitional provisions. The basic reason for that, is present, we have several laws taxing various transactions at certain stages of procurement, production and supplies, and, some of these laws are governed by the Central Government and some by the States. There are various methods under which these taxes are being levied and collected at present, while some have the features of VAT or partial VAT , the others are still continuing with the old system of sales tax (For example: Central Sales Tax). Another area of concern is ‘dual GST’, which will have two major components CGST and SGST, and, in addition thereto IGST. As the proposed ‘dual GST’ is likely to subsume all these taxes like Excise Duty, Service Tax, State VAT , Central Sales Tax, etc., it is necessary to understand the complexities of transactions and taxation thereof, particularly during transition.

Although, the government has already issued certain draft procedures like procedure for registration, returns, payment of tax and refunds, all these draft reports need a complete overhaul so as to achieve the desired results. Any new tax law has important ingredients like point of taxation, valuation, the subject matter of tax, place of supply and the transitional provisions, etc. It is equally important that smooth flow of input credit (i.e. excise duty on inputs and capital of goods, sales tax or VAT , Central Sales Tax, service tax) is allowed to be transmitted conveniently and without hassles into the new law. In absence of any guidelines from the authorities, the probable scenarios of the transitional provisions are stated by referring to GST Acts of several countries. The purpose of this article is to provoke thoughts on the subject.

The potential concerns that arise in smooth transition may be listed as follows:

Registration and obligations of the assessees
Goods in stock (including lying with agents and job workers)
Goods in transit or consignments pending approval of customer
Goods return and/or subsequent revision in price
Branch transfers
Inter-state transactions
Sale in Transit
Carry forward and transfer of input tax credits
Pending Refunds
Point of taxation for overlapping transactions
Exempt goods and services in current regime, which are no longer exempt in GST and vice versa
Treatment of unutilised credit
Continuing supplies and works contract
Dealers governed by composition schemes
Dealers enjoying incentive schemes

There may be many other areas of potential concerns that are required to be addressed during the transition period. Some of the issues, concerning above points, are discussed in brief herein below:

Registration and obligations of the assessees

Transitional provisions should ensure that the existing registered dealers/assessees continue with their registration or get registration under GST law automatically without any hassles. Such transition should be paperless to the maximum extent possible and within pre-fixed time line. The registration number should be such that the constitution of the assessee, the nature of business in which he is engaged into, location of the assessee including principal place of business, branches and other premises, contact details, jurisdiction of the assessing officer can be tracked easily. The registration number as linked to PAN should also facilitate with smooth transfer of information between different tax authorities such as Customs, Income Tax, registrar of documents, etc.

The registration details with various departments, at present, should be updated in advance with necessary information as may be required for issuing new registration numbers. The entire procedure for granting new numbers should be online and uniform for all the States all over India. It may be necessary to ascertain, in advance, from existing dealers that whether they would like to continue with their registration and whether in one State only or all the States or in some of the selected States. The registration numbers need to be granted accordingly at the option of existing registered dealers/assessees, without any hassles.

Goods in stock including lying with agents and goods in transit or consignments pending approval of customer
In respect of stock on hand in pre-GST regime, the sale taking place in post GST regime (called as ‘supply of goods and services’) will be subject to GST on sale value in case of domestic transactions. In case of exports of goods and services, place of supply rules will be formulated. These rules will cover inter-state supplies also. The enabling rules will be required to be framed for levy of GST to the assessee’s own depot in another state and supply made thereafter. In case when the goods sold prior to the appointed day1 are returned subsequently, the rules are required to be framed for refund of payment of sales tax2 /VAT / CST paid in the pre-GST regime.

In case of goods lying at agent’s premises, whether the agent sales goods to a customer on behalf of the principal or return them back to the principal, both the cases may have to be treated as taxable supply in GST regime. A suitable declaration of such stock and its valuation on the appointed day from the agent as certified by the principal may be required for this purpose.

Point of Taxation Rules prescribing time of supply will be required to be framed for sale contracted in pre- GST regime but actual sale takes place in post-GST regime. Such rules may be different for ascertained and appropriated goods for supply and the goods which are under process of manufacture and the unascertained goods. Pre-GST regime of sales tax/VAT may apply if the payment is received in that period though actual supply may take place in post-GST regime. In case of part payment, sale may be recognized for the purpose of payment of sales tax/VAT to the extent payment is received.

Goods in transit may be subjected to sales tax/VAT even if such goods are received by the customer after the appointed day as the supplier would have charged sales tax/VAT at the time of supply under pre-GST regime, being in origin based tax system. It is possible that the goods involved in overlapping transactions, would cross check posts after implementation of GST and may be lacking in documentation requirement under GST. In such a situation reasonable time, may be allowed to complete the documentation and retain the taxability under pre- GST regime.

In case of sale on approval basis, GST may be charged if the customers approve such sale after the appointed day. Detailed rules/guidelines may be required to be framed in this regards.

Those contracts which are inclusive of taxes in pre-GST regime may be required to be bifurcated in taxable value and tax element separately under post-GST regime. The stock, work in progress etc., may be stated in these terms on the appointed day for smooth transition of credits.

In case of services, the existing Point of Taxation Rules may have to be reframed with necessary changes as may be required.

Branch transfers
In pre-GST regime the branch transfers are not taxable. Inter-state branch transfers, post-GST regime, may be liable for GST. The dealers may be required to give a declaration of stock lying at branch along with the component of tax thereon. For this purpose, the dealer’s warehouse or depot will also constitute a branch.

Carry forward and transfer of input credits
The transitional issue of input credit may arise in following circumstance when the goods purchased and lying in stock, which are sold post-GST including the tax exempt goods in post-GST regime upon removal of exemption.

Goods purchased from registered dealers and those remain in stock in trade on appointed day and sold in post-GST regime can further be classified into the goods with invoices showing the sales tax/VAT element separately and the invoices not showing sales tax/VAT so separately but are inclusive of such levies. In case of invoices inclusive of tax, some formula needs to be prescribed to find out the tax element in it. On the basis of some estimation like some percentage basis or as may be appropriate. Malaysia has adopted a general rule of element of 10% of taxes included in purchases for carry forward the tax element in post-GST regime or issue of refund in pre-GST regime if the assessee does not have authentic evidence.

But, what about excise duty involved in the goods lying in stock on the appointed day? There may be situations where the element of excise duty is visible on the ‘Tax Invoice’ and there may also be purchases lying in stock for which ‘tax invoices’ have been issued by resellers, thus excise duty is not shown separately, but included in the sale price (purchase price).

Goods purchased from unregistered dealers on which purchase tax is paid under the State law, the same may have to be allowed to carry forward in the GST regime under transitional provisions. The dealer may be allowed to carry forward only such input tax credit which is supported by adequate disclosure in the returns. In case of services, which have suffered reverse charge payment of service tax, the same should also be allowed to carry forward in post- GST regime.

Goods lying at branch or with agents, or with customers on approval basis, or in transit with invoices showing VAT /sales tax element separately or not which is inclusive of taxes. Credit of such tax or duty should be allowed to carry forward.

Refunds should be allowed in respect of goods or services lying in stock which was subject to tax in pre- GST regime but exempt in post – GST regime. Proper safeguards may have to be introduced to element goods/ services that have not suffered tax or duty due to purchases during basic or other exception periods.

Credit on semi-finished (under process) goods may be allowed on the basis of appropriate mechanism.

Credit in respect of capital goods – the assessee may be allowed to carry forward tax paid in pre-GST regime in relation to eligible capital goods lying in stock as having availed the credit including the deferred credit. In case of partial allowance of credit in the pre GST regime, the balance should be allowed to carry forward in post-GST regime.

No artificial restrictions may be imposed for the claim of input tax credit. No apportionment of input tax credit should be done when it can be attributed wholly to taxable supplies.

Credits forgone due to artificial restrictions should be allowed to be brought back. This should apply even for assessees hitherto paying under composition tax schemes under various laws.

Point of Taxation to avoid overlapping transactions
Different indirect tax laws in the country have different point of taxation. For example, in case of excise duty, the point of taxation is the time of removal from the place of removal of goods; In case of sales tax/VAT laws, the point of taxation is issuance of invoice and in case of service tax there is a separate mechanism called point of taxation. The GST law may have different rules for point of taxation which would determine the tax liability on supply of goods and services. The same set of rules should avoid double taxation on overlapping transactions under pre-GST regime and under post-GST regime. The instances of such overlapping transactions are given in the “Discussion Paper on Key Transitional Issues in Proposed GST Regime” issued by ICAI, and enumerated as follows:

i) Invoice is billed under pre-GST but the goods or services are supplied and consideration for the said supply made in the GST regime.

ii) Goods or services are supplied in the pre-GST regime but invoice for supply and consideration for supply made in the GST regime.

iii) Advance received during the pre-GST regime but invoice and supply made during the GST regime.

iv) Invoice and payment against the said invoice is received prior to GST regime but supply of goods or services is made in the GST regime. v) Invoice and supply of goods or services is made during the pre-GST regime but payment for the said supply is made in the GST regime.

vi) Payment is received in advance and supply of goods or services is made prior to GST regime but invoice for the said supply is made during the GST regime.

Sale of goods
In case of sale of goods, where the goods has already suffered levy of sales tax/VAT and is supplied in post-GST regime, it should be the differential rate of tax, i.e. rate of tax in GST less sales tax/VAT only be payable. In other words, the credit of sales tax/VAT paid should be allowed under the GST regime.

Provision of service
There may be situation where provision of service fall in both the pre and post GST regime. Presently, the conditions for levy of service tax are; a) provision of service, b) issue of invoices and c) payment of consideration. In GST regime only first two conditions are recommended. They should,

i) Where the service is completed in pre-GST regime and its invoice is also issued before implementation of GST, in such case, POT for the service would lie in pre-GST regime.

ii) In case a service is completed in post-GST regime or the invoice issued in case of service completed in pre- GST regime is issued in post-GST regime, the POT for the service would lie in GST regime.

iii) In case of continuing transactions like long term lease, license to use, hire purchase agreements, the agreements entered in pre-GST regime should be liable to GST from the appointed day for services provided from that day. In case full amount is paid in the pre-GST regime, the same should not be liable for GST for the remaining period of the transaction.

iv) In case of a contract of continuous supply of service made in pre-GST period but the same is cancelled subsequently, service tax paid for the terminated period may be refunded subject to the conditions as may be prescribed.

The above propositions will take care of the situation where a given service is taxable both in pre-GST as well as in the GST regime. In case where the given service is not taxable in pre-GST regime but has become taxable in GST regime or vice-versa, the criteria to determine the POT should be the date of ‘completion of service’.

Manufacture of goods
In case of a manufacturer of dutiable goods in pre-GST regime and removal thereof in GST regime, the point of taxation should be under GST regime.

Works Contract or other continuing transactions
Presently, under service tax, date of completion determines the point of taxation. However, in case of services continuing for a longer period of time like works contract, determination of date of completion of service may be done based on a criteria similar to the one in the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, under the Service Tax Law in relation to ‘continuous supply of service’.

At the entry point of GST, from the current sales tax / VAT , it would be appropriate that value of the work done does not enter into GST regime and dual levy is avoided. The periodical RA bills issued and approved by the customer may be regarded as sufficient evidence. Similarly, there should be smooth transition of input credits of any tax, duty etc., lying in stocks or in unfinished works.

In case, any project (for e.g. infrastructure projects) are zero rated in GST regime the credits embodied in the stocks or work in progress should be refunded after putting in place adequate safeguard mechanism.

Real Estate transaction related to under construction properties
In case of under construction units, GST may be payable either on commercial properties or on residential properties or on both, the credit of input service tax, inputs and capital goods embodied in stocks or work in progress should be allowed in post-GST regime. Credit of tax paid on works contract service should be allowed when building is used for commercial/industrial purposes.

Exceptional scenarios
The law should also provide adequate provisions to deal with exceptional transactions like,

The transaction is under composition scheme under Pre-GST but not so under GST regime or vice versa.

Where property in goods has been transferred with option to return them within prescribed time frame given in pre-GST regime but are subsequently returned in post-GST regime; or

Where possession of goods has been transferred to job-worker to return within prescribed time frame given in pre-GST regime and are subsequently returned in post-GST regime; or

Where service provided in pre-GST regime is subsequently declared deficient in post-GST regime; etc.

Exempt goods and services in current regime, no longer so in GST and vice versa
Goods in stocks which has suffered input tax or services which has suffered input service tax should be allowed to be set off against GST payable on final output.

Ineligible credits (including that of CST inputs), on account of earlier exempt regime be allowed to be brought back in post-GST regime when they become taxable.

In long term contracts, sufficient time should be given to change the tender/contractual terms wherever necessary (e.g. in Malaysian GST, the existing contracts can be reviewed up to the first opportunity for such renewal or within the time limit of 5 years and till such review or expiry of time limit, such contracts are made zero rated). In case the contracts are not reviewable, GST may become cost to enterprise.

Treatment of unutilised credit in case the goods exempt in post-GST regime
Refund should be granted for unutilised credit provided the goods and services have suffered taxes before the appointed day. The assessee may be given option to carry forward the unutilised credit and set off against the tax payable under GST.

Conclusion
Success of GST depends largely on smooth transition of taxes and duties from pre-GST to post-GST regime. India has a complex system of taxes. There are various types of indirect taxes prevailing in the system with levies and exemptions that too vary State to State. Transitional provisions should be fair to the assessees and also it needs to be ensured that the prices do not escalate for the consumers. The best example is Malaysia which has joined band wagon of GST very recently, i.e. from 1st April 2015, after deliberating for more than 10 years. The country has introduced one of the fairest system of transition including allowance of refunds for taxes paid in pre-GST regime if levy becomes exempt later. Some other countries have also enacted appropriate provisions for smooth transition and allowance of hassle free credits in the new regime. Australia and New Zealand have separate transition Act. Singapore also has elaborate procedure and it has been ensured that smooth flow of credit is not artificially hampered. Elaborate procedure for allowance of refund is also formed whenever the supply is exempt in GST regime. It is expected that India will adopt a fair transitory process from existing levies to implementation of GST so that the businesses do not suffer and the interest of consumers is not affected by heavy terminal tax.

2016 (41) STR 183 (Chattisgarh) CCE & C., Raipur vs. General Manager, Telecom District, BSNL

fiogf49gjkf0d
If both the parties have preferred appeal, the Tribunal should pass a reasoned and speaking order and should discuss reason of acceptance of one appeal and rejection of appeal of another.

Facts
Appeal before the Tribunal was made by both i.e. the assessee and the department against the order of Commissioner. The Tribunal considered and discussed the contentions of the assessee only and no consideration or discussion was made whatsoever of the appeal filed by the department.

Held
Though both the appeals were disposed of, there was no discussion on department’s appeal while allowing the appeal of the assessee. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal to pass a reasoned and speaking order after hearing both the parties and without taking into consideration the earlier order passed by the Tribunal but discussing both appeals and the reasons for acceptance of one and the rejection of the other.

2016 (41) STR 11 (Bom) Quality Fabricators and Erectors vs. Dy. Dir. DGCEI, Mumbai

fiogf49gjkf0d

Demand alleged to be due as per SCN without its adjudication cannot be recovered by issuing notice to banks and debtors

Facts

On the basis of investigation, a Show Cause Notice (SCN)was issued which was replied to by the Appellant denying the allegation. Without giving an opportunity of personal hearing and passing the adjudicating order, recovery proceeding was initiated by sending account freezing notices to banks. On initiation of said action, partial service tax was deposited and the said action was challenged before the High Court.

Held

The High Court observed that until and unless there is crystallisation of demand by proper adjudication, recovery action cannot be initiated when all allegations were denied in the reply filed. Accordingly, the recovery notices were set aside.

2016(41) STR 3 (All) Kunj Power Project Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India.

fiogf49gjkf0d
The action of attaching bank accounts without giving opportunity of hearing is gross violation of prescribed rules and such order is required to be quashed

Facts
The Appellant engaged in fabrication, erection and installation of power sub-stations availed CENVAT credit for discharging service tax. The Respondent during an enquiry gave an oral direction to reverse the credit which was not adhered to. Therefore, a Show Cause Notice was issued. Before submission of the reply, bank accounts were attached and this action is challenged before the High Court.

Held
The High Court observed that while proceeding for attachment of property, procedure specified in Service Tax (Provisional Attachment of Property) Rules, 2008 and C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 103/6/2008-S.T. dated 01/07/2008 should be followed. It was further noted that as per Rule 3(2) of the said Rules, prior notice is required to be given specifying the reasons for initiation of action of attachment and details of property to be attached and opportunity for hearing is required to be provided within 15 days from service of notice. Since the Respondent has failed to issue such notice and grant an opportunity of hearing before attaching the accounts and also no cogent reasons were provided justifying the said action, the order attaching bank accounts was quashed and cost of Rs.25,000/- was ordered to be paid to Appellant.

2016 (41) STR 168 (Mad) CCE, Chennai- III vs. Visteon Powertrain Control Systems (P) Ltd.

fiogf49gjkf0d
CENVAT credit of outdoor catering services, cost of which is borne by the assessee, shall be allowed for the period upto 31st March, 2011.

Facts
CENVAT credit was availed on outdoor catering services provided in the factory premises to its employees during the period prior to 1st April, 2011. The department contended that the service could not be treated as “input service” as it was neither used in or in relation to manufacture or clearance of final product nor is an activity relating to business. Adjudicating authority allowed CENVAT credit considering the services to be in relation to manufacture. Following Larger Bench decision in GTC Industries Ltd. 2008 (12) STR 468 (Tri.-LB), the Tribunal in the department’s appeal allowed CENVAT credit considering the services to be relating to business. In some cases, the Tribunal relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. vs. CCE 2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC) and disallowed CENVAT credit. The department argued that Notification No. 3/2011-ST dated 1st March, 2011 has substituted the definition of input service and therefore, should be applied retrospectively and therefore outdoor catering services were excluded from the definition of “input service” even for the period prior to such substitution. Relying upon Bombay High Court’s decision in Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom), the Appellants pleaded that CENVAT credit be allowed on the ground of mandatory statutory requirement to provide canteen facility to employees. It was also argued that the effective date of notification was 1st April, 2011 only and therefore, for prior period, CENVAT credit should be available.

Held
All contentions raised by the revenue have been elaborately considered by the Bombay High Court in case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (supra), including Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra), wherein CENVAT credit was allowed except in case the cost of food is borne by the employee. Further the plea of retrospective application of exclusion to definition of “input service” was rejected on account of amendment clearly specifying the date of its enforcement to be 1st April, 2011. Thus, relying on the aforesaid decisions CENVAT credit on outdoor catering services prior to 1st April, 2011 was allowed.

Inter-State Transfer for Job work vis-à-vis Requirement of ‘F’ forms

fiogf49gjkf0d
Introduction
Section 6A of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act) requires that, if there is any inter-state transfer to branch or agent or principal, as the case may be, then ‘F’ form is required to be obtained from transferee. If such form is not obtained, it will be deemed to be inter-state sale for all purposes of CST Act.

Section 6A refers to inter-state branch transfer or to agent/ principal (collectively referred to as ‘branch transfer’). However, in addition to branch transfer of stock, there is also inter-state branch transfer for job work. Like, a dealer in Gujarat may send his goods for processing to its job worker in Maharashtra. Job worker will complete the processing and send processed goods to its employer i.e. the dealer who had sent him goods for process.

In this case, there are two transfers, one from Gujarat to Maharashtra and again from Maharashtra to Gujarat.

Difference between Branch Transfer and Job Work Transfer
The stark difference between branch transfer and job work transfer is that the branch transfer is to oneself. However, in case of job work transfer the transfer is to independent job worker. The relationship is of principal to principal and job worker charges its own processing charges for the same. In other words, the relationship in job work transactions is like seller and buyer. If any goods are involved in the process, which gets transferred to principal then job worker may be liable to discharge works contract liability on such processing charges.

Though ‘F’ form is required for inter-state branch transfers, it was not contemplated in relation to job work transfer. In fact the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State has issued circular bearing no.16T of 2007 dated 20.2.2007 explaining the above position and stating that F forms not required for job work transfers.

Judgment of Hon. Allahabad High Court in case of Ambica Steel Ltd . (12 VST 216)(All).
The requirement of obtaining of F forms again came in light when the Hon. Allahabad High Court had an occasion to decide a similar issue. In that case, the dealer challenged the requirement of ‘F’ forms for job work transfer.

The Hon. Allahabad High Court ruled that F forms are necessary for job work transfer and also upheld validity of the requirement.

The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, again issued circular bearing no.5T of 2009 dated 29.1.2009 reiterating its earlier view that inspite of above judgment of the Hon. Allahabad High Court, legally F forms are not required for job work transfer.

However, M/s. Ambica Steel Ltd. went to the Supreme Court against the Allahabad High Court judgment. In the Supreme Court, the dealer did not contest the legality of requirement of F forms as per section 6A but got case remanded back on premises that it will be producing forms before assessing authority.

The Hon. Supreme Court accordingly disposed of the matter vide judgment reported in case of Ambica Steel Ltd. (24 VST 356)(SC).

Based on the above Supreme Court judgment, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, again issued circular bearing no.2T of 2010 dated 11.1.2010 withdrawing earlier circulars and advising for obtaining ‘F’ forms for job work transfers also. One more circular bearing no.12T of 2010 dated 22.3.2010 was issued stating that the withdrawal is prospective i.e. from 11.1.2010.

Based on the above circulars, the sales tax authorities have started levying tax under CST Act when F forms are not available for inter-state job work transfers.

The Bombay High Court on the above issue
Based on one such assessment order, the issue was contested before the Hon. Bombay High Court in case of Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra (W.P.No.7400 of 2015 along with W.P.No.7934 of 2015). The said writ petition was decided vide judgment dated 16.2.2016.

The facts in case of this writ petition are narrated by the High Court as under:

“4) The Petitioner holds a registration number as set out in para 4 of the Petition. It is claimed that the Petitioner is manufacturer and job worker, engaged in the manufacture of different grades of support catalyst, including activated charcoal support. It is stated that this is predominantly a process resulting in the production of recharged catalyst from spent catalyst. It is stated that the Petition relates to job work transactions. The Petitioner receives a specified quantity of spent catalyst from its customers from within as well as outside the state of Maharashtra. The Petitioner undertakes job work of converting the spent catalyst received from the customers into support catalyst and sends back the recharged support catalyst to such customers.”

The basic arguments of the petitioner were as under:
i) The intention of insertion of section 6A was to refer to branch transfers, as there were chances of evasion.
ii) Only branch transfers are covered by Section 6A as clear from language used in section 6A.
iii) No provision in Act/Rules to obtain ‘F’ forms where transactions are between principal to principal.
iv) Section 6A(1) will operate when there is actual interstate sale and failure to bring F form, and not otherwise.
v) Section 6A will aid section 6 to levy tax on otherwise completed inter-state sale, but not otherwise.

The Respondents argued that section 6A applies to all non sale inter- state movements and it is merely rule of evidence.

Having noted arguments from both sides, the Hon. Bombay High Court has concurred with the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in case of Ambica Steel Ltd. (12 VST 216)(All). The observations of the Hon. Bombay High Court are as under:

“46) We do not think that there is any ambiguity in the legal position. Further, we do not see anything ambiguous or vague in the circular issued by the State of Maharashtra after this judgment in the case of Ambica Steels Limited (supra) by both, the Allahabad High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. We are of the firm view that furnishing and scrutiny/verification of the declaration in that form is a requirement in law and if that is fulfilled, the burden on the dealer is taken to be discharged. If that declaration is not furnished, then, the consequences follow. The goods might have been dispatched for job work and not as and by way of sale, but that is the plea or case of the dealer. If that is the case and the burden is on him to prove it, then, he has to obtain the declaration. If the declaration is not being issued by some States in the form prescribed, namely form ‘F’ and the dealer made all the efforts to obtain it but failure to produce it is not his fault, then, he may, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India clarifies, request the Assessing Officer to take that circumstance into consideration. If that request is made, the Assessing Officer can, depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case, pass such orders as are permissible in law. Therefore, we do not agree that the circular of 2010 misinterprets the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It neither misreads nor misinterprets the judgment of the Allahabad High Court.

Throughout ,the understanding is that the burden is on the dealer and he has to discharge it in the manner prescribed in law. If the burden has to be discharged in the manner set out, then, no other mode or manner is permissible. Therefore, all that the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarifies is that if some States are not issuing ‘F’ form, then, that approach of a particular State should be brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer in the dealer’s State. That the Assessing Officer should be convinced that the dealer made all efforts, but for no fault of his, he could not obtain the ‘F’ form. Thereupon and pursuant to the liberty given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the dealer raising the plea, the Assessing Officer, while taking note of it, would consider the peculiar facts and circumstances and may pass requisite orders.

Even that is not the rule but an exception. The requirement is not displaced necessarily and as urged. We do not, therefore, see any merit in the contentions of Mr. Sridharan and while challenging the circular of 2010.” (underlining ours)

TRANSFER OF USE OF INTANGIBLES: IS RIGHT TO USE ALWAYS TRANSFERRED?

fiogf49gjkf0d
Introduction:
Intangible or incorporeal rights such as patents, trademarks, computer software etc. are characterised as goods. It was observed in Vikas Sales vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (1996) 102 STC 106 (SC) that since incorporeal rights are capable of transfer and transmission they are movable property and therefore included in the ambit of goods. In Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Duke & sons Pvt. Ltd. (1999) 112 STC 370 (Bom), upholding applicability of sales tax, the Court held, “the manner of transfer of the right to use the goods to the transferee would depend upon the nature of the goods…… For transferring the right to use the trademark it is not necessary to handover the trademark to the transferee or give control and possession of trademark to him, it can be done merely by authorizing the transferee to use the same in the manner required by the law as has been done in the present case. The right to use the trademark can be transferred simultaneously to any number of persons” Also in SPS Jayam & Co. vs. Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal & Others (2004) 137 STC 117, it was held that trademark is intangible goods which is subject matter of transfer. Giving permission to use trademark for a particular period while also retaining this right to use such trademark for self-use or to be able to grant license to some other person simultaneously is only a transfer of right to use and not merely a right to enjoy. It was observed that simply by retaining the right for oneself to use the trademark while granting permission to others to use the trademark, it would not take away the character of the transaction as one of transfer of right to use. This view was also echoed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in G.S. Lamba & Sons vs. State of A.P. 2012-TIOL-49-HC-AP-CT that levy of tax under Article 366-(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India is not on the use of goods but on the transfer of right to use goods which accrues only on account of transfer of such right. Transfer of Right is sine qua non for the right to use any goods and such transfer takes place when a contract is executed under which the right is vested in the lessee. G.S. Lamba (supra) however involved providing tangible goods on hire.

Nevertheless, considering a significant tax potential in the transactions involving intangible goods, the Central Government incorporated section 66(55b) in the Finance Act, 1994 from September 10, 2004 in terms of which “intellectual property service” was defined as one which means a) transferring whether (permanently or otherwise) amended from 16/06/2005 as temporarily or (b) permitting the use or enjoyment of any intellectual property right”. This category of service in its new version under the negative list based taxation in force from 01/07/2012 appears as declared service in section 66E(c) as “temporary transfer or permitting the use or enjoyment of any intellectual property right.”

At this point, it must be noted that mutual exclusivity of VAT and service tax has been envisaged in Imagic Creative P. Ltd. vs. CCE 2008 (9) STR 337 (SC) by the Supreme Court. So also, in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. vs. UOI & Others 2006 (2) STR 161 (SC), it was held that value of service cannot be included in the sale of goods or the price of goods in the value of service. Further, in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (supra), a test was laid down to determine whether a transaction is for transferring right to use goods as provided below:

“Para 97
To constitute a transaction for the transfer of the right to use the goods the transaction must have the following attributes:

(a) There must be goods available for delivery;

(b) There must be a consensus ad idem as to the identity of the goods;

(c) The transferee should have a legal right to use the goods – consequently all legal consequences of such use including any permissions or licenses required therefore should be available to the transferee;

(d) For the period during which the transferee has such legal right, it has to be the exclusion to the transferor – this is the necessary concomitant of the plain language of the statue – viz. a “transfer of the right to use” and not merely a license to use the goods;

(e) Having transferred the right to use the goods during the period for which it is to be transferred, the owner cannot again transfer the same rights to others”. (emphasis supplied)

Thus the test of exclusivity is laid down by the Supreme Court. This criteria is followed in a large number of decisions. However, the Courts have distinguished in a few others leading to a controversy whether the transaction involves transfer of right to use and thus a deemed sale liable for sales tax/VAT tax or a service liable for service tax.

Key Rulings of the Courts: Test of Exclusivity
In the case of Nutrine confectionary Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2012) 21Taxmann.com 555 (Andhra Pradesh), the petitioner allowed the right to use a trademark on non-exclusive basis, against payment of royalty. The dispute related to whether or not there was transfer of right to use goods. Relying on State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (2002) 126 STC 114 (SC) it was observed that ‘assignee’ was free to make use of the trademark and logo and had full control over such use. The petitioner did not in any manner regulate the use of trademark or logo by the assignee and also used trademark for its own use. These facts did not mitigate in favour of the petitioner. Distinguishing the BSNL’s case, the Court observed, “BSNL dealt with a case of mobile connections. It is not a case of transfer of trademark or logo. The contract for providing a mobile connection invariably contains a clause that the licensee shall use a mobile connection exclusively for himself/herself and nobody else would use. In the case of trademark, the same can be used by an assignee without any exclusive right. This itself does not remove the transaction under the agreement outside the purview of section 5E” and therefore liable for sales tax (VAT). (Note: Section 5E of the GST Act overrides all other provisions of the said Act when it is the case of transfer of right to use any goods). Not in line with this, a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Malabar Gold Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer (2013) 35 Taxmann. com 569 (Kerala) while analysing an agreement for franchise followed the dictum of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.’s case (supra) after considering various cases including Rashtriya Ispat Nigam (supra), Duke & Sons Pvt. Ltd. (supra), SPS Jayam & Co. (supra) and even the above Nutrine’s case (supra). In this case, the assesse engaged in the business of marketing, trading etc. of gold and diamond jewelery under the brand “Malabar Gold”, received royalty under a franchise agreement containing various clauses including permitting the use of trademark. The assessee paid service tax on royalty receipts under franchise service. The VAT department considering the use of trademark as transfer of right to use trademark demanded VAT . The clauses in the franchise agreement were examined in detail by the Court. In spite of the revenue’s heavy reliance interalia on the above Nutrine’s case (supra), the facts were distinguished observing that Nutrine’s case was decided because of applicability of section 5E of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and the Court held that the test laid down in BSNL’s case (supra) squarely applied as there were no deliverables at any stage and the right was not transferred to the exclusion of the franchisor, who could transfer the same right simultaneously to others and thus the test laid down in BSNL judgment was not satisfied. The Court also distinguished two earlier decisions of Kerala High Court itself viz. Jojo Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (2004) 24 VST 327 (Ker) and Kareem Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (2009) 24 VST 333(Ker.) on the ground that in these cases, there was no occasion to consider either Entry 97 of LIST-I under the 7th Schedule of the Constitution or the service tax provision u/s. 65(105)(zze) of the Finance Act,1994 in respect of franchise service brought in the law from 2003, as the cases were of pre-2003 period and service tax is correctly paid as the transaction is of franchise service. Yet in another case relating to franchise viz. Vitan Departmental Stores & Industries Ltd. vs. The State of Tamilnadu 2013-TIOL-897-HC-MAD-CT, the agreement related to granting exclusive right to operate departmental store for a specified period. The High Court held that the transaction was not a mere license or mere right to enjoy but a transfer of right to use intangible goods as the right was provided to operate the store on exclusive basis. In a recent decision of Tata Sons Limited & Another vs. The State of Maharashtra 2015-TIOL-345-HC-MUMCT, the decision in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (supra) was distinguished observing that the controversy dealt with in this case related to telephone service and not similar to issue of trademarks and held that in relation to intangibles such as trademarks, the transfer of right to use need not be exclusive and unconditional and such transaction is capable of multiple transfers and transferor continuing to use goods such as trademarks would constitute sale exigible to the State value added tax.

Thus the question that arises is whether the test laid down by the Supreme Court in BSNL’s case (supra) is required to be followed even in the case of intangible goods or whether it applies only to the transfer of right to use tangible goods and distinguishable for determination of transfer of right to use intangible goods. Consequently, the issue is whether it is simply on account of the inherent nature of the intangible goods which allows simultaneous use by multiple persons that a transaction cannot be treated as sale or simply because the service tax law now contains provisions to tax the transaction as ‘service’, the transaction is held as service and not as deemed sale. In this context, it is apposite to discuss one more decision in AGS Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India 2013 (32) STR 129 (Mad) wherein validity of provisions of section 65(105)(zzzzt) of the Finance Act,1994 (dealing with the service of temporary transfer or permitting the use or enjoyment of any copyright) was examined. In this case, a service provided by producer/distributor/exhibitor was challenged on the ground that transfer of right to use the goods amounted to sale and not service. The High Court followed BSNL’s case (supra) to contend that ”the temporary transfer of copyright did not satisfy principles laid down in BSNL’s case (supra) and it is neither a sale nor a deemed sale. Service tax is a levy on “temporary transfer” or “permitting the use or enjoyment” of the copyright as defined under the Copyright Act, 1957. In the case of Sales Tax Act, there would be “transfer of right to use goods” whereas under the Service Tax Act what is levied is temporary transfer/ enjoyment of the goods. The pith and substance of both enactments are totally different. “Temporary Transfer” or “permitting the use or enjoyment of the copyright is not within the State’s exclusive power under Entry 54 of List-II.”

Conclusion:
The issue thus remaining open is whether the test of exclusivity laid down in BSNL’s case is applicable to intangibles or is the decision distinguishable for transfer of right to use intangibles. Also whether there is a difference between granting permission to use and transfer of right to use. If transfer of use necessarily involves transfer of right to use whether the goods are tangible or intangible, the levy of service tax has no place. When any of the matters reaches Supreme Court, it would have to decide these issues among others. In the interim, the Courts would have other cases to decide with new perspective to the controversy when the facts are different and therefore in spite of paying one of the two taxes, the assessee may have to face litigation initiated by the other authority.

Welcome GST VAT (GST) in the European Union (Part II)

fiogf49gjkf0d
[This is the second and concluding part of write up on VAT in the European Union (‘EU’)]

The previous write up discussed the background of Value Added Tax (‘VAT’) regime currently in force in the European Union (EU). It briefly described inter alia the authority and scope of the tax, the internal coordination between various Member States, the value added tax principles and the mechanics of tax regime. The current write up deals with some important concepts and procedural aspects of the EU VAT .

Branch Transfer (also known as intra-community acquisitions):

Generally, a transfer of goods between branches of the same legal entity (i.e. transfer of goods from a factory to a warehouse owned by the same company within the same Member State) is not considered as a supply for VAT purposes. However, this general rule will not apply in situations where an entity transfers its own goods across borders within the EU. Such transfers are also known as intra-community supplies / acquisition. A taxable person is deemed to make an intra-community supply and an intra-community acquisition if the person transfers goods between different parts of a single legal entity located in different Member States. In such cases, the transferring entity may need to register for VAT in both i.e. the Member State of dispatch and the Member State of arrival. Member States are authorised to prescribe their own registration requirement and business entities need to refer to the relevant Member State’s requirements before transferring goods across borders.

Exceptions to the above (Transfers deemed not to be acquisitions).
It is pertinent to note that not all intra-community movements of own goods are treated as acquisitions.The following cross border transfers are not treated as intracommunity transfers:

Goods to be installed or assembled for a customer in another Member State
Goods transported to another Member State under the distance selling rules
Goods meant for export outside the EU from another Member State or dispatched to another Member State (i.e. the goods are temporarily transferred from one Member State to another and thereafter exported from the second Member State)
Goods sent to another Member State for processing (provided that the goods are returned after processing)
Goods temporarily used in another Member State for a supply of services made there
Goods used temporarily (i.e. for less than two years) in another Member State

Taxable person:
The EU VAT directive defines ‘Taxable person’ to mean any person who, independently, carries out in any place any economic activity, whatever the purpose or results of that activity. Such a person may be an individual, partnership, company or other forms of business which supplies taxable goods and services in the course of business.

Economic activity conducted ‘independently’ shall exclude activities of employee and other persons from VAT in so far as they are bound to an employer by a contract of employment or by any other legal ties creating the relationship of employer and employee as regards working conditions, remuneration and the employer’s liability.

Exploitation of tangible or intangible property for the purposes of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing basis is regarded as an economic activity. In addition to this, any person who, on an occasional basis, supplies a new means of transport, which is dispatched or transported to the customer by the vendor or the customer, or on behalf of the vendor or the customer, to a destination outside the territory of a Member State but within the territory of the Community, shall be regarded as a taxable person.

States, regional and local government authorities and other bodies governed by public law are not regarded as taxable persons in respect of the activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities. This is so, even where they collect dues, fees, contributions or payments in connection with those activities or transactions. However, as an exception to the general rule, when State / regional / local government authorities engage in such activities or transactions, they shall be regarded as taxable persons in respect of those activities or transactions where their treatment as non-taxable persons would lead to significant distortions of competition. Annexure I appended to the EU VAT directive provides a list of activities (i.e. supply of water / electricity / gas, warehousing, organisation of public fares and trade exhibitions, etc.), in respect of which bodies governed by public law are regarded as taxable persons, provided that those activities are not carried out on such a small scale as to be negligible.

VAT rates:
The EU law only requires that the standard VAT rate must be at least 15% and the reduced rate at least 5% (for supplies of goods and services referred to in an exhaustive list). Actual rates applied for this purpose may vary between Member States and between certain types of products. There is a provision for super reduced rate also.

The most reliable source of information on current VAT rates for a specified product in a particular Member State is that country’s VAT authority. Nevertheless, it is possible to get an overview of the different rates applied from the VAT rates in the European Union information document.

Valuation:
For the purpose of levy of VAT on supply of goods or services, the taxable amount includes everything which constitutes consideration obtained or to be obtained by the supplier, in return for the supply, from the customer or a third party, including subsidies directly linked to the price of the said supply.

Inclusions:
The taxable amount shall include the following factors:

(a) taxes, duties, levies and charges, excluding the VAT itself;

(b) incidental expenses such as commission, packing, transport and insurance costs, charged by the supplier to the customer.

For the purposes of incidental expenses, Member States are allowed to regard expenses covered by a separate agreement as incidental expenses.

Exclusions:
The taxable amount shall not include the following factors:
(a) price reductions by way of discount for early payment;
(b) price discounts and rebates granted to the customer and obtained by him at the time of the supply;
(c) amounts received by a taxable person from the customer, as repayment of expenditure incurred in the name and on behalf of the customer, and entered in his books in a suspense account.

The taxable person must furnish proof of the actual amount of the expenditure in respect of reimbursements claimed and may not deduct any VAT which may have been charged.

Packing material:
As regards the costs of returnable packing material, Member States may take one of the followings:
(a) exclude them from the taxable amount and take the measures necessary to ensure that this amount is adjusted if the packing material is not returned;
(b) include them in the taxable amount and take the measures necessary to ensure that this amount is adjusted if the packing material is in fact returned.

EXEMPTIONS:
Member States grant exemptions in respect of certain activities in the interest of public at large. A snapshot of activities which are currently exempted from EU VAT is given below:

Supply by the public postal services, of services and the supply of goods incidental thereto.

Hospital and medical care and closely related activities undertaken by bodies governed by public law.

Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions as defined by the Member State concerned.

Supply of human organs, blood and milk.

Supply of services by dental technicians in their professional capacity and the supply of dental prostheses by dentists and dental technicians.

Supply of services by independent groups of persons, who are carrying on an activity which is exempt from VAT or in relation to which they are not taxable persons, for the purpose of rendering their members the services directly necessary for the exercise of that activity, where those groups merely claim from their members exact reimbursement of their share of the joint expenses, provided that such exemption is not likely to cause distortion of competition

Supply of services and of goods closely linked to welfare and social security work, including those supplied by old people’s homes, by bodies governed by public law or by other bodies recognised by the Member State concerned as being devoted to social wellbeing.

Supply of services and of goods closely linked to the protection of children and young persons, by bodies governed by public law or by other organisations recognised by the Member State concerned as being devoted to social wellbeing.

Provision of children’s or young people’s education, school or university education, vocational training or retraining, including the supply of services and of goods closely related thereto, by bodies governed by public law having such as their aim or by other organisations recognised by the Member State concerned as having similar objects.

Tuition given privately by teachers covering school or university education.

Supply of staff by religious or philosophical institutions with a view to spiritual welfare.

Supply of services, and the supply of goods closely linked thereto, to their members in their common interest in return for a subscription fixed in accordance with their rules by non-profit-making organisations with aims of a political, trade union, religious, patriotic, philosophical, philanthropic or civic nature, provided that this exemption is not likely to cause distortion of competition.

Supply of certain services closely linked to sport or physical education by non-profit-making organisations to persons taking part in sport or physical education.

Supply of certain cultural services and the supply of goods closely linked thereto, by bodies governed by public law or by other cultural bodies recognised by the Member State concerned.

Supply of services and goods, by organisations whose activities are exempt in connection with fund-raising events organised exclusively for their own benefit, provided that exemption is not likely to cause distortion of competition.

Supply of transport services for sick or injured persons in vehicles specially designed for the purpose, by duly authorised bodies.

Activities, other than those of a commercial nature, carried out by public radio and television bodies.

Certain financial services / transactions such as insurance / reinsurance transactions and related broking services, granting and negotiation of credit, negotiating of or dealings in credit guarantees and management of credit guarantees, acceptance of deposit / current accounts, banking transactions: payments, transfers, debts, cheques and other negotiable instruments, but excluding debt collection, transactions in money, etc.

Invoicing:
Taxable persons doing business in the EU are subject to a single set of basic EU-wide invoicing rules1 , and in certain areas, national rules set by the individual EU country. Businesses are free to issue electronic invoices subject to acceptance by the recipient. National tax authorities cannot require businesses to provide any notification or to receive authorisation. However, e-invoicing will become obligatory in public procurement. Businesses can outsource invoicing operations to a third party or to the customer (i.e. self-billing), in some circumstances.

Businesses are generally free to store invoices where and how they like (paper/electronic, in a different EU country to where they are based, etc.).

An ‘invoice’ is required for VAT purposes, under EU rules, in case of business-to-business (B2B) supplies and certain business-to-consumer (B2C) transactions. In some cases, there are specific national rules on transactions which require businesses to issue an ‘invoice’.

Apart from the usual Information required in an Invoice such as date of invoice, serial number, customer’s VAT identification number, supplier’s and customer’s full name and address, description of quantity & type of goods supplied or type & extent of services rendered, VAT rate applied, VAT amount payable, breakup of VAT amount payable by VAT rate or exemption unit price of goods or services – exclusive of tax, discounts or rebates (unless included in the unit price), some extra information is also required in some cases. Specific instance of the same are as follows:

Exempt transactions – a reference to the appropriate (EU or national) legislation exempting it, or any other reference indicating it is exempt (at the choice of the supplier).

Customer liable for the tax (i.e. under the reversecharge procedure) – the words ‘Reverse charge’.

Intra-EU supply of a new means of transport – the details specified in Article 2(2)(b) of the VAT Directive (e.g. for a car, its age and mileage).

Applicability of margin scheme – a reference to the particular scheme involved (e.g. ‘Margin scheme — travel agents’).

Self-billing (customer issues invoice instead of supplier) – the words ‘Self-billing’.

Person liable for tax is a tax representative – their VAT identification number, full name and address.

Supplier is operating a cash-accounting system – the words ‘Cash accounting’.

Once an invoice includes all the required information (depending on the case, and the EU country), it serves as sufficient proof to allow a right to deduct VAT in whichever EU country the person is concerned. No EU country will prevent this by requiring any extra information, prior confirmation, etc.

EU filings:

Intrastat
Intrastat is a system for reporting intra-community transactions made by taxable persons. This system was first introduced on 1st January 1993 with a view to allow the collection of statistical information on intra-community trade in the absence of customs controls at the borders. EU businesses are required to submit information on a periodic basis to the VAT authorities if they make either intra-community supplies or acquisitions of goods in excess of specified limits.

Taxable persons making intra-community supplies are also required to submit EU Sales Lists (ESLs) to the VAT authorities on a quarterly basis. Failure to comply (delays, errors or omissions) can lead to penal consequences. Effective from 1st January 2010, a new requirement has been introduced whereby businesses are also obligated to file Intrastat returns for cross-border services provided to business customers in other EU Member States.

VAT returns:
Currently, all business registered for EU VAT purposes are obligated to file VAT returns as per their respective counties requirements i.e. National VAT returns. As a result, business intra- community supply / acquisition are required to file VAT returns in more than one jurisdiction (in different forms and with varying reporting requirements) and leads to an extra administrative burden on the business. A proposal has been moved by the European Commission (on 23rd October 2013) whereby all business within the EU will be required to file a standard VAT return. The standard VAT return, which will replace national VAT returns, will ensure that businesses are asked for the same basic information, within the same deadlines, across the EU.

The purpose of the standard VAT return is to reduce administrative burdens for businesses, ease of tax compliance and make tax compliances across the EU more efficient. The proposal also envisages a simplified and uniform set of information that businesses will have to provide to tax authorities when filing their VAT returns, regardless of the Member State of submission. The Commission envisages that once the proposed directive is adopted by the Council, after consultation with the European Parliament, it will enter into force on 1st January 2017.

Parting words:
Undoubtedly, the EU VAT legislation is unique in many ways when compared to the VAT legislations of other countries. Success of the EU VAT regime rests largely on the effectiveness of the European Commission and co-operation of the Member States. They are indeed a fine example to emulate (various countries, having diverse political and economic interest, coming together and administering the tax laws with such a smooth and satisfactory procedure).

Our country, which has borrowed several concepts from the EU VAT legislation while designing the ‘place of supply rules’ and the ‘point of taxation rules’, etc., can also take some inspiration from the Member States and their spirit of co-operation and trust while designing Indian Goods and Services Tax system.

2015 (40) STR 881 (Guj) Riva Packaging Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Comm. of Service tax

fiogf49gjkf0d
Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court

Facts
In the present case, dispute/show cause notice (SCN) was issued in Dadra & Nagar Haveli and an order confirming demand was passed. The Appellant challenged the order by filing an appeal before CESTAT’s Ahmedabad bench. CESTAT confirmed the demand. Thereafter the appeal was preferred before the Gujarat High Court.

Held
The High Court, on noticing that the dispute/SCN related to Dadra & Nagar Haveli, held that the Gujarat High court has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter though the impugned order was passed by CESTAT ’s Ahmedabad bench. Accordingly, the Appeal was dismissed.

2015 (40) STR 833 (Sikkim) Future Gaming & Hotel Services (Pvt) Ltd vs. UOI

fiogf49gjkf0d
An explanation cannot enlarge the scope of a provision

Facts
The Appellant, a lottery distributor purchased lottery tickets from the State Government and thereafter, sold them to stockists and resellers after adding profit margin. This Court in the Appellant’s own case under the earlier provisions of law had already held that the activity of promoting, marketing, organising or in any other manner assisting in organising games of chance including lottery, was an activity falling under the expression “betting and gambling” which is in the domain of the State Legislature and the Centre had no power to tax such an activity. Post the judgement, in the Finance Act 2015, an explanation had been inserted in the definition of service to enlarge the definition as to cover the activities of lottery distributors.

Held
The High Court observed that, the principal requirement of the definition of ‘service’ is that the activity should be carried out by one person for another and such activity should be for a consideration. Since the Appellant was acting in a principal to principal relationship with the State Government buying and selling the lottery tickets and was not rendering any service to the state, the activity could not fall in the definition of ‘service’ per se. It was further held that, if an activity is not covered in the definition of ‘service’, then the same cannot be made taxable by way of an insertion of explanation, as an explanation cannot enlarge the scope of a provision. Accordingly, explanation was declared to be ultra vires and struck down.

2015 (40) STR 1066 (Del.) Alar Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi-I

fiogf49gjkf0d

Limitation period of 1 year as provided u/s. 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 would apply to refund claims of taxable services only.

Facts
Refund claim of the appellant was rejected as time-barred vide section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 without considering the appropriateness of taxability on services. Appellant claimed that it exported services and facts of the present case were identical to other three appeals heard jointly by CESTAT wherein refund was allowed.

Held
Having regard to pertinent judicial pronouncements, it was observed that only if refund claims pertain to taxable services, limitation period of 1 year would apply vide section 11B (supra). Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to decide the matter as per the terms provided by Delhi High Court in the present case.

Concept of “Gross Receipts” vis-à-vis MVA T Rules, 2005

fiogf49gjkf0d
Introduction
Under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (MVAT Act) and the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (MVAT Rules), the dealers are entitled to a set off. However, they are subject to conditions as may be prescribed in the Rules. For example, Rule 52 of MVAT Rules which prescribes eligibility to set off reads as under:

“52. Claim and grant of set-off in respect of purchases made during any period commencing on or after the appointed day.

(1) In assessing the amount of tax payable in respect of any period starting on or after the appointed day, by a registered dealer (hereinafter, in this rule, referred to as ‘the claimant dealer’) the Commissioner shall subject to the provisions of [rules 53,54,55 & 55B] in respect of the purchases of goods made by the claimant dealer on or after the appointed day, grant him a set-off of the aggregate of the following sums, that is to say,

(a) the sum collected separately from the claimant dealer by the other registered dealer by way of [tax] on the purchases made by the claimant dealer from the said registered dealer of goods being capital assets and [goods the purchases of which are debited to the profit and loss account or, as the case may be, the trading account],

(b) tax paid in respect of any entry made after the appointed day under the Maharashtra Tax on the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987, and

(c) the tax paid in respect of any entry made after the appointed day under the Maharashtra Tax on the Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2003.

(d) the purchase tax paid by the claimant dealer under this Act.”

Thus, to find out actual availability of set off reference is required to be made to Rules like Rules 53 & 54. Rule 53 prescribes reduction in set off whereas Rule 54 is about a negative list.

Rule 53(6)(b)
One of the Rules prescribing reduction in set off is rule 53(6). Rule 53(6)(b) is applicable to dealers in general. The said rule is reproduced below for ready reference.

“53. Reduction in set-off. –

(6) If out of the gross receipts of a dealer in any year, receipts on account of sale are less than fifty % of the total receipts, –

(a) …

(b) in so far as the dealer is not a hotel or restaurant, the dealer shall be entitled to claim set-off only on those purchases effected in that year where the corresponding goods are sold or resold within six months of the date of purchase or are consigned within the said period, not by way of sale to another State, to oneself or one’s agent or purchases of packing materials used for packing of such goods sold, resold or consigned:

Provided that for the purposes of clause (b), the dealer who is a manufacturer of goods not being a dealer principally engaged in doing job work or labour work shall be entitled to claim set-off on his purchases of plant and machinery which are treated as capital assets and purchases of parts, components and accessories of the said capital assets, and on purchases of consumables, stores and packing materials in respect of a period of three years from the date of effect of the certificate of registration.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-rule, “receipts” means the receipts pertaining to all activities including business activities carried out in the State but does not include the amount representing the value of the goods consigned not by way of sales to another State to oneself or one’s agent.” It can be seen that the rule provides for reduction or, in other words, restricted set off, when the receipts from sales are less than 50% of gross receipts. The Explanation under rule 53(6)(b) also provides meaning of gross receipts. There are disputes about meaning of gross receipts and how to compute it.

It can also be noted that if receipts from sales are less than 50% of gross receipts then set off is eligible only in respect of purchases which are sold within six months from the date of purchase. Therefore, the goods which are not sold like, consumed capital goods or goods which are not sold within six months are not eligible for set off.

Mutual Funds
Recently there was a controversy in relation to availability of set off to Mutual Funds. The Hon. M. S.T. Tribunal had an occasion to decide such an issue in case of UTI Mutual Fund (VAT SA 100 to 102 of 2014 dt.22.9.2015). The facts as narrated in the judgment are as under:

“The Appellant is a mutual fund registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and is regulated under the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996. UTI Gold Exchange Traded Fund (UTI GETF) is one of the schemes of the Appellant and the same is also regulated by SEBI under the SEBI MF regulations.

3. As per the SEBI MF regulations, the balance sheet and revenue accounts of each scheme are required to be prepared separately and audited separately and no consolidated balance sheet of various schemes of a Mutual Fund is prepared. Thus, each scheme has a separate entity including separate receipts, funds, assets liabilities, etc.

4. As per the MVAT provisions, VAT is applicable on the turnover of sale of goods and the definition of goods specifically excludes securities. Therefore only UTI GETF is subject to VAT and not the other schemes of the Appellant as other schemes invested in securities and not in gold.

The Appellant obtained VAT registration simultaneously with the launch of UTI GETF and not earlier despite the other schemes of the Appellant dealer being in operation much before that. Thus the Appellant is assumed the role of dealer only on the launch of UTI GETF scheme and only this scheme should be considered and not any other scheme of the Appellant.”

From the above, it can be seen that the Mutual Fund has receipts from various schemes like relating to securities, gold etc.. Over all, the sales receipts are from the sale of gold whereas there are other receipts towards securities etc.. The main issue involved was whether the gross receipts should be computed considering receipts from all the schemes or only from gold scheme separately.

The argument was that under MVAT Act, only sale of goods can be considered as receipts and not other receipts which do not involve goods like shares, securities etc..

The Hon. Tribunal has dealt with the issue in the following words:
“The Learned representative of revenue has relied on the judgment of this Tribunal reported in the case of M/s. UTI Mutual Fund (present Appellant) vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2013 (ST1) GJX 0626 STMAH wherein it is observed:-

“The set-off u/s. 48(1)(a)(ii) of MVAT Act is circumscribed with limitations. The limitations are (i) circumstances, (ii) conditions (iii) restrictions, as may be specified in the Rules. Rule 53 prescribe reduction in set-off in full or part, particularly Rule 53(6)(b) MVAT Rules prescribe restriction. Restriction is in the nature of duration of purchase and its sale. The restriction is where the receipts on account of sale are less than 50% of the total receipts, the setoff is permissible only on those purchases effected in that year where corresponding goods sold or resold within six months from the date of purchases. The “receipts” are explained in explanation. ”Receipts” means the receipts pertaining to all activities, including business activities carried out in the State.”

On the plain reading of section 48(1)(a)(ii) of MVAT Act r/w Rule 53(6)(b) and Explanation of MVAT Rules, it is clear that the receipts would include all activities of the dealer including business activities. Receipts which are concerning the activities not involving the sale of goods, are also included in “Total Receipts” in Rule 53(6) of MVAT Rules. The submission of Smt. N. R. Badheka does not have a legal base in law. Rule 53(6)(b) and explanation are within delegated powers conferred by section 48(1) of MVAT Act.”

26. The Learned Advocate Smt. Badheka has strongly contended that UTI GETF is dealing in equity and therefore only the receipts pertaining to the activity of UTI GETF ought to have been considered for grant of set off u/r. 53(6)(b) of MVAT rules. However, on going through the explanation attached to 53(6)(b), we find that the receipt means receipts pertaining to all activities including business activities carried out in the state and therefore in our considered opinion, the other activities of UTI Mutual Fund are also required to be taken into consideration while calculating the receipts for the purposes of set off as they are also business activities carried out in the State.

27. The basic rule of interpretation is laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Priyankan Sharan and Another (LIS/ SC/2008/1228) wherein it is observed:

“It is a well settled principle in law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statutes is an edict of the Legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent”.

28. It is well settled that in the matter of grant of set off or exemption, the relevant provisions are required to be construed strictly. No liberal interpretation is permissible in such matters. On going through the explanation attached to Rule 53(6(b) of MVAT Rules, it clearly appears that receipts for the purpose of said rules means the receipts pertaining to all the activities including business activities of the dealer carried out in the State. The contention of Learned Advocate Smt. Badheka that only the activities of UTI GETF should be taken into consideration for the purposes of grant of set off u/r. 53(6)(b) is thus devoid of merit and cannot be accepted.”

Conclusion
Thus the interpretation lays down that the gross receipts should be computed considering receipts from all activities in Maharashtra. It will include receipts from sale of goods as well as non sale activities also. Further, Mutual fund is considered as one entity and cannot be considered scheme wise.

The ratio laid down above will also apply to other dealers. The dealers in Maharashtra are required to consider the above interpretation while computing the setoff.

Welcome GST – Part IV VAT (GST) in the European Union (‘EU’)

fiogf49gjkf0d
Introduction
Note: The earlier write ups, under this series, covered the GST legislation in one country (comprising of several States). In comparison, the EU is unique in the sense that it comprises of several countries which have their own laws and tax legislation, but these laws conform to a common charter i.e. the EU directives.

The EU is a politico-economic union of 28 Member States that are located primarily in Europe. Presently, the following countries are members of the EU: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

The EU operates through a system of supranational institutions and intergovernmental-negotiated decisions by the Member States. The supranational institutions are: the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, and the Court of Auditors.

For the purposes of achieving a ‘single market’, the EU has developed a standardised system of laws and policies that apply in all Member States ensuring free movement of people, goods, services, and capital across Member States. The EU Value Added Tax (‘EUVAT’) is one such legislation. This tax is levied on goods and services supplied within the EU. While the EU’s supranational institutions themselves do not collect the tax, EU Member States are each required to adopt a VAT legislation that complies with the EU VAT code (read below about co-ordinated administration of value added tax within the EU).

EU VAT Area
The EU VAT area is a territory consisting of territory of all Member States of the EU and certain other countries which follow the EU rules on VAT . The principle is also valid for some special taxes on products like alcohol and tobacco. Goods are only considered as imported or exported if they enter or leave the EU area.

Authority and scope of the tax

The EU VAT system is regulated by a series of European Union directives issued by the European Council, the most important of which is the Sixth VAT Directive [Council Directive1 2006/112/EC of 28t November 2006 on the common system of value added tax]. The primary aim of the EU VAT directive is to harmonise VAT (content and implementation) within the EU VAT area. Besides this, the directive also specifies that VAT rates must be within a certain range. Some other key objectives of this directive are:

  • harmonisation of content and layout of the VAT declaration
  • regulation of accounting, providing a common legal accounting framework
  • detailed description of invoices2 and receipts3, meaning that Member States
  • have a common invoice framework
  • regulation of accounts payable
  • regulation of accounts receivable
  • standard definition of national accountancy and administrative terms.

The directive is updated from time to time, to address various issues arising from the movement of men, capital, material and services within the Member States and it includes “the place of supply of services” rules which have been in force since 1st January 2010. More recently, the directive was amended to rationalise the place of supply of services in respect of electronic services.

Co-ordinated administration of value added tax within the EU
VAT collected at each stage in the supply chain is remitted to the tax authorities of the concerned Member State and forms part of that State’s revenue. A small proportion goes to the EU in the form of a levy (‘VAT -based own resources’). Previously, in spite of the customs union, the differing VAT rates and the separate VAT administration processes resulted in a high administrative and cost burden for crossborder trade. The EU has tried to resolve this by developing the co-ordinated administration of VAT within the EU VAT area.

Key initiatives under the co-ordinated administration include:

Cross-border VAT is declared in the same way as domestic VAT , and thus, facilitates the elimination of border controls between Member States, saving costs and reducing delays. It also simplifies administrative work for freight forwarders.

‘Mini One Stop Shop’ simplification scheme (read more below) is one of the measures adopted to achieve the ‘Single market’ objective.

The value added tax principle

Output VAT: VAT on output supplies charged by a business and paid by its customers.
Input VAT: VAT that is paid by a business to other businesses on the supplies that a business receives
Input tax credit: A business is generally able to recover input VAT to the extent that the input VAT is attributable to its taxable outputs.

Input VAT is recovered by offsetting it against the output VAT for which the business is required to account to the government, or, if there is an excess, by claiming a repayment (refund) from the government. The net effect of this is that each supplier in the chain remits tax on the value added, and ultimately the tax is paid by the end consumer. The final consumer does not receive a credit for the VAT paid.

Destination based tax
Generally, VAT is charged on the ‘destination principle’ i.e. the supply of goods or services is taxed in the Member State where the goods or services are delivered commonly known as the ‘Member State of arrival’.

The mechanism for achieving this result is as follows:
The exporting Member State zero-rates the VAT. This means that the Member State of the exporting merchant does not collect VAT on the sale, but still gives the exporting merchant a credit for the VAT paid on the purchase by the exporter (in practice, this often means a cash refund).

The importing Member State ‘reverse charges’ the VAT . This means that the importer is required to pay VAT to the importing Member State at its rate. In many cases, a credit is immediately given for this as input VAT . The importer then charges VAT on resale in the normal way.

Exceptions are made to the destination based principle and are also made in case of:

supplies of goods such as: distance supply (i.e. mail order catalog sales or e-commerce supplies), supplies within EU to exempt/non-taxable legal persons and excise products (i.e. energy products, alcohol and alcoholic beverages and manufactured tobacco).

supplies of services such as: supply of transport, supply of real estate services, etc.

In such cases the tax is sometimes based on the ‘origin principle’ and collected in the State of origin, commonly known as ‘Member State of dispatch’. Supply of goods

Domestic supply
A domestic supply of goods is a taxable transaction where goods are received in exchange for consideration within one Member State. Thus, one Member State charges VAT on the goods and allows a corresponding credit upon subsequent resale of those goods.

Intra-Community acquisition
An intra-community acquisition of goods for a consideration is a taxable transaction on crossing two or more Member States. The place of supply is determined to be the destination Member State, and VAT is normally charged at the rate applicable in the destination Member State. However, there are special provisions for distance selling.

Distance sales

Distance sales treatment allows the vendor to apply domestic place of supply rules (ie., rules in the Member State of dispatch) for determining which Member State collects the VAT . This means that VAT is charged at the rate applicable in the Member State of dispatch. However, there are exceptions to this, for instance:

  • When a vendor in one Member State sells goods directly to individuals and VAT-exempt organisations in another Member State and the aggregate value of goods sold to consumers in that Member State is below the specified threshold4 in any 12 consecutive months, then such a sale of goods may qualify for a distance sales treatment.
  • supply of excisable goods to the UK (like tobacco and alcohol).

In the abovementioned cases of distance supply, where the supply of goods is made to final consumers in a Member State of arrival, the exporting vendor may be required to charge VAT at the rate applicable in the Member State of arrival. If a supplier provides a distant sales service to several EU Member States, a separate accounting of sold goods in regard to VAT calculation is required. The supplier then must seek a VAT registration (and charge applicable rate) in each such country where the volume of sales in any 12 consecutive months exceeds the local threshold.

Supply of services
A supply of services is the supply of anything that is not a goods. The general rule for determining the place of supply is the place where the supplier of the services is established (registered/incorporated), such as a fixed establishment where the service is supplied, the supplier’s permanent address, or where the supplier usually resides. VAT is then charged at the rate applicable in the Member State where the place of supply of the services is located and is collected by that Member State. This general rule for the place of supply of services (the place where the supplier is established) is subject to several exceptions. Most of the exceptions switch the place of supply to the place where the services are received. Such exceptions include the:

  • supply of transport services,
  • supply of cultural services,
  • supply of artistic services,
  • supply of sporting services,
  • supply of scientific services,
  • supply of educational services,
  • supply of ancillary transport services,
  • supply of services related to transfer pricing services,
  • and many miscellaneous services including
  • supply of legal services,
  • supply of banking and financial services,
  • supply of telecommunications,
  • supply of broadcasting,
  • electronically supplied services,
  • supply of services from engineers and accountants,
  • supply of advertising services, and
  • supply of intellectual property services.

The place of supply of services related to real estate is where the real estate is located. There are special rules for determining the place of supply of services delivered electronically. The mechanism for collecting VAT when the place of supply is not in the same Member State as the supplier is similar to that used for Intra-Community Acquisitions of goods, i.e. zero-rating by the supplier and reverse charge by the recipient of the services (if a taxable person). But if the recipient of the services is not a taxable person (i.e. a final consumer), the supplier must generally charge VAT at the rate applicable in its own Member State. If the place of supply is outside the EU, no VAT is charged.

(*It may be relevant to mention here that the current Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 which are effective from 1st July 2012 are based on the above rules)

Threshold and Registration
The threshold limits for registration are generally fixed by the Member State. The Sixth directive on EU VAT provides the threshold limit only in case of specific supplies such as distance supply, etc.

Businesses may be required to register for VAT in EU Member States, other than the one in which they are based if they supply goods via mail order to those states over a certain threshold. Businesses that are established in one Member State but receive supplies in another Member State may be able to reclaim VAT charged in the second State if they have a value added tax identification number. A similar directive, the Thirteenth VAT Directive, also allows businesses established outside the EU to recover VAT in certain circumstances.

REGISTERING FOR VA T USING MINI ONE STOP SHOP (MOSS)
To comply with the place of supply rules, businesses need to decide whether or not they want to register to use the EU VAT Mini One Stop Shop (MOSS) simplification scheme. Registration for MOSS is voluntary. If suppliers decide against the MOSS, registration will be required in each Member State where B2C supplies of e-services are made. With no minimum turnover threshold for the new EU VAT rules, VAT registration will be required regardless of the value of e-service supply in each Member State. EU MOSS registrations opened on 1st October 2014. (To be continued in the next issue of BCAJ)

Clarification w.r.t. Fabrication of Garments Service received by Apparel Exporters

fiogf49gjkf0d

Circular No. 190/9/2015-ST dated 15.12.2015

Vide this Circular, CBEC has clarified that the services received by apparel exporters from third party for job work involves a process amounting to manufacture or production of goods, and thus would fall under negative list [section 66D (f)] and hence would not attract service tax. However, CBEC has also clarified that only those job works which involve a process on which duties of excise are leviable u/s. 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would be covered under negative list in terms of Section 66D(f) read with section 65B (40) of the Finance Act, 1994 and hence applicability of service tax may be decided on case to case basis depending upon nature of agreement/contract entered into between service provider & service receiver and the service being provided.

Service Tax Payment due date extended – Tamilnadu and Puduchery

fiogf49gjkf0d

Notification Nos. 26/2015-ST dated 09.12.2015 and 27/2015-ST dated 18.12.2015 Circular No. 184/3/2015-ST dated 03.06.2015

Due date for payment of Service Tax for the month of November 2015 for all Service Tax assessees in the State of Tamil Nadu & in the Union Territory of Puducherry (except Mahe & Yanam) extended.

[2016-TIOL-374-CESTAT-DEL] M/s Umax Packaging Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur-II

fiogf49gjkf0d
In absence of any proof of evidence of any suppression, misstatement and collusion with intent to evade payment of duty invocation of longer period of limitation and penalties for normal period not justified.

Facts
Appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods availed CENVAT credit on certain disputed goods which was objected by the department and was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by invoking extended period of limitation.

Held:
The Tribunal noted that the dispute regarding eligibility of CENVAT credit of the goods had not attained finality and there were conflicting decisions on the issue and therefore the Appellant could have entertained a reasonable belief that credit was allowable. Further in absence of any evidence brought on record to prove suppression, misstatement, collusion etc. extended period cannot be invoked. The demand is confirmed for the normal period along with interest setting aside penalty.

[2016-TIOL-400-CESTAT-MUM] PrecisionMetals vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad

fiogf49gjkf0d
The goods manufactured on job work basis is exempted under notification 214/86 on the ground that the excise duty is charged on the full value of the final product including the value of job work goods, the job work goods cannot be said to be exempted goods.

Facts
The Appellant, a job worker availed CENVAT credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of goods on job work basis. Exemption of excise duty was availed under Notification No. 214/86-CE as the principal supplier had undertaken to discharge excise duty either on the job work goods or on the final product in which job work intermediate goods is used. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand @ 10% of the value of the goods manufactured for reversal of credit in terms of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on the ground that exempted goods were manufactured.

Held
The Tribunal relying upon various judicial pronouncements held that Notification No. 214/86 provides that the principal supplier of raw material undertakes to discharge excise duty either on the job work goods or on the final product in which the job work goods is used. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the job work goods are exempted from payment of excise duty. Even if any duty is charged at the job worker’s end the same shall be available as CENVAT credit to the principal supplier and only for procedural convenience, Notification was issued. Therefore, Rule 6(3)(b) which is applicable only on the clearance of exempted goods shall not apply and accordingly the demand is set aside.

[2016-TIOL-399-CESTAT-MUM] Arbes Tools P. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II

fiogf49gjkf0d
When the imported material was used for manufacturing final product, credit taken on a photocopy of courier bill of entry was allowable.

Facts
The Appellant imported inputs and utilized the same in manufacture of the final product which was cleared on payment of duty. The lower authorities denied the benefit of CENVAT credit stating that original bill of entry was not produced and photocopy of a courier bill of entry is not a valid document under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Held
The Tribunal noted that there is no dispute that the material on which credit is taken was imported and used for manufacturing the product. Therefore CENVAT credit cannot be denied on mere technical grounds and the appeal was allowed.

[2016] 65 taxmann.com 88 (Ahmedabad-CESTAT) Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Surat vs. Miranda Tools

fiogf49gjkf0d
Mobile services and courier services are entitled to CENVA T credit, since they are used in different ways in relation to manufacture of final product.

Facts
The Issue before the Hon’ble Tribunal was whether mobile services and courier services availed by the manufacturer for the period April 2008 to June 2011 would be available as input services in term of Rule 2(I) of CCR, 2004 so as to enable CENVAT credit thereof.

Held
The Tribunal concurred with the view taken by Commissioner (Appeals) and decided the matter in favour of the assessee. Commissioner (Appeals) had decided that mobile phones were provided by the company to its senior executives so that they can carry out business activities/job performance easily. The mobile services were utilised/consumed in or in relation to performance of their duties such as purchasing/procurement of inputs or capital goods or consumables, accounting of materials, manufacture of the finished goods, clearance of finished goods, export of finished goods, marketing of goods manufactured, sales promotion etc. Further, the mobile connections were also in the name of the company and hence the bills were raised by the service providers in the name of the company which paid such bills. Therefore, CENVAT credit of mobile services was allowed. As regards, courier services, it was found that assessee received courier services for dispatch of various business correspondence to the supplier/customer/branch office/ agents office etc. including sending various bills and other related documents to the head office for accounting and internal audit purposes and also for procurement of raw materials, export of the finished goods and for domestic sale and for sending samples of the finished goods to the customers. Commissioner (Appeals) therefore held that in different ways, the courier services were used in or in relation to manufacture of the final products. Therefore, CENVAT credit of courier services was also allowed.

2016] 65 taxmann.com 196 (Mumbai-CESTAT) Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II vs. MMS Maritime (India) (P.) Ltd

fiogf49gjkf0d
After 01/04/2011, CENVA T credit of “rent-acab” service is not allowed due to specific exclusion of the same from definition of input services in terms of Rule 2(I)(B) of CENVA T Credit Rules, 2002, although it is essential for providing output services, but all other services essential for providing output services are to be allowed.

Facts
The Appellant is the provider of manpower supply services to foreign clients which is export of service. It filed refund claim for unutilised CENVAT credit in respect of input services, which was used in respect of export of output services. Such services included inter-alia rent-acab services used for conveyance of employees, courier services, communication services, renting of immovable property services and short term accommodation services used in relation to training. The refund claim was rejected on the ground that such services do not qualify as input services for providing output services.

Held
The Tribunal held that any service whether it is used for providing output services or otherwise, cannot be decided in isolation but it is necessary to see what the output service is and accordingly it can be decided whether the service is input service for providing a particular output service. Having regard to nature of output service i.e. manpower supply service, it was held that, all the services mentioned above, are essential for providing output service and hence would qualify as input services and CENVAT credit of the same are allowable/refundable. However, in light of amendment to Rule 2(I)(B) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 01/04/2011, on account of specific exclusion, “rent-a-cab” services would not qualify as input services even though the same are used for conveyance of staff.

[2016-TIOL-403-CESTAT-MUM] Applied Micro Circuits India Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III

fiogf49gjkf0d
Credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering services, life insurance services after 01/04/2011 being services received for personal use of employees cannot be allowed.

Facts
CENVAT credit is denied to the Appellants on service tax charged on outdoor catering and life insurance services received after 01/04/2011 contending that after the amendment to the definition of input service, services used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee are specifically excluded and therefore credit cannot be allowed. It was argued that such services were in relation to the business activity and were included in the value of service rendered by them. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2014]-TIOL-2460-CESTAT-MUM] (digest provided in BCAJ February 2015).

Held
The Tribunal however, distinguished the decision of Hindustan Coca Cola (supra) by holding that the services of outdoor catering and life insurance are essentially for the personal use or consumption of the employees and therefore could not be allowed. It was also categorically provided that if outdoor catering services are used for an annual conference of dealers or shareholders meet etc., it would be eligible for credit since then it is not primarily for personal use of employees. Similarly, life insurance is also for the personal use of the employee as its benefit goes to the employee or his family. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

[2016-TIOL-382-CESTAT-MUM] DSP Meryll Lynch Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai

fiogf49gjkf0d
Introduction of new entry and inclusion of certain services in that entry would presuppose that there was no earlier entry covering the said services and accordingly merchant banking and advice on mergers and acquisition can be taxed only under Banking and Financial Services with effect from 16/07/2001 and are not covered under management consultancy service.

Facts
The Appellant provided various financial services viz. advisory services, retainership for providing opinions, advisory for mergers and acquisitions, merchant banking services etc. Their income included fees for these services as well as management fees earned by their subsidiary, fees for underwriting Government securities and other miscellaneous income. The department contended that all services except underwriting services are covered under “management consultancy service”. However it was argued that interalia as regards M&A services the entry of management consultancy should be interpreted in contextual manner and M&A advisory is technical and restrictive and does not relate to running of an organization. Merchant banking services are regulated under SEBI Rules and Regulations and that the services rendered were liable only from August 2001 under the category of “banking and financial services” which was brought into the service tax net from 16/07/2001. In the present case the period involved is April 2000 – December 2001.

Held
The Tribunal relying on the decision of Indian National Shipowners Association [2008-TIOL-633-HC-MUM-ST] wherein the High Court held that introduction of a new entry and inclusion of certain services in that entry would presuppose that there was no earlier entry covering the said services held that the service of banking and financial service was introduced with effect from 16/07/2001 incorporating the various entries viz. merchant banking, mergers and acquisition etc. and thus the services were not liable under management consultancy service prior to the said date. It was noted that the definition of management consultancy remained the same even after introduction of banking and financial service and thus the service was brought to tax only after introduction of the new entry. Further, it was held that the term management consultancy refers to consultancy regarding the affairs of an organisation and does not relate to activities of mergers and acquisition which is highly technical and restrictive term. Accordingly, the demand of fees received in relation to mergers and acquisition, merchant banking and retainership was set aside. As regards fees received by the subsidiary company it was held that the same related to services provided by the subsidiary which was a separate legal entity and cannot be considered as income of the Appellant merely because the income is shown in the consolidated financial statement which is a mere statutory requirement. Further, it was held that underwriting of Government securities was not taxable by virtue of Board Circular No. 126/8/2010 dated 10/08/2010. Further in relation to the miscellaneous income, it was held that the same are in the nature of adjustments of expenses/debt etc. and there is no service involved in these activities. Thus the entire demand was set aside.

[2016-TIOL-105-HC-MUM] Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Limited vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune

fiogf49gjkf0d
To determine the method of apportionment of input credit on common input services attributable to manufacturing and trading activities prior to 01.04.2011, the matter remanded to the Tribunal.

Facts
The Appellant, a manufacturer of motor vehicles also imported motor vehicles and sold them in domestic markets and therefore was a manufacturer as well as a trader. The Revenue contended that credit of service tax paid on common input services attributable to the activity of import and sale of cars viz. trading activity which is an exempted service is not available which is not contested. The question is about the true and correct method of quantifying the credit relatable to the trading activity for reversal. The Tribunal held that the method prescribed for arriving at the value of trading of goods vide clause (c) of Explanation-1 for the purpose of reversal under rule 6(3) of the CENVAT credit Rules, 2004 being the difference between sale price and cost of goods sold or 10% of the cost of goods sold, whichever is more is not retrospective in nature since the same was issued on 01/03/2011 and it came into force on 01/04/2011. Accordingly, it was held that service tax paid on common input services should be apportioned in the ratio of trading turnover to total turnover (trading as well as manufacturing turnover). Aggrieved by the same the present appeal is filed.

Held
The High Court held that the Tribunal has misdirected itself completely when it has concluded that clause (c) of Explanation 1 inserted w.e.f. 01/04/2011 has been adopted to encourage the trading of the goods rather than the manufacturing of the goods (otherwise criterion should have been same viz. Based upon turnover or value addition) and thus the common input services before such date should be apportioned in the same ratio as the turnover of manufactured and traded cars. The court held that firstly the Tribunal should refer to the substantive Rule as operative prior to 01/04/2011 and then arrive at a conclusion in relation to the explanation introduced with sub-clauses with effect from 01/04/2011. Accordingly for determination of the fraction/percentage to be applied to apportion the input credit relatable to the trading activity, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal.

M/s. Southern Refineries Ltd. vs. State of Kerala and others, [2013] 64 VST 25 (Ker)

fiogf49gjkf0d
Sales Tax – Scheme of Rehabilitation – Directing State to Grant Exemption From Payment of Tax- State not Granting It – Dealer Relying on Scheme and Not Collecting Tax – State Directed to Consider the Matter for Exemption, The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

FACTS
The appellant company, a Medium Scale Industries fell sick due to initial problems, could not avail one third of the sales tax exemption limit. BIFR declared the company sick and approved the rehabilitation scheme which provided for specific relief to the company in the form of sales tax exemption and concessional rate of CST.

This was circulated to all concerned. Accordingly the company had claimed exemption from payment of tax and not collected any tax. At the same time, CST was paid at concessional rate of 2%. The company approached the Government to extend the exemption of KGST and concessional rate of CST till March, 31, 2005 as contemplated in the Sanctioned Scheme. However, the tax department issued pre-assessment notices and demanded tax without extending the benefits of exemption under SRO as also the concessional rate of CST at the rate of two per cent. The company filed writ petition before the Kerala High Court to quash the order passed by the Government, as well as, notices and also soughtfor the benefit of exemption and concessions as per sactioned scheme by the BIFR.

HELD
In the present case, the respondent State participated in the proceedings before the BIFR. Taking note of the reluctance by the sales tax authorities to extend the relief envisaged by the sanctioned scheme, BIFR, issued revised directions u/s. 22A of the Act. The State did not prefer any appeal u/s. 25 of the Act. If order and notices allowed to stand, the same would put things out of gear and the entire efforts taken so far by the BIFR for reviving the appellant company from sickness would terribly be watered down, The burden is heavily on the Government to establish that it would be inequitable to hold the Government bound by the promise on account of public interest. The State was unable to establish overriding public interest which made it inequitable to enforce the estopple against them.

The High Court upheld the plea of promissory estoppels raised by the appellant company. The High Court allowed the appeal and order as well as notices were quashed and directed the respondent State to reconsider the matter and guided by the directions in Sanctioned Scheme by BIFR.

State of Kerala vs. Balsara Hygiene Products [2013] 63 VST 535 (Ker) Sales Tax “Odonil” – Room /Cup Board Freshener Not Taxable As “Shampoo Talcum Powder, Perfumeries and Cosmetics” or As “Repellent”- Taxable Under Residuary Entry.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Sales Tax – Second Sale by Holder of TradeMark – Not a Resale – Taxable as First Sale, Section 5(2) and Entry 85 and 127 of Schedule I of The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.

FACTS
The Company engaged in sale of consumer products like toothpaste, Moth repellants, etc. within the State and also holder/owner of trademark claimed second sale in respect of sale of its products like “Promise” “Meswak” “Odonil” etc. being purchased from registered dealer. The company paid tax @8% on sale of “Odonil” moth repellant under entry 85 of Schedule I the Act. The assessing authority disallowed the claim of resale u/s. 5(2) of The Act being sale of goods by trade mark Holder/Owner and levied tax thereon.

Further, the assessing authority levied tax @20% on sale of “Odonil” as the same is an “Air Freshener” would be classified as “perfumery” coming within entry 127 of the schedule I of the Act.

The Tribunal held in favour of the company for levy of tax @8% on sale of “Odonil”. The Tribunal also allowed the claim of resale of the assessee company. The State filed appeal before the Kerala High Court against the said decision of Tribunal.

HELD
The entry 127 of Schedule I covers goods like “shampoo”, “Talcum Powder” etc. The item so specifically mentioned are all relating to items which are used on the human body for beautification, grooming and having cosmetic qualities or properties. By including the specific items, the expansions to include other perfumeries and cosmetics would also be restricted to such items which would answer the description of the specific items mentioned in the entry. The principle of “ejusdemgeneris” would compel to understand the meaning of a word from the meaning of the works employed together with it. The product “Odonil” which is admittedly a room/ cup-board fresher cannot be brought under the description of perfumery in entry 127. As regards claim of the company for levy of tax at 8% under entry 85 of Schedule-I, as “Mosquito Repellents”, the court held that the predominant function is not descernible from the records. The wrapper of products indicates that it is an air freshener and also a moth repellant. The fragrance provided is projected as masking the bad odour of chemical and also avoiding bad odour in rooms /covered space. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the dominant use of the product is that of a moth repellant and the same would fall under residuary entry of schedule I of The Act. Accordingly, the High Court held it covered by residuary entry of the Schedule I of the Act.

In respect of the second issue of claim of resale, the High Court held that u/s. 5(2) of the Act sale of goods under a trademark or name, by the brand name holder or trademark holder within the State shall be the first sale for the purpose of this Act. In this case, the company is a trademark/brand name holder of certain products more specifically tooth paste and toothbrush sold in the trade name “Promise” and “Meswak”. The company had purchased the said goods from M/s. Besta Cosmetics Limited who manufactured said goods under grant of license by the assessee company to manufacture under the said trade name. Section 5(2) of the act is an anti evasion measure and it contemplates the liability to be at that point of sale in case sale of manufactured goods other that tea, within the State:-

i) Made under a trademark or brand name,
ii) By a trademark / brand name holder

The sale hence would be not only by a trademark / brand name holder, but it should also be under trademark / brand name. The first sale by the manufacturer to the assessee company is of course sale by a trademark/brand name holder but, not a sale under trademark/brand name. Hence the second sale effected by the assessee company being again a sale by a trade mark / brand name holder and also a sale under trademark / brand name, is liable to tax u/s. 5(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the order of Tribunal allowing the claim of resale of the assessee company was set aside and the order of first appellate authority levying tax was confirmed.

2016 (41) STR 191 (Tri.-Ahmd.) Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Surat –II.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Commission paid to distributors for selling goods does not amount to sales promotion. Therefore, CENVA T credit was held inadmissible.

Facts
Adjudicating authority disallowed CENVAT credit on commission charges paid to the distributors/consignment stockist following Hon’ble Gujarat High Court’s decision in Cadila Healthcare Limited 2013 (30) STR 3 (Guj). It was contested that the case was factually different as the agreement was not only for sale of the products but it also included sales promotion activities. Department contested on the ground that the contract did not provide for any monetary consideration for the sales promotion activity and therefore, the entire consideration was held to be for sale of goods based on the value of the goods sold.

Held
After analysing the agreement, the Tribunal observed that sales promotion activity was not required to be carried out by distributors on behalf of the appellant. Even though display photographs, brochures and sales promotion material were provided, no consideration was towards such activity. Relying upon jurisdictional High Court’s decision in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (supra), it was held that activities undertaken by the distributors of the appellant were purely distribution/ sales and had no element of sales promotion and hence, CENVAT credit was held inadmissible. However, since it was a debatable issue, penalty was set aside.

2016 (41) STR 123 (Tri-Chennai) SRF Ltd vs. CCEx., Trichy

fiogf49gjkf0d
Penalty u/s. 77 cannot be imposed on the ground of non-endorsement of new service in registration certificate.

Facts
The Appellant was registered under category of GTA as a receiver of service for payment of service tax and was paying tax under that category. Subsequently, it has received BAS services from abroad and accordingly discharged service tax under BAS. However penalty u/s. 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 was imposed for not amending its registration certificate which is challenged before the Tribunal.

Held
The Appellant was a registered assessee and there was no default in payment of tax under the new category though endorsement was not done at that point of time. Since there was no deliberate default to evade the tax, penalty was waived.

[2016] 65 taxmann.com 282 (Mumbai-CESTAT) Lupin Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Mumbai

fiogf49gjkf0d
Even if exemption to education cess or secondary & higher secondary education cess are not specifically mentioned in notification, they are also eligible for exemption/refund in addition to basic excise duty.

Facts
Refund of Education Cess (EC) and Secondary & Higher Education Cess (SHEC) paid in cash claimed under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14/11/2012 (area based exemption) was denied to the appellant on the ground that said notification exempts only basic excise duty. Appellant’s plea that its issue was squarely covered by Bharat Box Factory Ltd. vs. CCE 2007 (214) ELT 534 which was initially rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that revenue has filed SLP in Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Held
The Tribunal held that since revenue could not obtain stay from Hon’ble Supreme Court and status of case is still shown as pending, mere filing of SLP should not result in denial of applying the ratio of a case which is in favour of appellant. In Bharat Box Factory Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal had held that when for operationalizing exemption, exempted amount of duty is required to be refunded, there was no question of levying education cess and hence it is also required to be refunded. Following the same, it was held that appellant should be entitled to refund of EC & SHEC paid on clearances of goods under Notification No. 56/2002-CE. Decision of Cyrus Surfactants (P.) Ltd. vs. CCE 2007 taxmann.com 806 (New Delhi – CESTAT) was also relied upon.

[2016] 65 taxmann.com 128 (Ahmedabad-CESTAT) Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad- II vs. Nova Petrochemicals Ltd.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Recovery under Rule 14 of CENVA T credit Rules cannot be initiated merely because instead of making transfer through ST-3 return, manufacturer-cum-service provider assessee availed input service tax credit directly in ER-1 return.

Facts
The Assessee, a manufacturer availed service tax credit which was utilised for making payment of excise duty. The credit was directly claimed in ER-1 return without reflecting the same in ST-3. Department issued SCN for recovery of alleged wrong utilisation of CENVAT credit by invoking Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules read with proviso to section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and confirmed by adjudication. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the matter in favour of assessee, relying upon verification report of the department where the credits taken were verified and found in order. Aggrieved by the same, the department filed appeal before the Tribunal.

Held
The Tribunal observed that assessee was required to enter the credit of said amount in relevant ST-3 return and put a remark of transfer of the said credit in the ER-1 return utilised for payment of excise duty. Instead, input service tax credit was debited from the CENVAT account register and utilised in ER-1 return and it was not reflected in ST-3 return. However, it was noted that amount taken and utilised in ER-1 return of the respective month was deducted from total credit balance and only the balance amount was shown in respective column of ST-3 return and therefore the department’s appeal was dismissed.

[2015-TIOL-07-ARA-ST] M/s Emerald Leisures Limited

fiogf49gjkf0d
Post 01/07/2012, the relationship between club and members should be
considered as provision of service by one person to another. Further
refundable security deposit and notional interest thereon cannot be
exigible to service tax.

Facts
The Applicant is a
resident public limited company engaged in establishing and running an
indoor sports complex and club and proposes membership from prospective
members. A refundable interest free security deposit was proposed to be
collected from the members in a range depending upon the category of
membership. Further the Applicant has shareholders and dividends are
distributed to them.

The issue raised before the Authority is in
relation to whether the relationship between the Applicant and members
of the club could be considered as service by one to another for the
purpose of section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994, accordingly whether
the membership fee, annual fee received from the members be liable for
service tax or will be excluded on the principles of mutuality and
whether refundable security deposit would be exigible to service tax.
The Applicant relied upon various High Court decisions in relation to
clubs and associations holding that principle of mutuality is applicable
and no service tax is leviable. The Revenue submitted that by virtue of
Explanation 3 to the definition of service, an unincorporated
association and the member shall be treated as distinct persons. It was
also argued that the applicant has a profit motive considering their
objects and the fact that dividends are distributed to the members and
thus is purely a business activity and not in the nature of a
conventional members’ club. Therefore, the principles of mutuality have
no relevance.

Held
It was argued by the Applicant
that there is no ‘activity’ undertaken by the Applicant for the members
and there is complete absence of identity between the contributors and
the beneficiaries being one and the same. The Authority observed that
the Applicant carries out the club as business and has shareholders, who
may not be members of the club. Thus the prime objective being profit
motive, the principles of mutuality would not apply. However, in
relation to the second issue, the Authority observed that the security
deposit is towards various facilities and amenities in the club and not
for any services rendered. Moreover it is not in the nature of
consideration as the same would be refunded to members. Further notional
interest on refundable security deposit will also not be liable for
service tax as section 67(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 provides that
service tax is chargeable with reference to value which is the gross
amount charged for the services provided or to be provided. Thus since
the notional interest is not a charge by the Applicant there is no
service. Moreover, it was also stated that the Revenue has not been able
to establish that the notional interest has led to depression or
reduction in value of taxable service.

[2015-TIOL-2315-CESTAT-MUM] M/s Chiplun Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur

fiogf49gjkf0d
Services provided by a co-operative society lub to its own members is not chargeable to service tax.

Facts
The Appellant is a Co-operative Society of members and is engaged in accepting deposits from their members and distributing the said amounts as loan to its own members and is not extending loans to outsiders. In order to process loan applications certain charges are levied from the members incurred for stationery and other expenses. The department contended that these charges are collected in the course of rendering services under the category of Banking and Other Financial services.

Held
The Tribunal, in order to determine the ratio of tax liability on the members of a society relied on the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Green Environment Services Co-op. Soc. Ltd. [2015 (37) STR 961 (Guj.)] wherein the Court declared “Club and Association” service ultravires to the extent the services are provided by the Club to its members. Accordingly, applying the said ratio the order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

[2015-TIOL-2691-CESTAT-MUM] D S Chavan Engineering Works vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nasik

fiogf49gjkf0d
The scope of work order indicating a specific job to be undertaken by the Appellant cannot be considered as a supply of manpower.

Facts
The Appellant had contract on a firm rate basis for welding and gas cutting on various locations of NTPC. The department contended that the control is exercised by NTPC and welding machine, electricity and gas required was given by them and the Appellant was required to supply manpower and accordingly liable under “Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service”. Further, a demand was also raised on the cleaning services.

Held
Relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise & Service Tax vs. Godavari Khore Cane Transport Company P. Ltd [2015-TIOL-253-HC-MUM-ST], the Tribunal held that work order does not indicate supply only of the manpower, on the contrary, scope of work indicates a specific job of welding and gas cutting to be done. Accordingly the liability under ‘Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency” is set aside. As regards cleaning services, without contesting service tax along with interest was discharged. Observing a genuine misunderstanding, the Court dropped the penalty by invoking section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

[2015] 63 taxmann.com 231 (New Delhi- CESTAT) Rohan Motors vs. Commissioner Service Tax

fiogf49gjkf0d
If penalty is imposed u/s. 77(1)(c)(ii) of the Finance Act, 1994 for failure to produce documents called for, the Department has to state specifically which document was called from the appellant.

Facts
Based on information from CERA Auditors, the Range Superintendent issued 5 letters/summons to the assessee, to submit the requisite information. Since no information was submitted the Show cause notice was issued to assessee, inter alia for imposition of penalty u/s. 77(1) of the Act for failure to furnish information/ documents. The assessee, on the other hand contended that, the department asked for repetitive information and that requisite details called for were provided by it, hence penalty u/s. 77 cannot be levied.

Held
The Tribunal noted that as per the adjudicating authority the appellant failed to respond to letters and submit desired information and therefore penalty was imposed u/s. 77(1)(c) of the Act; whereas the first appellate authority found that though information was supplied vide reply letters, it failed to submit documents and thus confirmed the penalty. Based on these contrary observations, the Tribunal expressed a view that the department itself is not sure whether the appellant is guilty of failure to furnish information or failure to produce documents. It held that, if penalty is imposed u/s. 77(1)(c)(ii), the Department has to state specifically which document was called from the appellant. The show cause notice does not specify the document that was called for. Imposition of penalty being in the nature of punishment, it cannot be imposed on flimsy and shaky evidence. It was further observed that, it is not a case where the department was obstructed from conducting a search or that a specific document was withheld resulting in particular revenue implication. Accordingly, it held that, though the appellant failed to reply to few letters, the explanation for failure that the appellant was under bona fide belief that necessary information was given cannot be rejected in toto and therefore imposition of penalty is not justified.

[2015] 63 taxmann.com 20 (Mumbai – CESTAT) Hiranandani Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I

fiogf49gjkf0d

Maintenance Charges collected by builders from prospective buyers for payment of local taxes and other charges would not attract service tax.

Facts
The adjudicating authority held that the maintenance charges recovered from the prospective flat buyers towards management, maintenance or repair service are liable for service tax.

Held

Relying upon decision of Tribunal in the case of Kumar Beheray Rathi vs. CCE [2013-TIOL-1806-CESTAT-MUM] and Goel Nitron Constructions vs. CCE [2015-TIOL-1787- CESTAT-MUM], it was held that no service tax liability arises on the appellant under the category ‘Management, Maintenance or Repair Service’ for the amounts collected by them from the prospective flat owners.

2015 (40) STR 509 (Tri. –Bang.) Kakinada Seaports Ltd. vs. C.C.E., S.T, & Cus., Visakhapatanam- II

fiogf49gjkf0d
Order cannot be set aside only on the grounds that the provision is not quoted properly in SCN specifically if the assessee is aware of the provisions of law. Service Tax cannot be demanded from service receiver under RCM if service provider has already discharged the same. CENVAT credit availed on the basis of Challan of service provider may be eligible document for availment of CENVAT Credit if it contains all the requisite details. CENAVT credit cannot be denied on the ground that service provider was eligible for exemption.

Facts
The appellant engaged in providing “other port services” in Kakinada Port were issued Show cause notice (SCN) for the period post negative list of services under Reverse charge mechanism (RCM) for business support services and also with respect to CENVAT credit availed on certain input services. It was contested that during the period under consideration, definition of Business Support Services had to be referred u/s. 65B as against section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 as provided in SCN. Though there was nothing regarding introduction of negative list of services in SCNs and orders, there was no mention that section 65 ceased to have effect. Since RCM was introduced recently on such services, due to ignorance, service tax was already discharged by service provider in routine manner. Therefore, tax cannot be demanded twice on same transaction. Further CENVAT credit availed on the basis of acknowledgment of service provider was disallowed by department. However, the appellant contended that they had availed CENVAT credit on the basis of challan of service provider which must be considered to be valid document for availing CENVAT Credit. Further, CENVAT credit was denied on certain input services and capital goods were contested by the appellant. CENVAT credit was also denied on the ground that input services were eligible for exemption.

Held
The services were covered under business support services either before or after negative list. Even though specific provision were not quoted, the entire demand cannot be set aside especially in view of the fact that RCM and introduction of negative list were mentioned in SCNs and orders. In the scenario of self-assessment, the assessee would be aware of classification and the fact that the assessee contended that section 65 ceased to be in effect, reveals that the assessee was not prejudiced due to omission of section in SCN. Further since service provider had already discharged service tax, even though not liable, demand of service tax cannot be sustained on service receiver. In this case, as a remedy, penalty may be imposed for contravention of law but no penalties may be imposed for non-payment of service tax. It was held that CENVAT Credit was available on the basis of challan (containing all requisite details) under RCM and therefore, it was considered to be sufficient document for availment of CENVAT credit. CENVAT Credit was also allowed on health services, insurance services, Rent-a-cab services, works contract services in relation to erection and installation activity. It was also held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied on the ground that service provider was eligible for exemption.

2015 (40) STR 519 (Tri.-Del.) Mannat Farms vs. CCE & ST, Ghaziabad

fiogf49gjkf0d
The discretion to condone delay is not a personal discretion of the Appellate Commissioner but is discretion of law and should be exercised appropriately as law requires.

Facts
The appellant preferred an appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay of 29 days beyond the period of limitation. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) is granted discretionary powers to condone delay upto 30 days, the appellant pleaded to admit the appeal citing the reason that his wife was ill and provided medical certificate to this effect. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal observing that the wife of appellant had no specific role to play in day-to-day affairs of the firm and nothing was brought on record to show that illness of wife had affected the business of the firm.

Held
Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, condonation of delay should be liberally considered. The discretion to condone delay is not a personal discretion of the Commissioner and the same should be exercised properly as dictates of law require. It was perverse for the Appellate commissioner to hold that care of a spouse and need to attend to her was not a relevant criterion. Accordingly, order was set aside.

2015 (40) STR 547(Tri. –Delhi) Coca Cola (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Delhi

fiogf49gjkf0d
Best judgment order not sustainable if it is non-speaking, does not disclose reasons and is arbitrary.

Facts
The
adjudicating authorities confirmed demand of service tax on certain
foreign expenditure under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) and also on
certain incomes to be in the form of services liable to service tax.

A
‘Best Judgment Order’ was passed on the basis of documents submitted
vide section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994. Also certain expenses like
renting of immovable property and supply of movable property for use in
India were wrongly construed as income. Further share in the expenses
relating to marketing support were treated as income. On perusal of the
records and correspondence, it appeared that adjudicating authority had
just reproduced the facts and the definitions as given under law and no
speaking order was passed citing reasons for such best judgement
assessment without providing explanations.

Held
Adjudicating
authority merely reproduced assessee’s submissions and there were
hardly any reasons to justify demand. After analysing various paragraphs
of the impugned order which were either a reproduction or irrelevant,
the Tribunal observed that the analysis therein was cryptic and
inadequate to arrive at the findings. The order was completely
non-speaking about the methodology/reasons/grounds adopted for arriving
at ‘Best Judgment’ figures.

In fact, the authority was not even
sure whether it was justified to invoke best judgment assessment in the
present case which was evident from the phrase used in impugned order as
‘In order to safeguard the revenue, I find that section 73 appears to
be inviolable…”This was an arbitrary best judgment assessment and
therefore, was not sustainable quasi-judicially. Appreciating the
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M. L. Capoor
(AIR 1974 SC 87), it was held that the adjudicating authority was
conspicuously non-speaking, non-reasoned, arbitrary and cavalier while
passing the impugned order. Accordingly, along with setting aside the
impugned order, costs were imposed on adjudicating authority to be
deposited in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund.

2015 (40) STR 537 (Tri. – Mum.) Osho International Foundation vs. CCE, Pune

fiogf49gjkf0d

In case there is a change in the view of CBEC regarding taxability, the same shall be applicable from the date when such change took place and was informed to the assessee.

Facts
The appellants provided services relating to meditation, yoga and massage. The department contested the same to be “health and fitness services”. It was contended that the activities of meditation were spiritual in nature. Therefore, the same is not liable to service tax. In 2003, Chief Commissioner, Pune informed CBEC’s view to the appellants that the activities of meditation and yoga would not be taxable. Thereafter, CBEC, on request for clarification by Commissioner, Pune, informed that Service tax was leviable on the said activity. Therefore, even if services are adjudged taxable, tax shall be payable only from the day there is a change in view of the department. However, since the definition of health and fitness centre included meditation specifically, department strongly submitted that the activities were taxable.

Held

Though, the activities of Yoga and Meditation were taxable, since there was a change in view of the highest body of indirect taxes, the same would be applicable only from the date when the change of view took place and informed to the assessee. Therefore, the demand prior to such clarification was set aside.

2015 (40) STR 560 (Tri.–Mum.) Kunal IT Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-III

fiogf49gjkf0d
The franchisee may be liable to pay service tax only on the amount paid to him by the franchisor provided the total amount is first received by the franchisor.

Facts
The appellants took-up franchise and provided Commercial Coaching and Training Services. The course fees were collected and deposited in the accounts of Franchisor. Service tax was paid on 80% of fees received from the franchisor. Revenue authorities demanded service tax on full amount of the fees received. It was argued that the amount collected and deposited to Franchisor’s account was not in the nature of consideration. In contrast, Department was of the view that the fees received and was ‘gross amount received’ for provision of services.

Held
Appellant were service provider and students were service receiver. Having regard to section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, it was observed that the gross value charged for provision of services was only 80% of the fees in view of the peculiar fact that the cheques issued by students were directly drawn in the name of Franchisor. Accordingly, appeal stood allowed.

2015 (40) STR 608 (Tri. –Del.) Tanay Landcon India Pvt Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Jaipur

fiogf49gjkf0d
Adjudicating authorities should pass the orders only after considering evidences on record. In case of doubt regarding facts of the case, adjudicating authorities should resort to means to gather the correct facts of the case as against passing order without any basis. It is a misconception that the burden of proof is on assessee in case of allegation by department.

Facts
Show Cause Notice was issued proposing recovery of irregular availment of CENVAT Credit in violation of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for failure to maintain separate accounts of CENVAT credit on common inputs used for taxable as well as exempted services. It was submitted that it had only availed credit of inputs and input services used for providing taxable services. Further, Show cause notice (SCN) failed to reveal any basis for the allegation of irregular availment of CENVAT credit. The adjudicating authority completely disregarded the submissions and observed that it is not the duty of the Department to establish that the appellant have not maintained separate records.

Held
The Tribunal held that the adjudication order jumped to the conclusion of irregular availment of Cenvat credit without substantiating it by any material evidence or analysis. Even when the contention was not accepted, the adjudication order mentioned that the appellant did not dispute availment of CENVAT credit on common inputs and input services. In case of doubt by revenue authorities, it ought to have summoned the appellants’ records or should have verified from their premises whether the they had correctly pleaded to have maintained separate records or not. If no summons were issued and there was a failure to inspect records, conclusion regarding non-maintenance of separate accounts was without any basis. It was also held that It is a misconception that the burden of proof is on assessee in case of allegation by department. In the present case, in absence of clear findings regarding non-maintenance of separate accounts by the appellants without any evidence, the inference of failure to maintain separate records is perverse. In order to enable the adjudicating authority to pursue judicial discipline in recording adjudication orders and eschew perversity in adjudication functions, matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication on the basis of observations made in this order.

[2016] 65 taxmann.com 130 (Ahmedabad-CESTAT) Sunflag Filaments Industries vs. Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi

fiogf49gjkf0d
Where exemption is granted subject to nonavailment/ non-utilisation of CENVA T credit, utilisation of CENVA T credit which was to lapse in terms of Rule 11(3) of CENVA T Credit Rules would not result in denial of exemption, but would only result in action under Rules 14 & 15.

Facts
The Appellant opted for Exemption Notification No. 30/2004-CE for duty free clearances of their finished product on 01/08/2005 which was on the condition of nonavailment of CENVAT credit of duty on inputs or capital goods. Therefore, credit on inputs available in stock on that date was reversed and duty was paid on clearance of finished goods in stock on 01/08/2005. However, they also had excess credit in CENVAT account which pertained to the credit of duty on inputs which were already utilised in the manufacture of the finished goods which were cleared on payment of duty before the said date. In the absence of any clarification regarding treatment for such excess, the same was not reversed.

Subsequently, Rule 11(3) of CENVAT credit Rules, 2004 was inserted from 01/03/2007 providing lapsing of such excess CENVAT credit available on date of opting exemption notification. The Appellant did not allow such credit lying in their account as on 01/03/2007 to lapse and utilised portion of it for payment of duty for some other purposes. The Adjudicating authority held that because of this utilisation of excess credit as on 01/03/2007, the benefit of exemption notification was not available.

Held
The Tribunal observed that the Appellant fulfilled the conditions of the notification on the date of their opting for the same and thereafter. However, the only lapse was that they had not expunged the excess credit they had in their account when Rule 11(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 was introduced on a subsequent date. In such circumstances violation of Rule 11(3) should invite necessary action under Rules 14 & 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 only and cannot be extended to the extent of denying the benefit of the substantial notification for that mere reason.

[2016-TIOL-1104-CESTAT-MUM] Benzy Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I

fiogf49gjkf0d
The provisions of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to every case of refund irrespective of the fact that the payment is made without authority of law.
Facts

The Appellant wrongly paid service tax and made an application for refund. The refund claim was rejected stating that it was filed beyond one year from the relevant date as provided under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was argued that the payment made was without authority of law and therefore was not barred by limitation.

Held

The Tribunal noted that in every case of refund the amount is refundable only where it is not payable, accordingly the section will not apply for the reason that it is neither service tax nor excise duty. If this is accepted then section 11B will stand redundant. Therefore it was held that when payment is made under a particular head such as service tax, excise duty etc. the subsequent refund of the amount not payable should be treated as refund of service tax / duty only and therefore the time limitation provided under section 11B shall apply.

Note: (Readers may note that the decision has distinguished the decision of Geojit BNP Paribas Financial Services Ltd [2015-TIOL-1602-HC-KERALA-ST] reported in August-2015 issue of BCAJ, decision of Madhvi Procon P. Ltd [2015-TIOL- 87-CESTAT-AHM, Jyotsana D.Patel [2014-52 taxmann.com 255 (Mumbai-CESTAT )] referred to in February 2015 issue of BCAJ).

[2015] 60 taxmann.com 203 (New Delhi CESTAT) – CCE, Chandigarh vs. A.S. Financial

fiogf49gjkf0d
Marketing services provided to a Bank using their publicity material
cannot be regarded as service provided under brand name/trade name of
Bank – Benefit of small scale service provider’s exemption available.

Facts:
Assessee
in terms of agreement with ICICI Bank was providing service of
promotion and marketing. Threshold exemption was claimed for commission
received for said services. Department denied exemption on the ground
that assessee was acting as the franchisee of ICICI and was providing
services under their brand/trademark and hence was not eligible for
threshold exemption under notification no. 6/2005-ST.

Held:
The
Tribunal held that just promoting products of the Bank by using their
publicity materials or displaying banners showing “franchise of ICICI”
would not mean that assessee was providing business auxiliary services
to the Bank, under the brand of ICICI. Services provided by the assessee
are business auxiliary services and the services provided by the Bank
are banking and financial services and assessee is not the franchisee of
the Bank as it is not providing financial services by using business
model or the trade name of the Bank. It is not the case where assessee
was paying some amount to the Bank for using its brand name or trade
name. On the contrary, it is the Bank which is paying to the assessee
for providing the marketing services. Hence, benefit of threshold
exemption is available.

levitra

2015 (39) STR 612 (Tri.-Bang.) Embitel Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Bangalore

fiogf49gjkf0d
Refund of CENVAT credit for want of registration at the time of exports and availment of CENVAT credit cannot be rejected. Subsequent registration shall also be considered sufficient compliance for refund of CENVAT credit.

Facts:
The Appellants claimed refund of accumulated CENVAT credit used for export of services. Refund claim was rejected on the premise that during the period of availment of CENVAT credit and making exports, the Appellants were not registered. It was contended that the issue is no longer res integra and it was squarely covered in case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Bangalore 2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar.). The Department claimed that the said decision was not applicable to the facts of the case since the notification in the present case specifically requires export to be made from the registered premises. The Department placed reliance on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in case of CCE, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal 2010 (260) ELT 3 (SC) wherein it was held that conditions of notification should be strictly followed and there cannot be any differentiation between substantive conditions and procedural conditions.

Held:
Para 3 of the said notification was related to submission of application and the reference to registered premises was for the limited purpose of determining where the refund claim shall be filed. There is no bar or prohibition in the law for making exports from unregistered premises. Relying on the decision of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal observed that there is no condition of registration for availment of CENVAT credit in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In fact, it is a settled law that an assessee is entitled to CENVAT credit even in cases of clandestine removal and during unregistered period. Once CENVAT credit is admissible and the same cannot be utilised and when the rule provides for refund, such refund cannot be rejected. In any case, subsequent registration, of the premises from where exports took place, is also enough. The decision in Hari Chand Shri Gopal (supra) was not applicable in the present case since there was no condition in the Notification which required the assessee to register the premises. Accordingly, refund claim was allowed. However, the matter was remanded to original authority for verification of the correctness of the amount claimed.

levitra

Canteen services are eligible input service for availment of CENVAT credit even if there is no statutory requirement of provision of food to workers in the factory

fiogf49gjkf0d
41. 2015 (40) STR 265 (Tri. – Del.) Paramount Communication Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur-I.

Canteen services are eligible input service for availment of CENVAT credit even if there is no statutory requirement of provision of food to workers in the factory

Facts

CENVAT credit on outdoor catering services relating to provision of food to less than 250 factory employees is disallowed. The Larger Bench’s decision in the case of CCE vs. GTC Industries Ltd. 2008 (12) STR 468 (Tri.-LB) is not followed on the ground that the assessee was not under a statutory obligation (more than 250 workers) to provide canteen services and therefore, CENVAT credit is denied.

Held

On perusal of the Larger Bench decision in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. (supra), the following points were observed: Though the number of workers was one of the criteria for eligibility of CENVAT credit, distinction cannot be made on the basis of reasoning adopted by the Larger Bench. What has to be seen is the ratio of law and if it is applicable, CENVAT credit is allowable. In the said case, outdoor catering service is held to be eligible input service irrespective of the fact that subsidised food was provided or not or whether the cost of the food was given by the worker or by the factory. Following the decision in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. (supra) and also Karnataka High Court’s decisions in the case of CCE, Bangalore vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. 2011 (23) STR 444 (Kar) and CCE vs. ACE Designers Ltd. (Kar) 2012 (26) STR 193 (Kar) and appellant’s own case Paramount Communication Ltd. vs. CCE 2013 (287) ELT 70 (Tri.- Del.), the appeal is allowed.

Waiver from penalty u/s. 80 shall be available if levy on service was subject to dispute and retrospective amendments are made to the provisions of law.

fiogf49gjkf0d
40. 2015 (40) STR 280 (Tri.–Ahmd.) Sethi Tools Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE. CUS & ST. Vadodara-II.

Waiver from penalty u/s. 80 shall be available if levy on service was subject to dispute and retrospective amendments are made to the provisions of law.

Facts

Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 prescribed nonlevy of penalty for failure to pay service tax payable on renting of immovable property as on 6th March, 2012 subject to payment of tax and interest within 6 months from enactment of Finance Bill, 2012. The appellant paid service tax belatedly but before introduction of the said section 80(2). Penalty was imposed as section 80(2) was not in existence during the period under consideration. The Appellant relied on the case Camex Reality Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Ahmedabad 2014 (36) STR 444 (Tri.-Ahmd), and prayed for waiver of penalty.

Held

Assessee who had already paid taxes before introduction of section 80 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be put to a disadvantage vis-à-vis taxpayer making delayed payment on the same service at a later date. In any case, chargeability of such service was in dispute. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause for non-payment of tax which shall get covered u/s. 80 even before introduction of section 80(2) of the Act.

Intention of Rule 6(1A) of STR is to grant adjustment of excess service tax paid in advance towards forthcoming tax liability. Non furnishing of intimation for advance payment is merely a procedural lapse and denial of adjustment on this ground is not justified.

fiogf49gjkf0d
39. 2015 (40) STR 247 (Tri. –Mumbai) Garima Associates vs. CC & CE, Chandrapur.

Intention of Rule 6(1A) of STR is to grant adjustment of excess service tax paid in advance towards forthcoming tax liability. Non furnishing of intimation for advance payment is merely a procedural lapse and denial of adjustment on this ground is not justified.

Facts

Rule 6(4A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 as it stood then allowed adjustment for excess payment of service tax upto Rs.1,00,000/-. The appellant submitted that it was a case of advance payment of service tax covered under Rule 6(1A) of the said Rules wherein no such limit was prescribed. However, the department argued that it is covered under Rule 6(4A) of the said Rules as it was reflected so in the ST-3 return and therefore, due to procedural lapse of not furnishing requisite intimation within 15 days to jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise, the adjustment is denied.

Held

Excess payment is nothing but advance payment. Such excess payment and adjustment thereof is reflected in service tax returns. On scrutiny of the returns, these facts were evident. Therefore, it can be said that the appellant complied with the conditions prescribed under Rule 6(1A) of the Service Tax Rules though not scrupulously. Mere non-observance of procedure cannot be the sole reason for denial of adjustment. Intention of Rule 6(1A) is to grant adjustment of excess service tax paid in advance towards forthcoming tax liability. Denial of such adjustment would unjustly enrich Government with excess amount which cannot be the intention of law. It is no longer res integra that service tax cannot be recovered twice in respect of the same service and therefore the adjustment is allowed. [Note: It is to be noted that Rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules has been amended and with effect from 1st April, 2012, there is no limit for the amount of adjustment of excess service tax paid].

Service tax is not leviable on marketing of mutual funds and bonds. The decision by Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside CBEC circular dated 05/11/2003 clarifying that these services are Business Auxiliary Services.

fiogf49gjkf0d
38. 2015 (40) STR 187(Tri-Del.) Comm. of Service Tax Delhi vs. ABN Amro Bank.

Service tax is not leviable on marketing of mutual funds and bonds. The decision by Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside CBEC circular dated 05/11/2003 clarifying that these services are Business Auxiliary Services.

Facts

The appellant was engaged in business of marketing mutual fund units and were also selling bonds issued by banking and non-banking companies. The first appellate authority on the basis of the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgement in case of Karvy Securities vs. Union of India 2006 (2) STR 481 granted relief. Revenue challenged the decision before the Tribunal citing the CBEC circular dated 05/11/2003 providing that the said activity is taxable.

Held

The Tribunal upheld the order and held that services are not taxable as CBEC circular dated 05/11/2013 was struck down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Karvy Securities (supra).

Recovery u/s. 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 can be resorted to only after an amount is adjudicated to be due to the Central Government.

fiogf49gjkf0d
37. [2015-TIOL-2451-HC-AHM-ST] Gopala Builders vs. Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence.

Recovery u/s. 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 can be resorted to only after an amount is adjudicated to be due to the Central Government.

Facts

Search operations were carried out at the Appellant’s premises. Several irregularities were noticed in the payment of service tax. Additional amounts were paid in the course of investigation. Subsequently notices were issued u/s. 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 to their debtors with a direction that monies payable to the Appellant be deposited in the Government treasury. Thereafter a Show Cause Notice was issued. Since notices were issued to their debtors for an amount determined unilaterally without issuance of Show Cause Notice, the present writ is filed.

Held

The Hon’ble High Court relying on the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of R.V. Man Power Solution vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise [2014-69-VST-528] held that recovery u/s. 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 can be resorted to only after an amount is adjudicated to be due to the Central Government. Therefore, such drastic measures adopted

Service tax paid wrongly can be claimed as CENVAT credit.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Facts

The Assessee, a manufacturer, wrongly paid service tax on a non-taxable service and claimed CENVAT credit to that extent. The department argued that if tax was paid wrongly or in excess, the only course open was to claim refund and not to make use of CENVAT credit. The Tribunal ordered in favour of the Assessee and the department is in appeal.

Held

The High Court held that if the assessee had paid the tax that he was not liable to pay and is entitled to certain credits, the availing of the said benefit cannot be termed as illegal and accordingly dismissed the revenue appeal.

Services of restaurants, hotels, inns, guest houses or clubs with air conditioning facility are liable to service tax and Parliament is competent to levy it.

fiogf49gjkf0d
35. 2015 (40) STR 51 (Kar) Ballal Auto Agency vs. Union of India.

Services of restaurants, hotels, inns, guest houses or clubs with air conditioning facility are liable to service tax and Parliament is competent to levy it.

Facts

The appellant is engaged in business of running hotels and restaurants. They are registered under Karnataka VAT Act, 2003 and paid regular VAT on the said transactions. It was contended that the said transaction is covered under Article 366(29A) and therefore no service tax would be leviable as it is beyond the powers of the Parliament and the State Government is authorised to tax this transaction. Further, the Parliament has no legislative competence to amend the Finance Act, 1994 to include restaurant services in taxable services. The Respondent argued that service tax is leviable under entry 97, which deals with matters not enumerated in List II and III, which derives its power from Article 248.

Held

The High Court confirmed the legislative competence of Union by placing relevance on “aspects theory” whereby the same transaction can have two taxable events of different nature. Under this theory, the taxes are imposed by two different statutes for two different reasons. Therefore, in transactions of composite nature like restaurant service, both legislatures have power to tax it and not solely the State Government. Relying also on Bombay High Court’s decision in case of India Hotel and Restaurants Association, it is held that service tax is leviable on such transaction.

The main objective of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is to ensure that CENVAT credit is not availed in respect of inputs or input services used in or in relation to exempted goods or for exempted services. Rule 6(3) (ii) of the said Rules providing for payment of 5% on exempted services does not apply automatically, if the assessee fails to opt either of the options with respect to reversal of CENVAT credit.

fiogf49gjkf0d
42. 2015 (40) STR 381(Tri. – Mumbai) Mercedes Benz India (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-I.

The main objective of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is to ensure that CENVAT credit is not availed in respect of inputs or input services used in or in relation to exempted goods or for exempted services. Rule 6(3) (ii) of the said Rules providing for payment of 5% on exempted services does not apply automatically, if the assessee fails to opt either of the options with respect to reversal of CENVAT credit.

Facts

The appellant is engaged in manufacturing activities as well as trading activities (considered as exempt service with effect from 1st April, 2011). In March, 2012, the appellant filed an intimation with respect to their reversal of CENVAT credit along with interest on common input services under Rule 6(3A)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules for Financial Year 2011-2012. The appellant neither maintained separate records for receipt and consumption of common input services nor availed CENVAT credit only to the extent of taxable activities. The Department denied availment of such option in view of non-observance of conditions of Rule 6(3A) read with Rule 6(3)(ii) on the grounds that intimation for availment of option under Rule 6(3A) was not conveyed giving respective particulars and the amount was not determined and paid provisionally every month. Consequently, huge demand equivalent to 5% of value of exempted services i.e. trading turnover along with interest and penalty was raised in terms of Rule 6(3) (i) of CENVAT Credit Rules. The demand was confirmed on the sole ground of non-observance of conditions provided under the said Rule 6(3A). Since there was no condition of intimation at the beginning of financial year, the appellant stated that they had legally opted to reverse CENVAT credit vide Rule 6(3A). Further, it was contended that manufacturer has to mention the date from which such option is exercised or proposed to be exercised. Therefore, the intention to grant benefit of such option was at the discretion of assessee. The intimation could be filed even after exercising such option. Further, the amount to be paid every month was on provisional basis and the final amount of reversal of CENVAT credit has to be made only before 30th June of next year. Therefore, none of the conditions were violated. Though intimation was not provided in the prescribed format, all the requisite information, directly or indirectly, were either furnished or available with the department. In any case, there was no provision in law that if the procedure as provided under Rule 6(3A) was not followed, automatically Rule 6(3) (i) would apply in such cases. Reliance was placed on the decision of the same Jurisdictional Commissioner in the case of Tata Technologies Ltd., wherein on identical facts, demand was dropped and no appeal was made thereafter.

Held

There are 3 options available to the appellants vide Rule 6(3) of the Rules for reversal of CENVAT credit of common input services used in manufacturing as well as exempted services i.e. trading of goods and they were free to choose any option. Department cannot insist upon the appellants to follow one particular option. The foremost condition of payment of amount vide a formula was fulfilled though belatedly with interest. More or less all the particulars were intimated to department vide returns and letters, though not vide intimation in prescribed format. Though there is no time limit for filing intimation, the appellant should file intimation before exercising the option. Nonetheless, it can be considered a procedural lapse. F.Y. 2011-12 was the initial period for trading being condoned as exempted service. Admittedly, Rule 6(3)(i) of the Rules does not apply automatically if the assessee does not opt for any option available under the said Rules, Rule 6 is not enacted to extract illegal amount from the assessee. Its main objective is to ensure that CENVAT credit is not availed in respect of inputs or input services used in or in relation to exempted goods or for exempted services. The demand was accordingly quashed.

Secretary of Tamil Nadu vs. M/S. Chitra Timber Traders, [2013] 62 VST 277

fiogf49gjkf0d
Central Sales Tax – Inter-State Stock Transfer to Agent – Agent Supplying Goods Directly to His Customer for Sale in Other State – After Making Payment for Lorry Freight, Octroi, etc.- Is Consignment Sale and Not Inter-State Sale, section 3(a) of The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

FACTS
Respondent a dealer in Timber had supplied goods to his agent outside the State and claimed inter-state stock transfer against form F and was assessed accordingly under the CST Act. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner of sales tax, based on verification report received from the enforcement department, revised the assessment order under the CST Act and disallowed the claim of consignment sales on the ground that the goods were supplied directly to the buyer and goods were never reached to the agent. Therefore, the revising authority treated it as inter-state sales and levied tax under the CST Act. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the respondent dealer against which State filed writ petition before the Madras High Court.

Held
It is very clear that the delivery note itself contains the name of the agent and it is also very clear that the payment made to the respondent by the agent was only a net amount after deducting commission amount from total sales. If it was not consignment where was the question of payment of commission? Further, the agent had paid lorry freight, octroi, unloading charges and measurement charges for the goods transported to another buyer. This fact was verified by the assessing authority while allowing exemption which was not considered by the first appellate authority. Hence, the Tribunal had rightly considered this matter and categorically came to the conclusion that it was a clear cut sale outside the State and rightly the exemption was granted. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Sate and confirmed the order of Tribunal allowing the appeal of the respondent dealer.

levitra

M/S. Mahabaleswarappa & Sons vs. Assistant Commissioner, [2013] 62 VST 241 (AP)

fiogf49gjkf0d
Central Sales Tax – Claim of Deemed Export – Form H – Need Not to be Submitted Quarterly, R.12(10)(a) of The Central Sales Tax (Turnover and Registration) Rules, 1957.

Facts
The petitioner filed Form H covering sales made to exporter for entire year of 2006-07 and claimed exemption from payment of tax as deemed export u/s. 5(3) of the act which was accepted in assessment. Later on, revising authority disallowed the claim of exemption from payment of tax against form H on the ground that H form for quarterly period was not submitted. The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by appellate authority including tribunal. The dealer filed writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court against the order of the Tribunal.

Held
The Rule 12(10(a) of The Central Sales Tax (Turnover and Registration) Rules, 1957 mandates dealer to file declaration in form H duly signed by the exporter. Plain and literal reading of this rule would not admit to any such interpretation that a dealer should submit declaration in H form quarterly. Accordingly, the High Court allowed writ petition filed by the dealer and directed the revisional authority to consider the revision taking in to consideration all the material filed by the petitioner including declarations in H form.

levitra

M/S. Aspick Engineering (P) Ltd. vs. State of Tamilnadu, [2013] 62 VST 216 (Mad),

fiogf49gjkf0d
Central Sales Tax Act – Local or Inter-State Sale – No written Agreement – Goods Delivered to Buyer Within State – That the Buyer Moved Goods At His Own Cost Not Decisive – Transaction is Inter-State Sale, section 3 of The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

FACTS
The petitioner company effected sale to the M/S. Vijayshree Colata Ltd., Warora, claimed it an inter-state sale. The assessing authority treated it as local sale as there was no written agreement, the goods were delivered locally, the price was ex-godown and the goods were moved out of the State by the buyer. The appellate authority including the Tribunal confirmed the assessment order. The appellant filed appeal before the Madras High Court against the order of the Tribunal upholding the assessment order treating it as local sale.

HELD
The terms of the agreement between parties are evidenced only by the dispatch details, indicative of the understanding between the parties. Given the fact that an agreement need not be in writing, the one and only ground on which the claim of inter-state sale could be considered is the factum of movement of goods pursuant to the contract of sale. If the sale effected by the assessee and the movement thereon are inextricably and intimately connected with each other, then the one and only interference that would flow from the same is that it is an inter-state sale. The fact that the purchaser has borne the insurance charges or the seller had born the insurance charges or that the purchaser had moved the goods at their own cost would not be a decisive factor for the purpose of determining the nature of sale as inter-State sale or not. The criteria for considering the transaction as an inter-state sale or not is the movement of goods intimately connected with the sale. The High Court further held that the Tribunal and the other authorities had misdirected themselves in placing emphasis on the transport and insurance made by the purchaser as indicators of the sale being local sale. With the movement and the sale inextricably connected, the High Court allowed the appeal and treated it as an interstate sale.

levitra

M/S. Katuri Medical College and Hospital vs. CTO, [2013] 62 VST 185 (AP).

fiogf49gjkf0d
Value Added Tax – Recovery Of Tax – Garnishee Proceedings – Issue of Notice Directing Bank to Remit the Tax – During the Pendency of Revision Petition – Against Order Rejecting Stay Application – Set Aside – Directed to Remit Back the Amount Recovered – Cost Awarded, section 29 of The Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

FACTS
The Petitioner is a charitable trust and also registered under the AP VAT Act had filed appeal against the assessment order passed by the assessing authority and also file application for stay. The appellate authority rejected the application for stay by passing non speaking order. The Petitioner filed revision petition before the higher revisional authority. During the pendency of the revision petition, the assessing authority invoking power u/s. 29 of the Act issued notice directing the Bank, where the petitioner had account, to remit the disputed amount. The Bank remitted the amount to the assessing authority. The Petitioner filed writ petition before the AP High Court against the Garnishee order issued by the assessing authority directing the bank to remit the amount to the department.

HELD
If recoveries of disputed tax or penalty are made, where stay application is pending before the appellate authority, the appeal itself would be rendered infructous and that the assessee who is aggrieved by an order of assessment is given a statutory right of appeal which cannot be rendered infructous by being forced to pay the disputed amount pending the appeal. This will apply to a situation where the first appellate authority rejects the stay application and a revision is preferred by the assessee before the revisional authority seeking stay of the disputed amount. Therefore it would be just and proper for the assessing authority to await the disposal of the revision petition by the revisional authority. The High Court strongly deprecated the conduct of the assessing authority and held it to be arbitrary and high handed and awarded cost to the department of Rs. 10000/- payable to the petitioner. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Trust and directed the department to remit back the amount recovered forcefully to the Bank account of the Petitioner and set aside the non speaking order passed for rejecting stay petition and remanded back for fresh hearing.

levitra

Allentis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of M. P. and Others, [2013] 59 VST 241(MP)

fiogf49gjkf0d
VAT- Agency – Supply of Goods to Agent – Thereafter by Agent to Buyer or Authorised Dealer of Principal For Commission – No Two Independent Sales-Supply of Goods to Agent – Not a Sale-Not Taxable, Section 2(4), Explanation (c ), of The Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002.

FACTS
The Petitioner Company entered into an agreement with M/s. Rahul Pharma and appointed him as carry forward agent to supply the goods to the authorised distributors or dealers appointed by the Company. While assessing the petitioner company the assessing authority relying on Explanation (c ) to section 2(4) of the Act, treated supply of goods by the petitioner to its agent as first sale liable to VAT and thereafter when the selling agent further sold or transfers the goods to buyers, then also it was treated as sales taxable under the Act. The petitioner company objected to it as it amounted to double taxation. The petitioner company filed writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court against the aforesaid action of the assessing officer.

HELD
Under clause ( c) of Explanation to section 2(4) of the MP VAT Act, for the purpose of Act, two independent sales or purchases are deemed to have taken place when the goods are transferred from principal to his selling agent and from the selling agent to the purchaser or when the goods are transferred from the seller to buying agent and from the buying agent to his principal. This, clause (c) applied only when there is transfer of property in goods. M/s. Rahul Pharma was an agent of the petitioner, company which was evident from the agreement. It only supplied the goods to the authorised dealer of the petitioner company for a commission not as his own property but as the property of the principal, who continued to be the owner of the goods. The supply of goods by the petitioner company to the agent was not a sale as per the interpretation of clause (c) of Explanation to section 2(4) of the Act therefore not liable to tax. When the agent supplied goods to the buyer of the petitioner company or to its authorised distributor on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner company was liable to pay the tax. Consequently, the petition was disposed by the court with the direction that the delivery of goods to the agent of the petitioner for delivery of goods to the buyer or to the authorised distributer shall not be taxed under the provisions of VAT Act by treating it as an independent sale.

levitra

M/S. Milk Food Ltd. vs. Commissioner, VAT and Others, [2003] 59 VST 1 (Delhi).

fiogf49gjkf0d
Sales Tax – Deduction Claimed Based on Declaration Furnished By Purchasing Dealer – Whether Form Genuine or Conditions Complied With- Burden of Proof – Not on Selling Dealer. Sections 4(3)(a)(v), 50 (1)(a), 56(2) of The Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975.

FACTS
The appellant engaged in business of manufacture of ghee and milk powder of different kinds in its factory at Patiala and having its offices all over India. The appellant had sold goods against form ST-1, in Delhi, and claimed deduction from payment of tax u/s. 4(2) (a)(v) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act. In assessment the claim of deduction was disallowed and confirmed by the Tribunal. The appellant filed appeal before The Delhi High Court against the impugned order of the Tribunal.

HELD
The Tribunal appeared to have placed the burden wrongly upon the appellant dealer. It is not the burden of the selling dealer to show that the declarations in form No ST-1 were not spurious or were genuine or that the conditions to which the forms were issued to the purchasing dealer by the department were complied with. The burden will shift to the selling dealer only if it is shown that the selling dealer and the purchasing dealer had acted in collusion and connived with each other to evade tax by obtaining spurious forms of deduction. The claim was disallowed in assessment due to certain discrepancies between form ST-1 and the accounts given by the purchasing dealers in form ST-2 or colour of form was different. This was not for the selling dealer to explain. The fact of different colour of form gave rise to the suspicion that the forms are not genuine could be a starting point for further inquiry but by itself does not establish any guilt on the part of the selling dealer. There appears to have no further query conducted by the sales tax authorities to show that the forms are spurious; neither is there evidence to show that the appellant was in any was connected with the alleged fraud committed by the purchasing dealer. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant.

levitra

2015 (38) STR 1220 (Tri.-Mum.) Deloitte Haskins & Sells vs. CCE, Thane-I.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Unlike Central Excise laws, there is no compulsion to avail benefit of exemption compulsorily under service tax laws. Further, CENVAT credit cannot be denied in case of procedural lapse of wrongly addressed invoices.

Facts:
Availment of CENVAT credit was under dispute as firstly invoices were addressed to the registered unit and the credit was taken in another unit. Further the Appellants had provided taxable as well as exempted services and thus the department contended that CENVAT credit could be utilised only to the extent not exceeding 20% of service tax payable vide Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in the absence of maintenance of separate records. It was argued that though invoices were raised at another unit, the input services were received and consumed and a CA certificate was produced to this effect. Accordingly, it was merely a procedural defect. On the second issue, it was stated that in absence of a specific column in the service tax return, amount received for exempted services of prior period was shown under “exempted services” and actually, no services were claimed to be exempted during the period under consideration. Therefore, restriction on utilisation of CENVAT credit was not warranted. Moreover, it was argued that exemptions available were conditional and they had billed a consolidated sum including representational services without taking benefit of exemption and in respect of services provided to SEZ it was difficult to ensure fulfillment of conditions by service receiver and thus the said exemption was also not claimed. The department argued that firstly in view of separate registrations cross availment was not possible and secondly since unconditional exemption with respect to representational services and services provided to SEZ were available, service tax cannot be paid on such exempted services on their own volition. Accordingly, restriction of CENVAT credit was applicable. The Appellants argued that unlike section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944, under service tax laws, availment of benefit of unconditional exemption is not mandatory.

Held:
Relying on the decisions of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of DNH Spinners [2009 (16) STR 418] and Modern Petrofils [2010 (20) STR (627)], it was held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied on the grounds of procedural lapse as long as the services are eligible input services. Thus, CENVAT credit on principle was allowed subject to verification of the fact by the adjudicating authority that the input services were actually used. On the second issue, it was held that in absence of specific breakup of total amount for each job undertaken in the invoice, it cannot be concluded that the Appellants availed exemption regarding representational services. Revenue authorities cannot demand service tax on a composite amount, and it did not attempt to do any segregation, if at all it was possible, in consolidated invoices. Further, notification granting exemption to services provided to SEZs was conditional and the Appellants had opted to pay service tax. Relying on various decisions, it was held that under service tax laws, there is no compulsion to avail exemptions. Therefore, since this was not a case of provision of taxable as well as exempted services, restriction on CENVAT credit was not applicable.

levitra

2015 (38) STR 1191 (Tri.-Mum.) Automotive Manufacturers P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Nagpur.

fiogf49gjkf0d
No service tax can be levied on handling charges forming part of sale of goods especially when VAT/sales tax is levied.

Facts:
The Appellants were authorised dealers and a service station of Maruti Udyog Ltd. For the purpose of servicing the cars, spare parts were used which were procured from the depot or warehouse of the manufacturer. Appellants incurred octroi, freight, loading and unloading charges for procurement of these parts which was termed as handling charges. Service tax was demanded on these handling charges considering the activity of servicing as a composite activity of sale and service. It was argued that the handling charges were part of value of goods sold and VAT /sales tax was paid on them and such expenses had no relation with servicing and repairs. Board’s Circular No. 96/7/2007 clarifying that service tax would not be levied on transactions treated as sale of goods, subject to VAT / sales tax, by service station was also referred to.

Held:
The Tribunal held that the invoice clearly stated the value of goods and services rendered. Handling charges will not be subject to service tax, especially when VAT /sales tax had been paid on it. Such charges were incurred for procurement and bringing the goods to Appellants and hence, it was included in value of goods. Section 67 of the Finance Act 1994, levied service tax on consideration received for rendering services and not for supply of goods. Hence, it was held that no service tax was payable.

levitra

2015 (38) STR 1162 (Tri.-Del.) Piramal Healthcare Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Indore.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Penalty imposed was exorbitant as compared to service tax demand and was unjustified in view of revenue neutrality and interest burden already suffered on account of non-payment. Non-filing of ST-3 returns does not attract penalty u/s. 77.

Facts:
After adjudication, to buy peace of mind, the Appellants paid service tax along with interest. However, penalty u/s. 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 levied for non-filing of service tax returns was appealed against. It was argued that the amount of penalty was exorbitant compared to service tax demand and penalty cannot be levied u/s. 77 for nonfiling of returns. Further, service tax was not paid due to improper knowledge of law and it was a revenue neutral case since the amount was available to them as CENVAT credit. Department contested that penalty u/s. 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 was leviable in absence of registration.

Held:
In view of revenue neutrality and interest burden already suffered on account of non-payment, penalties were dropped. The Tribunal observed that there was nonapplication of mind by the original adjudicating authorities since penalty could be levied u/s. 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for failure to file service tax return.

levitra

2015 (38) STR 980 (Tri.-Del.) Mohan Poddar vs. CCE, Raipur

fiogf49gjkf0d
In absence of any evidence proving mala fide intention, penalties cannot be levied.

Facts:
The appellants were providing construction services, and were unaware of their service tax liability. On being pointed out by DGCEI, service tax liability was discharged. Accordingly, it was contended that in absence of any evidence proving mala fide intention, willful suppression or misstatement, penalties should be waived off u/s. 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Held:
There were no observation at all regarding sustainability of allegation of suppression of facts in “discussion and finding” portion of the order and the adjudicating authority had jumped to the conclusion of suppression of facts. Further, since section 80 was invoked for waiving off penalty u/s. 76, the said section should apply mutatis mutandis to section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 as well. Furthermore, in any case, in absence of malafides, penalty u/s. 78 could not be imposed.

levitra

[2015] 58 taxmann.com 343 (New Delhi – CESTAT) – Suzuki Motorcycle (I) (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III.

fiogf49gjkf0d

CENVAT credit of service tax paid by the assessee cannot be denied merely because part of cost of input services is reimbursed by parent company – Financial arrangement between subsidiary and parent company has no connection or relevance for legality of CENVAT credit.

Facts:
The assessee procured the service of advertising agency for purpose of advertising their final product. Entire value of service of advertising agency along with service tax was paid thereby making them eligible for CENVAT credit. A part of the advertising expenditure incurred by the assessee was reimbursed to it by its parent company located abroad. Department denied credit on ground that the assessee’s foreign holding/parent company had reimbursed part of such advertisement expenses.

Held:
The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner had not given a finding that advertising cost was not incurred by the appellants. Therefore, it was held that merely because the appellants’ parent company reimbursed part cost of the advertising expenses, it did not mean that the appellants would become disentitled to the service tax actually paid by them. The financial arrangement between the subsidiary company and the parent company had no connection for the purpose of availability of credit of service tax paid by the assessee. Procurement of finances for running any business was the subject matter between two individuals. Thus, credit is allowed.

levitra

[2015] 58 taxmann.com 94 (Ahmedabad – CESTAT) Cema Electric Lighting Products India (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-III

fiogf49gjkf0d
CENVAT credit – Outdoor catering service in factory canteen – Proportionate credit to the extent service tax portion is embedded in recoveries made from employee is not admissible – burden of proof is on assessee to show that incidence of service tax is not passed.

Facts:
The assessee availed of an outdoor catering services for its employees and took CENVAT credit. Department denied credit of service tax proportionate to amount recovered from employees/beneficiaries. The assessee argued that no element of service tax was recovered.

Held:
Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010] 29 STT 244, the Tribunal held that once proportionate service tax is borne by the ultimate consumer of the service, namely the worker/beneficiary, the manufacturer cannot take credit of that part of the service tax which is borne by the consumer. Hence, proportionate credit, to the extent it is embedded in the cost of food recovered from the employee/beneficiary, is not admissible to the appellant. It further held that like a concept of unjust enrichment for refunds u/s. 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the onus is on the appellant to establish with documentary evidence that the element of service tax paid by the appellant is not recovered from the beneficiary/employees of the appellant.

levitra

2015] 58 taxmann.com 189 (Mumbai – CESTAT) – CST, Mumbai vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd

fiogf49gjkf0d
Position prior to 01/04/2011 – CENVAT credit of outdoor catering service provided to its employees by provider of output service is allowed.

Facts:
The appellant is a service provider under the category of “Banking and Other Financial Services” and also “Business Auxiliary Services”. Show Cause Notice was issued alleging therein that the appellant was wrongly availing CENVAT credit in respect of outdoor catering service. The adjudicating authority held that the appellant had incurred expenditure by providing “canteen facility services” for its employees. As the appellant was not in a business which required “24 x 7 operations” like BPO service, the claim was not allowable as input service. At best, the “outdoor catering service” was in the nature of fringe benefits to the employees and had no relationship with the output services rendered. Accordingly, demand was confirmed. Before the Tribunal, assessee relied upon ruling of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010] 29 STT 244. The revenue relying upon the decision of IFB Industries Ltd. vs. CCE 45 taxmann.com 28 (Bang. – CESTAT) distinguished the judgment of Bombay High Court, emphasising that it was rendered having regard to mandatory requirements under the Factories Act, 1948.

Held:
Relying upon Ultratech Cement (supra), the Tribunal held that, legislation (i.e. the Factories Act) appreciates the need of canteen service for the workers at the place of work. Only to avoid the hardship for an essential need, the legislation has provided, that factories having employees more than 250, should provide a canteen service. That did not mean that the service was not required for any industrial service or organisation having less than 250 workers. Even the employees of a smaller organisation having less than 250 workers would be hungry and required to be provided with canteen facility. Therefore, the ruling in the case of IFB Industries Ltd. (supra) is per incuriam, as the provisions of the Factories Act have been wrongly interpreted, with respect to the provisions of input service. Accordingly CENVAT credit was allowed.

levitra

[2015] 58 taxmann.com 8 (New Delhi – CESTAT) – Binani Cement Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur-II.

fiogf49gjkf0d
CENVAT – Manpower supply services availed for maintaining a health centre in compliance with Rajasthan Factory Rules eligible for input service as directly in relation to manufacture

Facts:
The Assessee was a manufacturer of cement and clinker chargeable to excise duty. It sourced trained persons from manpower supply agents for maintaining medical/ health centre at its factory. Department denied CENVAT credit on the grounds that services had no nexus with manufacture.

Held:
The Tribunal observed that appellant in terms of Rule 65T of the Rajasthan Factories Rules was required to maintain an occupational health centre as its employees were more than 500 and they carried out hazardous operations. Unless the appellant complied with this provision of the Rajasthan Factories Rules, they would not be allowed to carry on their manufacturing activity. Accordingly, it was held that the service of receiving trained medical personnel through manpower supply agency for maintaining the occupational health centre has to be treated as in or in relation to manufacture of final product and would be eligible for CENVAT credit as input service.

Note: Readers may also note a similar decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s Lucas TVS Ltd. [2015-TIOL-1466-CESTAT-MAD} wherein it has been held that manpower supply to a canteen in the factory which is an obligation under the Factories Act is an eligible input service.

levitra

[2015-TIOL-1471-CESTAT-MUM] M/s. Gateway Terminals (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad

fiogf49gjkf0d
Garden Maintenance, Event Management, Brokerage, Telephone and
Outdoor Catering services being essential for business are eligible
input services

Facts:
The Appellant was engaged
in the business of providing “port services” and has availed CENVAT
credit of service tax paid on garden maintenance, event management,
telephone charges and of brokerage paid for arranging the residential
accommodation for their employees for the period before April 2011. They
had also availed services of outdoor catering pre and post April 2011.
CENVAT credit was denied on the ground that there was no nexus between
the input services and the output services provided and that these
expenses were in the nature of a welfare activity.

Held:
For
the period before April 2011, it was argued that the definition of
input service comprising of two parts ‘means’ and ‘inclusive’ should be
read harmoniously as it enhances the scope of the definition. Further
the term “such as” signifies that any activity related to the
functioning of a business and not confined merely to the provision of
output service or manufacture of the final product should be considered
an input service. Accordingly, garden maintenance which is a requirement
cast by the Maharashtra State Pollution Central Board upon the Port,
event management services incurred at ceremonial occasions, brokerage
services, being essential for ensuring the availability of staff,
telephone and outdoor catering services being essential services to run
the business are allowable as input services. Further, for the period
post April 2011, it was argued that the Appellant was regulated by the
dock workers (safety, health & welfare) Act, 1990 and the employees
being more than 250, it was a statutory obligation to maintain adequate
canteen facilities. Thus, catering services being a part of the business
need and obligation to the employees who are essential hands of the
business had a direct bearing on the output services and were eligible
input services even post April 2011.

Note. Readers may
also note the decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P.
Ltd vs. CCE, Nashik [2014]-TIOL-2460-CESTAT-MUM reported in the
BCAJFebruary 2015 issue wherein it has been observed that outdoor
catering services forming a part of cost of manufacture of final product
is allowable as CENVAT credit post 01/04/2011.

levitra

Processing of Registration applications submitted along with scanned documents

fiogf49gjkf0d
Trade Circular 13T of 2015 dated 14.8.2015

The new office procedure for the grant of new registrations under the MVAT Act, 2002, The CST Act, 1956 and the Professional Tax Act, 1975 has been explained in the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax.

levitra

The Computerized Desk Audit (CDA) for the period 2012-13

fiogf49gjkf0d

Trade Circular 12T of 2015 dated 14.8.2015

The department has generated Computerized Desk Audit (CDA) report for the period 2012-13 and made the same available on website www.mahavat.gov.in from 20.8.2015. Compliance to the CDA can be made on or before 18.9.2015. List of dealers in whose cases discrepancies have been found mentioned in CDA Dealer list 2012-13 is available on the website. Detailed procedure to comply electronically with CDA system has been explained in the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax.

levitra

Notification

fiogf49gjkf0d

N O . VAT . 1 5 1 5 / C . R . 7 4 / Ta x a t i o n – 1 . d a t e d 12.8.2015

Maharashtra Government has issued Notification under Entry no. 12A in Schedule A dated 12.8.2015 and notified drugs for cancer for the purpose of this Entry.

levitra

M/S. OMIL- JSC – JV vs. Union of India, [2013] 61 VST 370 (Gauhati),

fiogf49gjkf0d
Central Sales Tax Act-Writ Petition – Jurisdiction of Court – Issue of C Form Declaration by Purchasing Corporation To Petitioner – Jurisdiction of Court – Not Barred – Direction to Issue C Form to Petitioner, Art 226 of The Constitution of India.

FACTS
The petitioner filed writ petition under article 226 of The constitution of India praying for issue of an appropriate writ directing the respondent, North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (in short NEEPCO) to issue declaration form C under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to the Petitioner who had executed works allotted by NEEPCO. The respondent had objected to issue C forms on the ground that there is no provision in the agreement for issue of C forms.

HELD
The issue is with regard to issue of declaration form ‘C’ by the respondent – NEEPCO to the Petitioner for availing concessional rate of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which is a statutory exaction and not the breach of any of the terms of the contract. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Writ Court is not barred in taking up matters of taxation and liabilities under taxation statutes and cannot refuse to interfere on the ground that the question raised arises out of contractual agreement and is one of enforcement of contractual obligation and the same should be referred to arbitration. The Writ Court, under such circumstances, cannot deny a party of its right to have the issue decided by Writ Court. On perusal of rule 12 of the CST (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1956, it becomes clear that the purchaser of the goods shall issue C form to the seller and that obligation is a statutory exaction of the CST Act and other specific provisions made in this behalf in regard to obtaining of the declaration form C and issue of duplicate, etc. There is no scope of defeating the intention of the Legislature stated in its provision at the sweet will and pleasure of the purchaser of goods. There is also no scope for denying the benefit available to a selling dealer as introduced by the Legislature upon the refusal of the purchaser to issue C form and it is made clear by providing under sub rule (3) of rule 12 that in case the original form issued by the purchasing dealer is lost, the selling dealer can demand from the purchasing dealer to issue a duplicate form. This necessarily implies that there exist an obligation to issue C forms by the purchasing dealer. Merely because, the contract agreement does not stipulate issue of C forms, it cannot refuse to issue the form to the petitioner who is entitled to the benefit u/s. 8 (1) of the Act only upon production of such forms. Moreover, the High Court found that the respondent NEEPCO through its correspondence to the petitioner, even prior to awarding the contract work, requested to avail of concessional rates of taxes, gave assurance to the petitioner time and again to issue C forms and even communicated to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, West Bengal. It cannot be allowed to deny the same and reject the claim of the Petitioner on the pretext of absence of any provision in the contract agreement to issue C form. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the respondent NEEPCO to issue the required C forms to the Petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

levitra

M/S. Prathista Industries Ltd. vs. CTO, [2003] 61 VST 158(AP).

fiogf49gjkf0d
Central Sales Tax – Provisions for Advance Ruling – Contained in
Local VAT Law – Substantive Provisions – Not Applicable to Proceedings
Under Central Sales Tax Act, section-67 of The Andhra Pradesh Value
Added Tax Act, 2005 and section 9 (2) of The Central Sales Tax Act,
1956.

FACTS
The Petitioner Company, registered
under the VAT and CST Act and engaged in manufacturing of eco-friendlyfertilisers etc., had made an application u/s. 67(1) of the AP VAT Act,
for advance ruling with regard to classification of its 17 products. The
advance authority passed order on 16th November 2011 holding it covered
by entry 19 of Fourth Schedule against which appeal before the Tribunal
was filed. Meanwhile, assessing authority made assessment for the years
2005-2006 and 2006-07 under the VAT and CST Act which were set aside by
appellate authority. The assessing authority framed assessment for the
period 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 under the CST Act and levied tax at the
rate determined by Advance Ruling Authority despite appeal pending
before the Tribunal against the order of Advance Ruling Authority. The
Petitioner Company filed writ Petition before the Andhra Pradesh High
Court challenging the assessment order passed under the CST Act during
the pendency of appeal before the Tribunal.

HELD
The
provision for “advance ruling” is a mechanism introduced by the
legislature to ensure uniformity in orders of assessment, appellate and
revisional order, with regard to the classification of goods under
various entries of the schedule to the Act or rate applicable to such
goods, etc thereby avoiding conflicting orders being passed by different
assessing/ appellate/ revisionary authorities. Such a mechanism can
only be introduced by way of substantive provisions in a statute and
cannot be implied. Sub-section (2) of section 9 of the CST Act only
makes applicable provisions of the State sales tax law relating to
assessment, reassessment, collection and enforcement of tax including
any interest or penalty. Provisions relating to “advance ruling” would
not fall into any of the above categories. An advance ruling may be an
“aid” to an assessment, reassessment, collection of payment of tax but
it is not in itself a mechanism for it which are normally done under the
provisions of Central Sales Tax by the competent authorities under the
VAT Act. The above activities, it cannot be denied, can be done by such
authorities without benefit of advance ruling also (subject to appeal,
revision, etc.) in the hierarchy of authorities provided under the VAT
Act. The assessing authority is entitled to initiate and complete the
assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act in respect of the petitioner
when its application for “advance ruling” was pending before the
authority for advance ruling and pendency of its appeal against the said
ruling before the Tribunal would also not impede or operate disentitle
the assessing authority in any way in initiating or completing
assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act as the provisions of section
67 of the VAT Act would not apply to assessment made under the CST Act.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the
Petitioner Company.

levitra

[2015-TIOL-1716-CESTAT-MUM] M/s Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad

fiogf49gjkf0d

CENVAT credit of service tax paid on construction services used for
construction of hostel/quarters for employees being in relation to
manufacturing business is admissible.


Facts:

The
Appellant is a manufacturer having a factory in a small town with meagre
transport facilities and other infrastructure. The Adjudicating
authority denied credit of service tax paid on construction services
used for construction of hostels/ quarters made for employees alleging
suppression and invoking extended period of limitation.

Held:

The
Tribunal considering the definition of input service provided under
Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 held that construction of
hostels/quarters for employees being in relation to manufacturing
business is allowable as CENVAT credit. The Tribunal also noted that
since the show cause notice was issued after two and a half years of
taking the credit, the same was barred by limitation. Moreover, since
the credit availed was disclosed in the EA-3 returns, there was no
suppression and accordingly extended period was not invokable.

levitra

[2015 – TIOL – 1628 – CESTAT- MUM ] M/s Tilaknagar Industries Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad

fiogf49gjkf0d
Mere taking credit without utilising will not attract interest as well as penalty.

Facts:
The Appellant, a manufacturer wrongly availed CENVAT credit on certain input services during the year 2005- 06.On being pointed out by the Central Excise officers, entire credit availed was reversed without utilisation. Show Cause Notice was issued demanding interest and penalty relying on the Board’s Circular No. 897/17/2009- CX dated 03/09/2009 wherein it was clarified that in view of the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Ind-Swift Labs Ltd [2011-TIOL-21-SC-CX] interest is leviable in case of wrong taking of credit or utilisation.

Held
The Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd. [2014-TIOL-466-HC-MAD-CX] wherein it was held that the amendment to Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 substituting “taken or utilised” by the term “taken and utilised” for the levy of interest being clarificatory in nature will apply retrospectively, allowed the appeal.

levitra