News Update

India received foreign remittance of USD 111 bn in 2022, says UNPitroda resigns as Chairman of Indian Overseas Congress over racist remarkGovt hosts workshop on improving Ease of Doing Business in Mining sectorI-T - Anything made taxable by rule-making authority u/s 17(2)(viii) should be 'perquisite' in form of 'fringe benefits or amenity': SCCus - Drawback - Revenue contends that appeal of exporter ought to have been dismissed by Tribunal as not maintainable since correct remedy was filing a revision application with Central government - Appeal disposed of: HCCus - CHA - AA has clearly brought out the modus adopted by the appellant and how he was a party to the entire under valuation exercise - Factual finding affirmed by Tribunal - No question of law arises for consideration: HCGST - Proper officer has not applied his mind while passing the order; confirmed demand by opining that reply is not satisfactory - Proper Officer is directed to withdraw all punitive actions taken against petitioner pursuant to impugned order: HCGST - Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion - Non-application of mind - Order set aside and matter remitted for re-adjudication: HCGST - Cancellation of registration for non-filing of returns - Suspension/revocation of license would be counterproductive and works against the interest of revenue - Pragmatic view needs to be taken to permit petitioner to carry on his business: HC86 flights of AI Express cancelled as crew goes on mass sick leaveTax Refund Conundrum - Odyssey of Legal MisstepsI-T- AO not barred from issuing more than one SCN; Fresh SCN seeking information is not without jurisdiction, more so where HC itself directed re-doing of assessment: HCMurthy launches Capacity Building on Design and Entrepreneurship programCash, liquor & drugs worth Rs 110 Cr seized from Jharkhand ahead of pollsI-T- Appeal before CIT(A) (NFAC) is rightly dismissed where it has been delayed by over one year without just & reasonable cause: ITATPoll-induced stress: 2 Bihar officials die of heart attack at polling boothsSixth Edition of Commandants' Conclave held in PuneSome Gujarat villages keep away from polls over unfulfilled demands from governmentRoof-hugging inflation nudges Argentina to print first lot of 10,000 notes of pesoInvestigation finds presence of ‘boys club’ strands of culture at American bank regulatorUS cancels licence to some firms found exporting materials to Huawei
 
Service Tax is leviable on rendering of services - therefore, it is rate prevalent on date of rendering of service, which is relevant for levy of Service Tax - appeal allowed: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, AUG 27, 2013: A service tax demand of a princely sum of Rs.20,296/- was confirmed against the appellant on the "Commercial Training or Coaching" services rendered by them during the period July, 2004 to October, 2004. The appellant contested that for the period prior to 10.09.2004, the rate of Service Tax leviable was 8% and w.e.f 10.09.2004, the applicable rate was 10%. Therefore, for the services rendered prior to 10.09.2004, they are liable to pay Service Tax only @8% even though they raised bills after 10.09.2004. This contention of the appellant was rejected and the Service Tax demand was confirmed by the lower authorities.

Before the CESTAT, the appellant submitted -

(i) As per Board's Circular no. 62/11/2003-ST dated 21.08.2003 in para 3.2 thereof, it has been clarified as follows:-

3.2It is a basic principle that no tax can be charged except under authority of law. Thus, if the levy of service tax on a particular service comes into force on a given date, that service will not be taxable if rendered before that date. The levy of service tax on "Maintenance or repair service" has come into force on 1-7-2003. Accordingly any maintenance or repair service rendered prior to 1-7-2003 will not be taxable, irrespective of when the bills are raised or payment made. This will apply to other services as well which were rendered prior to the imposition of service tax on them.

(ii) Rule 6 of the STR, 1994 makes it clear that the receipt of payment for the services rendered is not relevant for determination of the tax and it is the date on which service has been rendered which is relevant and if during the period, the services were not taxable, the same cannot be taxed merely because the payment has been made afterwards. Reliance is placed on the decision in Ashok Kumar Jain, Prop. Vs. CCE, Indore - (2011-TIOL-2008-CESTAT-DEL).

The Bench observed -

"5.1 Service Tax is leviable on the rendering of services. Therefore, it is the rate prevalent on the date of rendering of the service, which is relevant for levy of Service Tax. The Board's instruction (supra) and also the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok Kumar Jain (supra) confirm this view. Recently, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ratan Singh Builders Pvt. Ltd. - (2013-TIOL-403-HC-DEL-ST) held that the rate that should be applied for levy of Service Tax is the rate prevalent on the date of rendering the services and not the rate applicable on the date of receipt of payment. Following these decisions, which apply to facts of the present case, we allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law."

(See 2013-TIOL-1273-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

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


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