Card Issuing Bank Not Liable To Pay Service Tax On Interchange Fee When It Is Already Paid On MDR : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently ruled that a card issuing bank is not liable to separately pay service tax on the interchange fee when the said tax already stands paid on the Merchant Discount Rate (MDR). The Three Judge Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that “the entire amount of the service tax payable on the MDR has been paid to the Government and there is no loss of revenue”. (Para 9) The Bench observed so, while answering in...

No Service Tax Can Be Levied On Rental Agreements In Name Of Individual Partners For Jointly Owned Property: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that rental agreements in the name of an individual partner regarding property jointly held by them are not liable to service tax. The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that “………post 01.07.2012, the firm was not functional, and the rental agreements are in the name of the individual partner, with regard to the property held by...

[S.74 GST Act] Adjudicating Authority Must Record Prima Facie Satisfaction Regarding Assessee Wrongfully Obtaining Input Tax Credit: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that for initiating proceedings under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, it is necessary for the adjudicating authority to record prima facie satisfaction regarding the assessee having wrongfully availed input tax credit (ITC) by fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts. The Court held that once the proceedings under Section 73 have been closed regarding wrongful availment of ITC, proceedings for the same cannot be initiated...

Arbitral Tribunal Acted With Patent Illegality, Against Indian Law In Awarding Reimbursement Of Service Tax Along With Interest: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed that award passed by Arbitral Tribunal was tainted with patent illegality and contravened the fundamental policy of Indian law. The award was challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (act). The court set aside the award in which South Eastern Railway (railway) was directed to reimburse the respondent towards service tax and interest. Brief Facts The dispute emerged from the contract...

Supreme Court Summarises Principles For Interpreting Tax Statutes In Judgment On GST Input Tax Credit

The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 3) outlined the principles governing the interpretation of taxation statutes in the context of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol summarised the principles of interpretation while dealing with a case involving the interpretation of Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, which disallows Input Tax Credit (ITC) on goods and services used in the construction of immovable property, except for...

GST Input Tax Credit On Construction Costs Can Be Claimed If Building Construction Was Necessary For Renting Out Service : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 3) held that if construction of a building is essential for supplying services such as renting out, it could fall into the "plant" exception to section 17(5)(d) of CGST Act which provides that Input Tax Credit cannot be claimed for construction material (other than plant or machinery) for immovable property construction. “If the construction of a building was essential for carrying out activity of supplying services such as renting or giving on lease or...

Payment To Non-Employed Director As Sitting Fees Is Not Salary, Hence Liable To Service Tax: CESTAT

The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the payment made to a non-employed director as director's sitting fees is not in the nature of salary; hence, the director's fees are liable to the levy of Service Tax.The Bench consists of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member), considered the issue of whether the assessee is liable to pay Service Tax under reverse charge mechanism on the Directors remuneration paid to the...

Second Provisional Attachment Notice Lacking Fresh Reasons Is Arbitrary: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court stated that issuing a second provisional attachment notice without providing new or fresh reasons is considered arbitrary. The Division Bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla observed that “the department cannot be allowed simpliciter to issue a second notice, and thereafter, third and fourth and continue with the provisional attachment for four to five years without giving any fresh reason for the said provisional attachment. If the same was...

Service Charge Collected By Medical Store In Hospital Covered Under “Health Care Services”, Exempted From Service Tax: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service charge collected by a medical store in the hospital is covered under “Health Care Services” and are exempted from Service Tax. The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) has observed that “medical aid to the patients who are admitted in the hospital, most of the time requires urgent care and treatment without any loss of time and that is the reason for having a medical store...

No Service Tax Can Be Determined Without Clarifying The Category Of Service Under Which The Said Amount Can Be Attributed: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no service tax can be determined without clarifying the category of service under which the said amount can be attributed. Under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, if service tax has not been levied, paid, short-levied, short-paid, or erroneously refunded due to fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with the intent to evade payment, the person...

No Element Of Misstatement And Intention To Evade Payment Of Service Tax: Gauhati High Court Quashes Demand & Penalty

Finding that the Assessee company had provided every detail regarding availment of CENVAT Credit in the ST-3 Returns, and the same was considered by the Central Excise Commissioner, the Gauhati High Court held that the fact of wilful misstatement or suppression should specifically be mentioned in the show-cause notice. Since the Department had not misstated any fact with intent to evade the payment of service tax, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Suman...

Tax Invoice, E-Way Bill, GR Or Payment Details Not Sufficient To Prove Physical Movement Of Goods: Allahabad High Court Upholds Penalty U/S 74 GST

Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that production of tax invoice, e-way bill, GR or payment details is not sufficient to show the actual physical movement of the transaction for the purposes of availing Input Tax Credit under Section 16 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Section 16 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 provides for the conditions and eligibility for claiming input tax credit. Section 16(2) provides that an assesee is not entitled any input tax credit...