Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Inevitable TDS obligation even if deduction for impugned expense is not claimed.

Assessee is liable to deduct tax at source on interest payments, even if it has not claimed same as deduction while computing its total income

Facts:

a) The assessee-company credited interest to its sister concern’s account without deducting tax under section 194A. The Assessing Officer treated assessee as an 'assessee-in-default' and levied interest on it under section 201(1A);

b) On appeal before the CIT (A), the assessee contended that it could not be treated as an 'assessee-in-default', when it had not claimed interest amount as expenditure. The CIT (A) dismissed the assessee's appeal. Aggrieved assessee filed the instant appeal.

The Tribunal held in favour of revenue as under:

1) Provisions of section 194A(1) provide that the person responsible to pay the interest is liable to deduct tax at source at the time of credit or payment, whichever is earlier. Since the section uses the term 'any income by way of interest', it should be viewed from the angle of the payee and not from the angle of the person making the payment;

2) The accounting or tax treatment given by the payer in respect of interest paid by him may not be relevant at all for the purposes of section 194A. So long as the interest amount constitutes "income" in the hands of recipient, the payer shall be liable to deduct tax at source on the interest amount so paid;

3) Thus, even if the payer had disallowed the expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) or did not claim the same as expenditure at all, he would still be liable to deduct tax at source under section 194A on the interest amount so paid, if the said payment was liable to TDS;

4) Further, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) do not override the provisions of section 201. It provides only for deferment of the allowance and does not provide for absolute disallowance. Its objective appears to be to compel the assessee to deduct tax at source in order to claim the relevant expenditure as deduction;

5) Section 201 provides for treating an assessee as an assessee-in-default who has failed to deduct or pay the TDS amount. Its objective is only to compensate the Government for the failure of an assessee to deduct or pay the TDS amount;

6) Thus, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and section 201 operate on different objectives. Accordingly, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on interest payments, even if it had not claimed the same as deduction while computing its total income. The revenue was entitled to initiate proceedings under section 201 for such failure. Thus, the order of CIT(A) was to be upheld  - Agreenco Fibre Foam (P.) Ltd v. ITO(TDS) [2013] 38 taxmann.com 155 (Cochin - Trib.)

Friday, September 20, 2013

Recent Clarification on Arrest & Bail, Education Services and Ad-hoc Exemption for Service Tax in Uttarakhand



We are sharing with you some of the important recent clarifications issued by the Board on following points:

Arrest and Bail under the Service Tax

The Board vide Circular No.171/6/2013-Service Tax, Dated: September 17, 2013 has released the guidelines for arrest and bail in relation to offences punishable under the Finance Act, 1994 (Service Tax) similar on line as issued under the Central Excise Provisions vide Circular No.974/08/2013-CX, Dated: September 17, 2013 and under the Customs vide Circular No.38/2013-Customs, Dated: September 17, 2013, wherein certain issues are clarified on Bail, Arrest Memo, Precautions to be taken by the departmental officers and Certain modalities, etc.

Please find link below to access the Circular under the Service Tax

Service Tax Exemption for Uttarakhand
The Govt. vide Ad-hoc Exemption Order No. 1/1/2013, Dated: September 17, 2013 has exempted the taxable services of renting of a rooms in a hotel, inn, guest house, club, campsite or other commercial place meant for residential or lodging purposes and Services provided in relation to serving of food or beverages by a restaurant, eating joint or mess provided to any person in the State of Uttarakhand during the period 17th September, 2013 to 31st March, 2014.

Important to note: This exemption is specified only for two services as mentioned above.
Education Services – clarification

The Board vide Circular No. 172/7/2013-ST, Dated: September 19, 2013 has provided clarifications regarding the levy of service tax on certain services relating to the education sector in view of recent changes effective from 1st April, 2013 in clause 9 of the Mega Exemption Notification no. 25/2-012-ST dated. 20-6-2012.

Please find link below to access said Circular 

Hope the information will assist you in your Professional endeavors. In case of any query/ information, please do not hesitate to write back to us.
Thanks & Best Regards.

Bimal Jain
FCA, FCS, LLB, B.Com (Hons)
Mobile: +91 9810604563
E-mail:
bimaljain@hotmail.com

Released a Book - "Guide to Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013", authored by Bimal Jain, FCA, FCS, LLB

Disclaimer: The contents of this document are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the authors nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this document nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Readers are advised to consult the professional for understanding applicability of this newsletter in the respective scenarios. While due care has been taken in preparing this document, the existence of mistakes and omissions herein is not ruled out. No part of this document should be distributed or copied (except for personal, non-commercial use) without our written permission.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Work carried out on lump sum basis does not falls under supply of manpower services



We are sharing with you an important judgement of the Hon’ble CESTAT in the case of M/s. Shri Bileshwar Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandali Limited Vs. CCE [(2013) 36 Taxmann.com 8 (Ahmedabad - CESTAT)] on the following issue:
Issue:
Whether work carried out on lump sum basis as a contractor, exigible to Service Tax under the Supply of Manpower Services?

Facts & Background:

M/s. Shri Bileshwar Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandali Limited (“the Appellant” or “the Co-operative Society”) is a sugar co-operative society of farmers.

The farmers of the area, after cultivating the crop of sugarcane, are supplying the said sugarcane to the Appellant's factory for producing sugar.  Further the Appellant pays the farmer, a specified amount as per metric tonne for the cost of sugarcane procured by them.

The farmers were facing difficulty in arranging the labourer to cut the sugarcane crop, load the same into the trailer, unload it and put the same in sugar factory and accordingly had approached the Appellant for solving their problem. Since the farmers were facing difficulty in arranging the labourers to carry out the above work, the Co-operative Society on request of the farmers had got in touch with various labourers to cut sugarcane crop, load same into trailer, unload it and put it in its sugar factory.

The Appellant was paying price for purchase of sugarcane after deducting Rs. 300 per MT for work done by it i.e. charge of the labours paid by the Co-operative Society.

The Department argued that Rs. 300 per MT was sum (consideration) towards manpower supply agency services provided by the Appellant to farmers.

The Appellant contended that

·         The Appellant are not supplying any labour. Further the Co-operative Society is charging an amount as lump sum amount from the farmers.

·         An identical issue has been decided by the Bench in the case of K. Damodarareddy Vs.CCE [2010] 25 STT 69] {“ K. Damodarareddy Case”} wherein it has been held that when there are multiple services included and the charges are lump sum charges, it could not be covered under the category of man power recruitment or supply agency services. Also the same view has been reiterated by the Tribunal in the case of Ritesh Enterprises Vs. CCE [(2010) 24 STT 283] {“Ritesh Enterprises Case”}.

·         The farmers of the area are the members of the Appellant's sugar factory and hence they cannot be identified separately, which would result in the proposition that the Appellant is rendering the services to himself and the said services cannot be considered as services rendered to his clients.

Held:

The Hon’ble CESTAT granted stay to the Appellant and all the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved are allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeals. In the instant case, the Hon’ble CESTAT observed the following:
Ø  The Appellant has arranged for cutting of sugarcane crop from the field of farmers who are their members.

Ø   As evident from invoices the Appellant is charging lump sum amount of Rs.300/- per metric tonne for the help provided by them to farmers for cutting, loading and unloading of sugarcane from the field of farmers.

Ø  Relied on decision in case of K. Damodarareddy Case and Ritesh EnterprisesCase. In both these cases, the issue involved was identical except that bagging of cement, loading and unloading of the cement exist instead of sugarcane.

For your reference brief of the above relied on cases are as under:
K. Damodarareddy Case:
Under a contract with a cement company, the Assessee carried out activities of loading of cement bags into closed wagons, cleaning, sealing and riveting, etc., wagon door complete spillage recovery of total quantity, drawing of bags to stenciling floor, and wagon door opening/wagon cleaning - It was compensated for different items of work at separate rates prescribed in contract. The Assessee did not supply manpower or charge for labour provided on man-day basis or man-hour basis and carried out work as a contractor employing its own labour. The CESTAT held the Assessee carried out the work as a contractor employing its own labour is not classifiable as ‘Manpower recruitment or supply agency’.
Ritesh Enterprises Case:
The Assessee entered into a contract with different part for lump sum cargo handling for granite export and also for the purpose of rendering services of handling of bulk goods, bagging of fertilizers, feeding of bags for filling of fertilizers, stacking, destacking, etc. The Adjudicating Authority concluded that the above services rendered by the Assessee would fall under the category of ‘Manpower recruitment or supply agency’ in terms of Section 65(68) of the Finance Act,1994 (“the Finance Act”)  while the Assessee submitted that the contract in question was a works contract and not for supply of labour.

The Hon’ble CESTAT held that the Assessee were intimated about the berthing of vessels at various ports and they were given a lump sum contract for cargo handling, i.e., loading and unloading of the goods into the said vessels. Further, the invoices issued by the Assessee showed that they were raised for ‘cargo handling for granite export and loading of Indian rough granite blocks’ for a lump sum amount, charged per Metric Tonne.
The contract which had been given to the Assessee was for the execution of the work of loading, unloading, bagging, stacking, destacking, etc. Further, in the entire records, there was no whisper of supply of manpower to the concerned parties or any other recipient of the services. It was clear from the contracts and the invoices issued by the Assessee that the entire essence of the contract was an execution of work as understood by the Assessee and the recipient of the services. Further the entire tenure of the agreement and the purchase orders issued by the service recipient clearly indicated the execution of a lump sum work. That lump sum work would not fall under the category of providing of service of ‘supply of manpower temporarily or otherwise either directly or indirectly’.
Conclusion:

In view of above case laws, it can be concluded that no service tax is payable on work carried out on lump sum basis does not amount to manpower supply services.

POINTS TO REMEMBER:

Ø  Prior to July 1, 2012, Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency was exigible to service tax as being a taxable service defined under Section 65(68) and under Section65(105)(k) of the Finance Act respectively, which are reproduced as under:

Section 65(68) of the Finance Act with effect from May16, 2008 provides as under:

Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency means any person engaged in providing any service, directly or indirectly, in any manner for recruitment or supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise, to any other person.

Section 65(105)(k)of the Finance Act with effect from May 16,2008 provides as under:
Taxable service means any service provided or to be provided to any person, by a manpower recruitment or supply agency in relation to the recruitment or supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise, in any manner;
Explanation. — For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this sub-clause, recruitment or supply of manpower includes services in relation to pre-recruitment screening, verification of the credentials and antecedents of the candidate and authenticity of documents submitted by the candidate”
Ø  With effect from July 1, 2012, Section 65(68) and under Section65(105)(k) rescinded and new definition of supply of Manpower inserted under Rule 2(1) (g) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 (“the STR”), which is reproduced here in below:

Supply of Manpower means supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise, to another person to work under his superintendence or control.”
Difference between Old definition and New Definition of Supply of Manpower:
There is specific departure of Manpower recruitment, which is not included in the new definition and any supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise, in any manner was covered in erstwhile definition where as new definition is very specific i.e. Supply of Manpower means supply of manpower, temporarily or otherwise, to another person to work under his superintendence or control.
In view of above definition, where supplied manpowers are working under supervision or control of service recipient then it will fall under the ambit of “Supply of manpower” and thus exigible to service tax under the stated category. 
Supply of Manpower is one of the categories under Partial Reverse charge w.e.f 1-7-2012:
In certain specified circumstances, both service provider and service recipient would be liable to pay service tax in specified percentage under partial reverse mechanism in terms of Rule 2(1)(d) of the STR read with Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated June 20, 2012 (“the Notification”) as under:-
S.No
 Description of a service
 Percentage of service tax payable by the service provider
Percentage of service tax payable by the service recipient
8
Supply of Manpower Services for any purpose provided or agreed to be provided by an any individual, HUF or partnership firm, whether registered or not, including AOP, located in the taxable territory to a business entity registered as body corporate, located in the taxable territory
25%
75 %

Hope the information will assist you in your Professional endeavours. In case of any query/ information, please do not hesitate to write back to us.

Thanks & Best Regards

Bimal Jain
FCA, FCS, LLB, B.Com (Hons)
Mobile: +91 9810604563
E-mail: bimaljain@hotmail.com
Released a Book - "Guide to Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013", authored by Bimal Jain, FCA, FCS, LLB

Disclaimer: The contents of this document are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the authors nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this document nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Readers are advised to consult the professional for understanding applicability of this newsletter in the respective scenarios. While due care has been taken in preparing this document, the existence of mistakes and omissions herein is not ruled out. No part of this document should be distributed or copied (except for personal, non-commercial use) without our written permission.

Saturday, September 7, 2013

Indigo hikes flights rates by 25 percent.

New Delhi: Domestic carrier IndiGo on Friday followed its rivals and raised airfares by 25 per cent. IndiGo joins airlines such as SpiceJet, Jet Airways and Air India who recently hiked the fares by 25 per cent citing rise in input costs.
"IndiGo has revised upwards its fares, which are now 25 per cent higher than earlier," a source in the budget carrier said here. When contacted, the Gurgaon-based airline declined to comment on the issue.
There has been a 7 per cent increase in the jet fuel prices. This is due to the falling rupee and rise in international crude prices.
Incidentally, none of the airline has so far issued any official statement on the hike, in sharp contrast to ad blitzkrieg they resort to when they announce special low fares. They have declined to take media queries on the issue. "We are restoring the fares to the normal levels which existed in June," Air India sources said earlier, adding, the decision was a fallout of increase in jet fuel prices.
International oil prices have been trading between USD 105 and USD 115 a barrel since the past few months and the uptrend is influenced by the Syrian crisis. Jet fuel prices were hiked by a steep 6.9 per cent, taking the rate to Rs 75,031 per kilolitre, from September 1.
This came on the back of two rounds of ATF price hikes effected in July and August by oil marketing companies. ATF prices were increased by 5.8 per cent on July 1 and by another 6.3 per cent on August.

Thursday, September 5, 2013

Pension Bill: Key Highlights

A key economic reforms legislation, the Pension Bill, that provides for investment of funds in equity market and opens the sector to at least 26 per cent FDI was on Wednesday passed by the Lok Sabha.

• The subscriber seeking minimum assured returns shall be allowed to opt for investing his funds in such scheme providing minimum assured returns.

• Withdrawals will be permitted from the individual pension account subject to the conditions, such as, purpose, frequency and limits, as may be specified by the regulations.

• At least one of the pension fund managers shall be from the public sector.

• To establish a vibrant Pension Advisory Committee with representation from all major stakeholders to advise PFRDA on important matters of framing of regulations under the PFRDA Act.

• It will have provision for withdrawals for limited purposes from Tier-I pension account, an incentive for subscribers to join the New Pension Scheme (NPS).

• The corpus of the NPS having 52.83 lakh subscribers (including those of 26 state governments) was about Rs 35,000 crore.

• The bill also seeks to grant statutory status to the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority.

Source:- NDTV(Media)

Assessee not expected to verify with Department in order to avail Cenvat credit, whether supplier had paid duty on inputs or not.



We are sharing with you an important judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar vs. M/s. Kay Kay Industries [AIT-2013-147-SC] on following issue:

Issue:

Whether the assessee is expected to verify with Department whether supplier had paid duty on inputs supplied by Manufacturer-Supplier in order to avail deemed MODVAT credit?

Facts & Background:

M/s Kay Kay Industries (“the Respondent” or “the assessee”) availed deemed MODVAT credit of Rs. 77,546/- during the quarter of March, 2000 on the strength of invoices issued by M/s. Sawan Mal Shibhu Mal Steel Re-Rolling Mills, Mandi Govindgarh, supplier of inputs. During MODVAT verification it was found that the supplier of inputs had not discharged full duty liability for the period covered by the invoices on the strength of which the Respondent took the benefit of deemed MODVAT credit. The Competent Authority was of the view that it was obligatory on the part of the Respondent to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the appropriate duty of excise had been paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of their final product as required under Rule 57A(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (“the Rules”) read with notification No. 58/97-CE(NT) dated 30.8.1997 (“the  notification”) and issued a show-cause notice on 19.1.2001 proposing recovery of deemed MODVAT credit of Rs. 77,546/- and imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority, after receipt of the reply to the show-cause notice, by order dated 22.3.2002, disallowed the deemed MODVAT benefit availed earlier and ordered for recovery of the said sum along with interest, and, further imposed penalty of Rs. 40,000/-.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the Respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jalandhar, who concurred with the view taken by the adjudicating authority. However, it reduced the penalty from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. Thereafter, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) who quashed the orders passed by the adjudicating authority and that of the appellate authority.

Questioning the justifiability of the aforesaid order, Revenue preferred an appeal before the High Court who concurring with the view expressed by the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Held:

It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Rule 57A (6) of the Rules postulates and requires “reasonable care” and not verification from the Department whether the duty stands paid by the manufacturer-seller.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no dispute that a declaration was given by the manufacturer of the inputs indicating that the excise duty had been paid on the said inputs under the Act.

It is also not in dispute that the said inputs were directly received from the manufacturer but not purchased from the market. There is no cavil over the fact that the manufacturer of the inputs had declared the invoice price of the inputs correctly in the documents.

Rule 57A (6) of the Rules requires the manufacturer of final products to take reasonable care that the inputs acquired by him are goods on which the appropriate duty of excise as indicated in the documents accompanying the goods, has been paid.

The notification has been issued in exercise of the power under the said Rule. The notification clearly states to which of those inputs it shall apply and to which of the inputs it shall not apply and what is the duty of the manufacturer of final inputs. Thus, when there is a prescribed procedure and that has been duly followed by the manufacturer of final products, it cannot be perceived that the assessee had not taken reasonable care as prescribed in the notification. Due care and caution was taken by the Respondent. It is not stated what further care and caution could have been taken.

Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and decided the case in favour of the Respondent.

Present Scenario under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (“the Credit Rules”):
As such there is no specific condition under the Credit Rules that the assessee has to verify with Department in order to avail Cenvat credit, whether supplier had paid duty on inputs supplied by Manufacturer-Supplier. Further, Sub rule (5) and (6) of Rule 9 of the Credit Rules, only specify that burden of proof lies on Manufacturer or Service Provider regarding admissibility of the CENVAT credit on Inputs, Capital Goods and Input Services as reproduced here in below:
“(5) The manufacturer of final products or the provider of output service shall maintain proper records for the receipt, disposal, consumption and inventory of the input and capital goods in which the relevant information regarding the value, duty paid, CENVAT credit taken and utilized, the person from whom the input or capital goods have been procured is recorded and the burden of proof regarding the admissibility of the CENVAT credit shall lie upon the manufacturer or provider of output service taking such credit.
(6) The manufacturer of final products or the provider of output service shall maintain proper records for the receipt and consumption of the input services in which the relevant information regarding the value, tax paid, CENVAT credit taken and utilized, the person from whom the input service has been procured is recorded and the burden of proof regarding the admissibility of the CENVAT credit shall lie upon the manufacturer or provider of output service taking such credit.”

Recently, the Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of CC & CCE Vs M/s Juhi Alloys Ltd (2013-TIOL-1310-CESTAT-DEL) has held that “A buyer can take steps which are in their control and he cannot be expected to verify the records of the supplier's broker (i.e dealer) to check whether in fact the supplier has paid duty on the goods supplied by him or not - as long as bonafide nature of the consignee transaction is not doubted, credit should not be denied - Revenue appeals rejected: CESTAT [paras 6, 7 & 8]:DELHI CESTAT”

Hope the information will assist you in your Professional endeavors. In case of any query/ information, please do not hesitate to write back to us.
Thanks & Best Regards.

Bimal Jain
FCA, FCS, LLB, B.Com (Hons)
Mobile: +91 9810604563
E-mail:
bimaljain@hotmail.com

Released a Book - "Guide to Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013", authored by Bimal Jain, FCA, FCS, LLB

Disclaimer: The contents of this document are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the authors nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this document nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Readers are advised to consult the professional for understanding applicability of this newsletter in the respective scenarios. While due care has been taken in preparing this document, the existence of mistakes and omissions herein is not ruled out. No part of this document should be distributed or copied (except for personal, non-commercial use) without our written permission.