GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 239 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2016 (6) TMI 239 - CESTAT CHENNAI - 2016 (45) S.T.R. 101 (Tri. - Chennai), [2016] 94 VST 232 (CESTAT) - Short payment of Service tax in the month of July, 2011 due to the adjustment of service tax paid in excess in the month of May, 2011 - Erection and Commissioning, Maintenance and repair, BAS, GTA, Consulting Engineer, Sponsorship services etc. - Held that:- it is a well settled legal principle that the statue should be interpreted as it is even if the intention is imperfect, imprecise or ther .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vides that singular include the plural. Accordingly, month includes months. Further the various case laws relied on by the appellants are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The excess amount paid in the month of May, 2011 adjusted by the appellants in the subsequent months tax liability is absolutely in order. Therefore, invoking Section 73(1) for a non-existing short payment is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief - ST/41888/2015 - Final .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rship services etc. and holding Centralised Service Tax Registration. A Show Cause Notice dated 08.04.2013 was issued to the appellants proposing demand of service tax of ₹ 5,20,732/- along with interest under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and proposing imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. On adjudication, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demands and imposed penalty under Section 76 of the Act. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants were on app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uly, 2011. He submits that Rule 6 (4A) of Service Tax Rules allows re-credit in the succeeding month and July 2011 can also be accepted as succeeding to May, 2011 though not immediately succeeding month. He submits that in service tax, returns are submitted half yearly and these adjustments can be monitored only during the scrutiny of single return itself. Therefore, short payment in the month of July, 2011 is due to the adjustment of service tax paid in excess in the month of May, 2011. He subm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

011. He relied on the following case laws in support of his contention and submitted that the issue stands settled in favour of the appellants and is no longer res integra. 1. General Manager (CMTS) Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-2014 (36) STR 1084 (Tri.-De.) 2. Jubilant Organosys Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut-II-2014-TIOL-1870-CESTAT-DEL 3. M/s. Plantech Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-2015-TIOL-2497-CESTAT-MUM 4. Garima Associates Vs. CCE, Chandrapur-2015 (40) STR 247 (Tri.-Mum.) He submits that in the case o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in subsequent tax liability of service tax. In the case of Jubilant Organosys Ltd. (supra), it has been held that the issue was no longer res integra and stands settled in favour of the appellants that the adjustment of service tax paid in excess towards the service tax liability of the subsequent months cannot be denied on technical grounds and hence penalty imposed is also not sustainable. He submits that as the excess amount of service tax paid in advance was adjusted in the tax liability of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ule 6 (4A) and not under 6 (1A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. He submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 6 (1A) of the said Rules, the adjustment of excess payments can be made only in the succeeding month/quarter as the case may be. In the case on hand, excess amount paid in May was adjusted against the tax liability for the month of July, which is not in order and cannot be considered as payment of tax liability for the month of July. Hence the demands are sustainable. 4. Heard both sides a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version