Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 675 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

2016 (6) TMI 675 - CESTAT HYDERABAD - 2016 (43) S.T.R. 415 (Tri. - Hyd.) - Suo-Moto adjustment of excess service tax paid with the subsequent liability without adhering to provisions of Rule 6(4A) and 6(4B) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - The department entertained the view that as the respondents adjusted the excess amount suo-motto, without intimating department and in violation of above said Rules, the respondents have short paid service tax to that extent. - Held that:- The assessee is giv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

any restriction - Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/85/2012 - Final Order No.30094/2016 - Dated:- 18-1-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member ( Judicial ) Shri Karan Talwar, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R.K.Dass, AR for the Respondent ORDER [ Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S. ] 1. This is an appeal filed by Revenue challenging the order of Commissioner (Appeals) which set aside the demand of service tax interest and equal amount of penalty imposed alleging suo-mott .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2008 without adhering to provisions of Rule 6(4A) and 6(4B) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The department entertained the view that as the respondents adjusted the excess amount suo-motto, without intimating department and in violation of above said Rules, the respondents have short paid service tax to that extent. As per the rule, the respondent was entitled to adjust only ₹ 1,00,000/- in subsequent months towards the excess paid amount. By deducting ₹ 3,00,000/- from the excess paid 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

enuously argued that the respondents had violated provisions of Rule 6(4A) and (4B) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. As per these rules, when the assessee has paid excess amount the same can be adjusted in subsequent months, subject to a limit of one lakh rupees for a relevant month or quarter and are also bound to intimate the department about such adjustment. Out of the total excess amount paid of ₹ 22,75,932/- appellants adjusted in the month of April, 2008(10,00,658/-) July, 2008 (Rs.2, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ha Rameswaran appearing for the respondent supported the findings in the impugned order and adverted to the relevant provisions of law. She submitted that the adjudicating authority had wrongly applied Rule 6(4A) and (4B). That as per Rule 6(1A), the respondents were entitled to make adjustment of the amount excess paid. There was an omission to intimate the department about such adjustment. However, such adjustment was clearly shown in their ST-3 Returns in Column 4A(i) (a)(ii). The failure to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e procedure for adjustment. Rule 6(1A) does not impose any restriction of monetary limit while making the adjustment. Whereas Rule 6(4A) r/w (4B) imposes a restriction of rupees one lakh for a relevant month or quarter. The entire period of adjustment is between April, 2008 and March, 2009. 6. As per Rule 6(1A), any service Tax paid in advance can be adjusted against liability of subsequent period. This rule has come into effect on 01-03-2008. Further, rule 6(3) also provides for adjustment of e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Vs Rajdeep Buildcon(P)Ltd. 2011( 21) STR 663(Tri-Mum) where CESTAT observed that not giving intimation was only a technical lapse. 7. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as under: The sub-rule (1A) of Rule 6 is with regard to adjustment of service tax paid in advance and the same has come into effect from 01-03-2008, as such the contention of the appellant that they are eligible for adjustment of excess payment under Rule 6(1A) is not applicable for the period April,, .....

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