TAX ON GTA
This query is : Resolved
05 May 2009
we are mfg/exp and using the transportation services from the various transportars
we are paying the service tax as the service used from GTA
we are taking the input credit on freight inward and not taking the input credit on freight outward tax which is being paid by us
some of our transporters have the service tax number and they are charging the service tax from us from their bills
i want to know that have we to pay the service tax on the amout on which the service tax charged by the transporter and can we take the credit on that amount or we should not pay the tax to the transporter and should deposit it myself
if we can take the credit of service tax on the freight outward up to the place of the removal (can be the doorstedp of consignee)
whts the issue of credit of freight outward????
pls advice
we are paying the service tax as the service used from GTA
we are taking the input credit on freight inward and not taking the input credit on freight outward tax which is being paid by us
some of our transporters have the service tax number and they are charging the service tax from us from their bills
i want to know that have we to pay the service tax on the amout on which the service tax charged by the transporter and can we take the credit on that amount or we should not pay the tax to the transporter and should deposit it myself
if we can take the credit of service tax on the freight outward up to the place of the removal (can be the doorstedp of consignee)
whts the issue of credit of freight outward????
pls advice
05 May 2009
When tax is paid by the transporter, no service tax is required to be paid by you. You will pay the ST amount to the transporter as take credit.
On outward freignt, till place of removal credit is available. Customer doorstep can be a place of removal.
On outward freignt, till place of removal credit is available. Customer doorstep can be a place of removal.
05 May 2009
if we can take the credit of service tax on the freight outward up to the place of the removal (can be the doorstedp of consignee)
whts the issue of credit of freight outward????
pls advice
whts the issue of credit of freight outward????
pls advice
08 May 2009
if we can take the credit of service tax on the freight outward up to the place of the removal (can be the doorstedp of consignee)
whts the issue of credit of freight outward????
pls advice
whts the issue of credit of freight outward????
pls advice
16 May 2009
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING :-
Court : Punjab & Haryana High Court
Brief : : ST - Cenvat Credit on Outward Freight - Revenue disallows -held, Assessee is eligible for Credit: High Court
Citation : Ambuja Cements Ltd Vs UoI (Dated: February 10, 2009)
Judgment :
ST - Cenvat Credit on Outward Freight - Revenue disallows -held, Assessee is eligible for Credit: High Court
CHANDIGARH, MAR 04, 2009: IN DDT-599 while reporting the Gujarat Ambuja case (2007-TIOL-539-CESTAT-DEL) - No credit of Service Tax on outward freight - landmark order from Tribunal, we stated, Not everything is lost. The issue has to be taken to a Larger Bench/High Court/Supreme Court. In DDT-601, while reporting that the same issue was before the Bangalore Bench, we suggested, Now what can this Bench do, since there is already a decision by another Bench? It has only two choices – agree with the Delhi Bench or refer the matter to a Larger Bench. That is exactly what the Bangalore Bench did in the India Cement case - 2007-TIOL-1248-CESTAT-BANG.
While the Larger Bench of the CESTAT is yet to decide the issue, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has decided the issue – in favour of the Assessee.
The High Court observed,
The Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) has issued a circular dated 23.8.2007 dealing with the issue concerning ‘up to what stage manufacturer/consigner could take credit on the service tax paid on goods transported by it by road’. The issue, in fact, has emerged out of the order of the Tribunal passed in the case of the appellant itself. The Board has opined that the phrase ‘place of removal’ has to be determined by taking into account the facts of each case. According to the circular, the expression ‘place of removal’ has been defined by Section 4 of the 1944 Act and according to sub-rule (t) of Rule 2 of the CC Rules, if any words or expression used in those rules are not defined but are defined in the 1944 Act or the 1994 Act then they are to be given the same meaning for the CC Rules as assigned to them in those Acts. Accordingly, reliance on Section 4 of the 1944 Act has been made where place of removal has been defined.
It is clear from the definition that for a manufacturer/consignor the eligibility to avail credit of the service tax paid on the transportation during removal of excisable goods would depend upon the place of removal. The circular further contemplates compliance of certain conditions where the sale has taken place at the destination point. The relevant part of the circular reads as under:-
“……However, there may be situations where the manufacturer/consignor may claim that the sale has taken place at the destination point because in terms of the sale contract/agreement (i) the ownership of goods and the property in the goods remained with the seller of the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his door step; (ii) the seller bore the risk of loss of or damage to the goods during transit to the destination; and (iii) the freight charges were an integral part of the price of goods. In such cases, the credit of the service tax paid on the transportation up to such place of sale would be admissible if it can be established by the claimant of such credit that the sale and the transfer of property in goods (in terms of the definition as under section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also in terms of the provisions under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930) occurred at the said place.”
It is well settled that the circulars issued by the Board are binding and aims at adoption of uniform practice. It is, thus, evident that the revenue is precluded from challenging the correctness of the circular even on the ground of the same being inconsistent with statutory provisions. It goes further to limit the right of the revenue to file an appeal against the correctness of the binding nature of the circular. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the circular is binding on the revenue.
The ‘input service’ has been defined to mean any service used by the manufacturer whether directly or indirectly and also includes, inter alia, services used in relation to inward transportation of inputs or export goods and outward transportation up to the place of removal. It has also remain un-controverted that for transportation purposes insurance cover has also been taken by the appellant which further shows that the ownership of the goods and the property in the goods has not been transferred to the seller till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his door step. Accordingly, even the second condition that the seller has to bear the risk of loss or damage to the goods during transit to the destination stand fulfilled.
So the High Court held that the assessee is eligible to take credit on the service tax paid on outward freight – subject to fulfilling the conditions prescribed in the Board Circular.
This is perhaps not the END – the issue is referred to the Larger Bench and also before some more High Courts. The Government has solved the problem for the post 2008 period, can’t they simply accept the position for the pre 2008 period and close all the litigation?
Court : Punjab & Haryana High Court
Brief : : ST - Cenvat Credit on Outward Freight - Revenue disallows -held, Assessee is eligible for Credit: High Court
Citation : Ambuja Cements Ltd Vs UoI (Dated: February 10, 2009)
Judgment :
ST - Cenvat Credit on Outward Freight - Revenue disallows -held, Assessee is eligible for Credit: High Court
CHANDIGARH, MAR 04, 2009: IN DDT-599 while reporting the Gujarat Ambuja case (2007-TIOL-539-CESTAT-DEL) - No credit of Service Tax on outward freight - landmark order from Tribunal, we stated, Not everything is lost. The issue has to be taken to a Larger Bench/High Court/Supreme Court. In DDT-601, while reporting that the same issue was before the Bangalore Bench, we suggested, Now what can this Bench do, since there is already a decision by another Bench? It has only two choices – agree with the Delhi Bench or refer the matter to a Larger Bench. That is exactly what the Bangalore Bench did in the India Cement case - 2007-TIOL-1248-CESTAT-BANG.
While the Larger Bench of the CESTAT is yet to decide the issue, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has decided the issue – in favour of the Assessee.
The High Court observed,
The Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) has issued a circular dated 23.8.2007 dealing with the issue concerning ‘up to what stage manufacturer/consigner could take credit on the service tax paid on goods transported by it by road’. The issue, in fact, has emerged out of the order of the Tribunal passed in the case of the appellant itself. The Board has opined that the phrase ‘place of removal’ has to be determined by taking into account the facts of each case. According to the circular, the expression ‘place of removal’ has been defined by Section 4 of the 1944 Act and according to sub-rule (t) of Rule 2 of the CC Rules, if any words or expression used in those rules are not defined but are defined in the 1944 Act or the 1994 Act then they are to be given the same meaning for the CC Rules as assigned to them in those Acts. Accordingly, reliance on Section 4 of the 1944 Act has been made where place of removal has been defined.
It is clear from the definition that for a manufacturer/consignor the eligibility to avail credit of the service tax paid on the transportation during removal of excisable goods would depend upon the place of removal. The circular further contemplates compliance of certain conditions where the sale has taken place at the destination point. The relevant part of the circular reads as under:-
“……However, there may be situations where the manufacturer/consignor may claim that the sale has taken place at the destination point because in terms of the sale contract/agreement (i) the ownership of goods and the property in the goods remained with the seller of the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his door step; (ii) the seller bore the risk of loss of or damage to the goods during transit to the destination; and (iii) the freight charges were an integral part of the price of goods. In such cases, the credit of the service tax paid on the transportation up to such place of sale would be admissible if it can be established by the claimant of such credit that the sale and the transfer of property in goods (in terms of the definition as under section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also in terms of the provisions under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930) occurred at the said place.”
It is well settled that the circulars issued by the Board are binding and aims at adoption of uniform practice. It is, thus, evident that the revenue is precluded from challenging the correctness of the circular even on the ground of the same being inconsistent with statutory provisions. It goes further to limit the right of the revenue to file an appeal against the correctness of the binding nature of the circular. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the circular is binding on the revenue.
The ‘input service’ has been defined to mean any service used by the manufacturer whether directly or indirectly and also includes, inter alia, services used in relation to inward transportation of inputs or export goods and outward transportation up to the place of removal. It has also remain un-controverted that for transportation purposes insurance cover has also been taken by the appellant which further shows that the ownership of the goods and the property in the goods has not been transferred to the seller till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his door step. Accordingly, even the second condition that the seller has to bear the risk of loss or damage to the goods during transit to the destination stand fulfilled.
So the High Court held that the assessee is eligible to take credit on the service tax paid on outward freight – subject to fulfilling the conditions prescribed in the Board Circular.
This is perhaps not the END – the issue is referred to the Larger Bench and also before some more High Courts. The Government has solved the problem for the post 2008 period, can’t they simply accept the position for the pre 2008 period and close all the litigation?
You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now
Click here to login now
Similar Resolved Queries
Unanswered Queries
- Where to show the RCM on Rent paid to unregistered landlord
- CPC Processing IT Return for AY 2023-24 without recognizing the Taxation Option under New Regime
- Applicability
- Is Aadhar PAN linking required for opening bank account?
- Legal heir raised refund , but refund issued to the closed account of deceased.
- TDS NUMBER SURRENDER
- Gst Sales of FY 2023-24
- Offsetting interest income against derivative trading losses
- GSTR-3B - Do I file nil when there is no sale but I've bought raw materials
- RCM - commercial rent paid to URP under GST
- Doubt in Form AOC 4
- Issue of gst e invoice
- Interchangeable words in accounts
- Adjusted profit/Loss in the case of LLP and Pvt. Ltd.company
- How to adjusted advances given or receipt
- Foreign vendor without PAN unable to to register due to non receipt of OTP on foreign number ?
- 133(6) DIN INVALID format error - ->WHERE TO REPLY 133(6) notice?
- Query for dubts
- Regarding Resignation by Auditor from Pvt. Ltd.
- Regarding einvoice taken on nil rated sales
Trending Online Classes
-
Excel Mastery Program
CA Rishabh Pugalia
CAclubindia
