Adjustment of service tax paid
dharmender (Student CA IPC / IPCC) (169 Points)
28 October 2016dharmender (Student CA IPC / IPCC) (169 Points)
28 October 2016
Dhirajlal Rambhia
(SEO Sai Gr. Hosp.)
(177824 Points)
Replied 29 October 2016
Recent Judgement of Chennai Bench:
Schwing Stetter India (P.) Ltd.
v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU, Chennai
P.K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
FINAL ORDER NO. 40884/2016
APPEAL NO. ST/41888/2015
JUNE 3, 2016
.....................
4. Heard both sides and perused the records. The short issue to be decided is whether the appellant has short paid the service tax during the month of July, 2011 by wrongly adjusting the service tax excess paid by them in the month of May, 2011 or otherwise. Both the authorities below have observed that as per Rule 6(4A) of STR, 1994, it is a wrong adjustment since Rule says that the assessee may adjust such excess amount paid by him against his service tax liability for the succeeding month or quarter and not in the subsequent months. The contention of the appellant is that the benefit of the same should be extended to the subsequent months after the succeeding month. It is a well settled legal principle that the statue should be interpreted as it is even if the intention is imperfect, imprecise or there is an obvious omission. Even though the appellants have not specifically intimated the department in this regard, but adjustment was declared in their ST3 returns, accordingly intimation of such adjustment stands made to the department. Even if it is not adhered to, at the most it is a procedural lapse and merely for this procedural lapse the excess amount paid could not be deviated and cannot be permitted to be retained by the government. Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that singular include the plural. Accordingly, month includes months. Further the case laws relied on by the appellants are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The issue stands settled against the Revenue and in favour of the appellant assessee. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the excess amount paid in the month of May, 2011 adjusted by the appellants in the subsequent months tax liability is absolutely in order. "
I think, you can adjust in subsequent periods.