Showing posts with label ServiceTax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ServiceTax. Show all posts

09 December 2016

Service tax Exemption Notification

No service tax on credit, debit card transactions up to 2,000

The Government will waive service tax on debit and credit card transactions of up to Rs. 2,000 to promote digital transactions amid cash crunch following the withdrawal of old Rs. 500 and 1,000 banknotes.

The Government has decided to "exempt services by an acquiring bank to any person in relation to settlement of an amount up to Rs. 2,000 in a single transaction through credit, debit card or other payment card service", sources said.

A notification to this effect will be tabled by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in Parliament.

Following demonetisation of old high value notes, there has been a cash crunch in the country as people have been making a beeline for banks and ATMs to withdraw new currency.

The Government has been taking steps to promote cashless or digital transactions to take India towards a less-cash economy.

Recently, the Government asked banks to install additional 10 lakh PoS terminals by March 31 in different parts of the country.

The service tax notification of June 2012 will be amended to include exemption on credit and debit cards, the sources added.

As of now, services provided by organisations such as United Nations and other international bodies are exempt from tax.

A range of other services provided by arbitral tribunals, testing of newly developed drugs, educational institutions, trade unions, general insurance business and sports bodies, among others, too are exempt from the levy.



30 September 2016

SC on Service Tax Audit


Apex Court stays Delhi HC's judgment of 'Mega Cabs' on service tax audit
September 30, 2016[2016] 73 taxmann.com 402 (SC)

Service Tax : Judgment of Delhi High Court quashing rule 5A(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 and holding service tax audits as invalid, has been stayed by Supreme Court; hence, for time being, service tax audits may continue

■■■

[2016] 73 taxmann.com 402 (SC)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Union of India

v.

Mega Cabs (P.) Ltd.

Madan B. Lokur AND DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.

Petition(s) for Special Leave to
Appeal (C) no(S). 26675 of 2016

SEPTEMBER  26, 2016 

Rule 5A , read with rule 5 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and sections 72, 72A, 73, 82 and 94(2)(k) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Audit - Service Tax - Submission of Records - Rule 5A(2) was amended w.e.f. 5-12-2014 authorising officers of Service Tax Department or audit party to seek production of documents on demand and Circulars 181/7/2014-ST and Circular 995/2/2015-CX were issued power of audit and audit norms - Assessee challenged said rule and Circulars on ground that there is no power of audit with service tax authorities and only audit under Section 72A can be conducted by Chartered/Cost Accountants - High Court held that : (A) there is no general power with service tax authorities to conduct audit; (B) word 'verify' in section 94(2)(k) empowers verification of records and does not empower 'audit' of records, as audit is an specialized function and cannot be entrusted to any and every officer of department; (C) moreover, 'records' would mean 'records' required to be kept under rule 5(2), therefore, rule 5A(2) requiring even furnishing of 'audit reports' exceeds mandate of 'records'; and (D) hence, Rule 5A(2) and two Circulars were ultra vires and quashed - On Revenue's Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court - HELD : Notice be issued in petition - In meanwhile, there shall be a stay of operation of judgment of High Court. [Para 3] [Partly in favour of Revenue]

Circulars and Notifications : Notification No. 23/2014-ST, dated 5-12-2014, Circular No. 181/7/2014-ST dated 10-12-2014, Circular No. 995/2/2015-CX dated 27th February 2015

CASE REVIEW

 

Mega Cabs (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2016] 70 taxmann.com 51 (Delhi) - stayed.

Mukul Rohatgi, AG, Rupesh Kumar, Subash C. Acharya, Ms. Diksha Rai, Nikhil Rohatgi, Mohit Khubchandani, Advs. and B. Krishna Prasad, AOR for the Petitioner. J.K. Mittal, Rajveer Singh, Advs. and Praveen Swarup, AOR for the Respondent.

ORDER

 

Issue notice.

Mr. J.K. Mittal, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the sole respondent.

In the meanwhile, there shall be a stay of the operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 3.6.2016 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition(C) No.5192 of 2015.

Tag with Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34872 of 2014



26 August 2016

CBEC ON HIRING


CBEC Clarifies the issue of Service Tax Liability on Hiring of Goods without Transfer of 'Right to Use'of Goods

CBEC issues clarification on service tax liability in case of hiring, leasing, licensing of goods without the transfer of right to use them, as provided u/s 66E(f) of Finance Act; States that in such cases, it is essential to determine whether in terms of the contract, there is transfer of right to use goods and the criteria laid down by SC in BSNL should invariably be followed and applied; SC had inter alia laid down that (i) there must be goods available for delivery, (ii) there must be consensus ad idem as to their identity, (iii) transferee should have legal right to use the goods, (iv) such right should be to the exclusion of the transferor i.e. it should not be merely license to use the goods, and (v) during the period of transfer, owner cannot again transfer the same right to others; Further states that cases decided under Sales Tax / VAT legislations cannot be applied mechanically, they have to be considered against the background of those particular legislative provisions and terms of contract in that case; Some of these cases include Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd, International Travel House Ltd, State Bank of India and G. S. Lamba & Sons; CBEC also cites examples of 'financial lease' & 'operating lease', as well as 'dry leases' & 'wet leases' for aircraft industry, to emphasize the diverse nature of transactions and clarifies that in all these cases, no a priori generalizations or assumptions about service tax liability should be made; Reiterates, "..the terms of the contract should be examined carefully, against the backdrop of the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited case as well as other judicial pronouncements." : CBEC Circular 


CBEC ON HIRING


CBEC Clarifies the issue of Service Tax Liability on Hiring of Goods without Transfer of 'Right to Use'of Goods

CBEC issues clarification on service tax liability in case of hiring, leasing, licensing of goods without the transfer of right to use them, as provided u/s 66E(f) of Finance Act; States that in such cases, it is essential to determine whether in terms of the contract, there is transfer of right to use goods and the criteria laid down by SC in BSNL should invariably be followed and applied; SC had inter alia laid down that (i) there must be goods available for delivery, (ii) there must be consensus ad idem as to their identity, (iii) transferee should have legal right to use the goods, (iv) such right should be to the exclusion of the transferor i.e. it should not be merely license to use the goods, and (v) during the period of transfer, owner cannot again transfer the same right to others; Further states that cases decided under Sales Tax / VAT legislations cannot be applied mechanically, they have to be considered against the background of those particular legislative provisions and terms of contract in that case; Some of these cases include Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd, International Travel House Ltd, State Bank of India and G. S. Lamba & Sons; CBEC also cites examples of 'financial lease' & 'operating lease', as well as 'dry leases' & 'wet leases' for aircraft industry, to emphasize the diverse nature of transactions and clarifies that in all these cases, no a priori generalizations or assumptions about service tax liability should be made; Reiterates, "..the terms of the contract should be examined carefully, against the backdrop of the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited case as well as other judicial pronouncements." : CBEC Circular 


26 July 2016

Payment of Service Tax by Cheque

Clarification issued regarding payment of Service Tax through non electronic modes

by CA Bimal Jain


The CBEC vide Instruction F.No 137/08/2013-Service Tax dated July 22, 2016, issued direction that the discretion vested in the jurisdictional Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, to allow the assessee to deposit Service tax by any other mode, under rule 6(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, should be exercised judiciously and rationally. The supervisory officers should, from time to time, check such exercises of discretion so that there are no unwarranted refusals.

Presently, every assessee is required to pay Service tax electronically through internet banking, however, the jurisdictional Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, allow the assessee to deposit service tax by any other mode e.g cheque.

21 May 2016

Clarification on Arbitral Tribunal


Clarification regarding leviability of Service tax in respect of services provided by arbitral tribunal and members of such tribunal
In accordance with Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated June 20, 2012, Services provided or agreed to be provided by an arbitral tribunal to a business entity (turnover exceeding Rs 10 lakh) located in the taxable territory, is taxable under reverse charge mechanism.
Further, In the Budget 2016-17, the Entry No. 6(c) of the Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated June 20, 2012 has been omitted with effect from April 1, 2016, which read as: "Services provided by a person represented on an arbitral tribunal to an arbitral tribunal."
Now, it has come to the notice of the Board that there is some confusion regarding the legal position with respect to continuance of reverse charge mechanism for services provided by arbitral tribunals and individual arbitrators on the arbitral tribunal, with effect from April 1, 2016
Therefore the Board explains that-
·         It could be argued that service provided by an arbitrator on the panel of arbitrators, to the arbitral tribunal is taxable under forward charge. However, this does not appear to be a correct interpretation of law. Any reference in Service tax law to an "arbitral tribunal" necessarily includes the natural persons on the arbitral tribunal, by virtue of clause (d) of Section 2 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and
·         Services are provided or agreed to be provided by the panel of arbitrators, as comprising of the several natural persons on the said panel, to the business entity or to the arbitration institution approached by the business entity for purposes of arbitration
·         Thus,  the liability to discharge Service tax is on the service recipient, if it is a business entity located in the taxable territory with a turnover exceeding rupees ten lakh in the preceding financial year.
Further, The Central Board of Excise and Customs vide Circular No. 193/03/2016-Service Tax dated May 18, 2016 has issued clarification that Service tax liability for services provided by an arbitral tribunal (including the individual arbitrators of the tribunal) shall be on the service recipient under reverse charge mechanism if it is a business entity located in the taxable territory with a turnover exceeding rupees ten lakh in the preceding financial year.

28 August 2015

Dept Clarification on Restaurant Service (Home Delivery)

Chandigarh Service Tax Dept. clarifies that free home delivery / pick-up of food is not liable to service tax; States that dominant nature of transaction is that of 'sale' as food is not served at restaurant and no other element of service such as ambience, live entertainment (if any), air conditioning or personalised hospitality is offered; Clarifies, "Service Tax can be levied if there's an element of 'Service' involved which would typically be the case where food is served in restaurant." : Dept Clarification 

01 March 2015

Simplification of Registration Procedures in Service Tax- S.Tax Registration within 2 Days:-

Central Board of Excise and Customs specifies the following documentation, time limits and procedure with respect to filing of registration applications for single premises, which shall come into effect from 1-3-2015. Applicants seeking registration for a single premises in service tax shall file the application online in the Automation of Central Excise and Service Tax (ACES) website  www.aces.gov.in in Form ST-1. (PAN, Email and Mobile No, are Mandatory for Registration) Once the completed application form is filed in ACES, registration would be granted online within 2 days, thus initiating trust-based registration. On grant of registration, the applicant would also be enabled to electronically pay service tax. Further, the applicant would not need a signed copy of the Registration Certificate as proof of registration. Registration Certificate downloaded from the ACES web site would be accepted as proof of registration dispensing with the need for a signed copy.  The applicant is required to submit a self attested copy of the mandatory documents by registered post/ Speed Post to the concerned Division, within 7 days of filing the Form ST-1 online, for the purposes of verification.

15 January 2015

Supreme Court Stay on Service Tax Audit

SC stays Travelite India (Delhi HC) judgment striking down service tax rule 5A(2)

January 12, 2015[2015] 53 taxmann.com 238 (SC)

 

Service Tax : Supreme Court stayed operation of judgment of Delhi High Court in Travelite (India) holding that : (a) only type of audit contemplated under law is under section 72A, i.e., a special audit; (b) Parliament did not intend to provide for a general audit that "every assessee" may be subjected to "on demand" under rule 5A(2); and (c) rule 5A(2) of Service Tax rules, 1994 is ultra vires section 94

■■■

[2015] 53 taxmann.com 238 (SC)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Union of India

v.

Travelite (India)*

H.L. DATTU, CJI.
A.K. SIKRI AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.

Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 34872 of 2014

DECEMBER  18, 2014 

Rule 5A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, read with sections 72A, 83 and 94 of the Finance Act, 1994 and section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Audit - Service Tax - Submission of Records - Assessee received a letter from Commissioner seeking records for scrutiny by an audit party - Assessee challenged said letter and also challenged rule 5A(2) as well as Instruction F. No. 137/26/2007-CX.4, dated 1-1-2008 issued there under as ultra vires Act on ground that there is no substantive power under Act to call for records and audit is provided only by section 72A and, therefore, mandate of section 72A cannot be exceeded - High Court held that : (a) Section 72A envisages an audit of an assessee's records only in special circumstances; (b) Revenue could not show any other substantive provision which justifies a probe into records of assessee, under conditions akin to those contemplated by rule 5A(2); (c) Parliament did not intend to provide for a general audit that "every assessee" may be subjected to, "on demand"; (d) thus, any attempt to include provision for such a general audit through back-door, such as through rule 5A(2) is ultra-vires; likewise, CBEC instruction was also void - On Department's Special Leave Petition to Supreme Court - HELD : There shall be stay of operation of judgment of High Court [Para 1] [Stay granted]

CASE REVIEW

 

Travelite (India) v. Union of India [2014] 48 taxmann.com 227/[2014] 46 GST 708 (Delhi) stayed.

Mukul Rohatgi, Attorney General Nisha Bagchi, Charul Sarin and B. Krishna Prasad, Advs. for the Appellant.

ORDER

 

1. There shall be stay of the operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 4-8-2014 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition (C) No.3774 of 2013.

■■

*In favour of revenue.

 

 

24 October 2014

ST3 Return Due Date Extended to 14th Nov,2014

Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Excise & Customs

New Delhi, the 24th October, 2014

ORDER NO 02/2014-SERVICE TAX

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (4) of rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the Central Board of Excise & Customs hereby extends the date of submission of the Form ST-3 for the period from 1st April 2014 to 30th September 2014, from 25th October, 2014 to 14th November, 2014.

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (4) of rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the Central Board of Excise & Customs hereby extends the date of submission of the Form ST-3 for the period from 1st April 2014 to 30th September 2014, from 25th October, 2014 to 14th November, 2014.

The circumstances of a special nature, which have given rise to this extension of time, are as follows:

"Natural calamities in certain parts of the country."

F.No.137/99/2011-Service Tax

Himani Bhayana
Under Secretary (Service Tax)
Central Board of Excise and Customs

08 August 2014

NO SERVICE TAX AUDIT BY DEPARTMENT OR CAG

NO SERVICE TAX AUDIT BY DEPARTMENT OR CAG

 

In an Important judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Travelite (India) Vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (C) 3774/2013, C.M. No. 7065/2013] on the Service Tax Audit issue it is held that :

 

Rule 5A(2) of the Service tax Rules is ultra vires the provisions of the Finance Act:

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that Rules only give effect to statute’s provisions and intent and cannot be used to create substantive rights, obligations or liabilities that are not within the contemplation of the statute. Further, the only audit within the Statute is as mentioned under Section 72A of the Finance Act, i.e. a Special Audit, when only certain circumstances are fulfilled. The Parliament thus had a clear intention to provide for only a special audit. Accordingly, Rule 5A(2) of the Service Tax Rules cannot provide for a general audit of the assessee and is ultra vires the rule making power conferred under Section 94(1) of the Finance Act.

Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court also held that the Service Tax Audit Manual is merely an instrument of instructions for the service tax authorities and do not have any statutory force. Therefore, Rule 5A(2) of the Service Tax Rules cannot be justified on the basis of the Service Tax Audit Manual.

 

The Instruction regarding Audit by Department is contrary to the Statue:

Further, it was held that the Instruction is also ultra vires the Finance Act since executive instructions without statutory force cannot override the law. Consequently, any notice, circular, guideline etc., contrary to statutory laws cannot be enforced since the parent statute in this regard, the Finance Act itself does not authorise a general audit of the type envisioned by the impugned Rule 5A(2) of the Service Tax Rules, and furthermore only stipulates that a Special Audit can be undertaken if the circumstances outlined in Section 72A of the Finance Act are fulfilled. The Hon’ble High Delhi Court finds that the Instruction is not only an attempt to widen the scope of the law impermissibly but also is patently contrary to the Statute. The Instruction, to the extent it provides clarifications on Rule 5A(2) of the Service Tax Rules, pertaining to Service Tax audit, is quashed.

 

It will also not be out of place to mention that recently, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ACL Education Centre Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India [2014-TIOL-120-HC-ALL-ST] has held that the Audit under service tax is to be conducted by Chartered Accountants/ Cost Accountants only and not by officers of the Department.

Further the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of SKP Securities Ltd. Vs. DD (RA-IDT) & Ors. [2013-TIOL-38-HC-KOL-ST] has held that no audit of private assessee can be undertaken by CAG.
CA. Vinay Mittal, Ghaziabad

05 May 2014

NO VAT on 40% of Restaurant Bill


VAT not leviable on 40% of the restaurant bill, which is subject to service tax

 

 

In the recent decision of the Uttarakhand High Court, in the case of Valley Hotels & Resorts vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Dehradun [TS-129-HC2014 (UTT)-VAT].


The High Court allowed the revision application filed by the assessee and held that, where the element of service has been declared and brought to tax vide notification dated 6 June 2012, by which Service tax is levied on 40% of the billed value in restaurant, no VAT can be imposed thereon.


The issue of double taxation seems to have been addressed and it has been held that VAT cannot be imposed on that portion of the restaurant bill, which has already suffered Service tax.


15 April 2014

Parliament competent to impose Service Tax on Restaurants and hotels: Bombay HC

Bombay HC upholds service tax levy on AC restaurants; Differs from Kerala HC ratio

 

Bombay HC dismisses writ filed by Indian Hotels and Restaurant Association, upholds validity of service tax levy on air-conditioned restaurants serving liquor u/s 65(105)(zzzzv) of Finance Act; Rejects assessee's challenge to Parliament's competence to tax sale / purchase of goods by way of / as part of any service, covered under "State List" read with Article 366(29A)(f) of Indian Constitution; Tax on sale / purchase of goods and tax on services two distinct concepts; To say that Parliament is denuded of its competence to tax restaurant services entails violence to plain language of Constitutional provisions; Service tax does not tax sale of goods, but services provided in such sale; Entry 54 in List II does not envisage service tax on services rendered by restaurant to any person, as referred u/s 65(105)(zzzzv); Rejects Kerala HC's single Judge ruling in Kerala Classified Hotels and Resorts Association for want of categorical finding that tax in question covered by State List; HC accepts Revenue's reliance on SC ruling in Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam pertaining to catering services  : Bombay HC

19 March 2014

Compliances of Service Tax in Banking Sector

Dear Members,
As you may be aware Service tax on Banking and other financial services was imposed w.e.f.16-07-2001. The taxation of services has also undergone a paradigm shift from positive list to negative list in the year 2012. Post implementation of taxation of services based on negative list, service tax compliance has now become an integral part of the banking Sector. Being auditors, it's our responsibility to ensure that provisions of a particular law are duly complied with. While conducting an audit it sometimes becomes difficult to look into all the aspects of various laws. For example, Service Tax compliance while conducting an audit may pose to be a bit difficult area.

Indirect Taxes Committee has taken an initiative in this respect in order to help the auditors in complying with service tax law. It gives me immense pleasure to introduce you to the newly launched publication on "Compliances of Service Tax in Banking Sector" which provides us with a detailed Questionnaire for Service Tax Audit of Banks, answering which will ensure compliance with various service tax regulations. In addition to questionnaire there are annexure(s) wherein information can be asked for from the banks and appendix which help as ready references of law while conducting an audit.

You can download the entire booklet from Knowledge Portal of ICAI, which is available on the following link

http://www.icaiknowledgegateway.org/media/k2/attachments/Final_PDF_Filepdf13.03.2014.lnk_1.pdf

Hope the same will assist you in your professional endeavors

Website:  http://www.icai.org for help please visit:http://help.icai.org 

07 March 2014

Supreme Court on ST on Chit Fund

Chit funds business constituted 'transactions in money' and isn't liable to service-tax; SC dismisses SLP

January 28, 2014[2014] 42 taxmann.com 52 (SC)/[2014] 43 GST 524 (SC)

Service Tax : SC dismisses SLP against judgment of Delhi High Court whereby Chit fund business (including business chit funds), which are 'transactions in money' were held not liable to service tax and Entry 8 of Notification No. 26/2012-ST, providing from partial exemption/abatement in relation thereto, was quashed  

14 February 2014

TN CM on Rice is not an Agriculture Produce-ST


Service Tax - Rice Not an Agricultural Produce - Jayalalithaa Slams Union Government


IN an acidic letter to the Prime Minister, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa said, "I write to bring to your attention an invidious, discriminatory and completely unjust situation that has arisen as a result of an extremely insensitive and regressive interpretation of certain provisions of the Service Tax legislation, which has made the services like storage and handling associated with Rice liable to levy of Service Tax."
DDT had covered this issue in detail in DDT 2275 - 20.01.2014, where in it was mentioned, "So, your rice is going to be costlier because the Finance Ministry thinks that rice is not an agricultural produce. The Finance Ministry officials who interpreted this legality of what rice should be thankful that the tea boy who is waiting to become PM is not aware of this clarification (yet) - what an effective point it would make in his election speeches!"
DDT had in DDT 2276 - 21.01.2014, explained how rice became a non-agricultural produce. The Chief Minister's letter to the Prime Minister explains the issue almost exactly as DDT did.
Now, it is almost sure that the opposition parties will use this to attack the FM and the Government during the elections. It is unfortunate that a brilliant FM will become a political target for a small thing like Service Tax on storage of rice, which will hardly give him any substantial revenue. He should have exempted this by losing a couple of crores instead of losing many seats for his party.
The CM continues with her vitriol.
This very strange stance taken by the Union Finance Minister, that rice is not an agricultural product, while other cereals including wheat, are agricultural produce and hence exempt from levy of service tax on storage and other services is discriminatory, regressive and indefensible. It smacks of unfairness against people residing in certain regions of the country, especially in the South and the East where rice is the staple food grain consumed. It will raise the price of rice in the open market, particularly at a time when food inflation is already weighing down heavily on the common people.
The interpretation given by the Ministry of Finance defies logic and common sense. From time immemorial, rice has been regarded as an "agricultural commodity".
In a thoughtless, insensitive and discriminatory manner, the Ministry of Finance has proceeded to levy service tax on the storage of Rice alone amongst all food grains. It is yet another instance of how distanced and divorced the UPA Government has become from the concerns of the common people. You will agree with me that this calls for your urgent personal intervention to clarify the position and unambiguously declare rice to be agricultural produce and hence not subject to the levy of service tax for all services related with it. The service tax already levied and collected with effect from 1st July, 2012, should also be remitted and returned to the assessees.
I request you to kindly take urgent action in the matter.
Will the PM/FM react or go with the general trend now - that the UPA Government does not do anything right?
SOURCE:TAXINDIAONLINE



12 February 2014

No ST on Authorised Person


Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
04-February-2014 16:20 IST
No Service Tax Required to be Paid on Services Provided by An Authorised Person or Sub-Brokers to the Member of a Commodity Exchange in Respect of Such Taxable Service
on which the Service Tax was not Being Levied During the Period Commencing from The 10th Day of September 2004 and Ending with the 30th Day of June 2012 in Accordance with the Prevalent Practice

In exercise of the powers conferred by section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with section 83 of the Finance Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the service tax payable on the services provided by an authorised person or sub-broker to the member of a recognised association or a registered association, in relation to a forward contract, shall not be required to be paid in respect of such taxable service on which the service tax was not being levied during the period commencing from the 10th day of September 2004 and ending with the 30th day of June 2012 in accordance with the prevalent practice.

The Central Government is satisfied that a practice was generally prevalent regarding levy of service tax (including non-levy thereof), under section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Finance Act’), on services provided by an authorised person or sub-broker to the member of a recognised association or a registered association, in relation to a forward contract, and that such services were liable to service tax under the Finance Act, which was not being levied according to the said practice during the period commencing from the 10th day of September 2004 and ending with the 30th day of June 2012.

*****


DSM/MJPS/KA

01 February 2014

Change in Definition of "Governmental Authority"


Change in Definition of “Governmental Authority”

Ministry of Finance amends definition of 'governmental authority' under Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated June 20, 2012; As per amendment, 'Governmental Authority' means board / authority set up either by Act of Parliament / State Legislature or established by Govt, with 90% equity control; Earlier, such authority was required to be set by Govt and Act of Parliament / State Legislature : Finance Ministry Notification.

By VMVSR



[TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)]

Government of India
Ministry of Finance
(Department of Revenue)

Notification No. 02/2014 - Service Tax

New Delhi, 30th January, 2014

G.S.R....(E).­­- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No.25/2012-Service Tax, dated the 20th June, 2012, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide G.S.R. 467 (E), dated the 20th June, 2012, namely:-







In the said notification, in the paragraph 2, for clause (s), the following shall be substituted, namely:­­

‘(s) “governmental authority” means an authority or a board or any other body;
(i)  set up by an Act of Parliament or a State Legislature; or
(ii) established by Government,
 with 90% or more participation by way of equity or control, to carry out any function entrusted to a municipality under article 243W of the Constitution;’.

[F.No. 354 /236/ 2013-TRU]


(Raj Kumar Digvijay)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
Note.- The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide notification No. 25/2012 - Service Tax, dated 20th June, 2012, number G.S.R. 467 (E), dated the 20th June, 2012 and was last amended by notification No.01/2014- Service Tax, dated the 10th January, 2014 G.S.R. 15(E), dated the 10th January,2014.
 __________________________________________________________________
 Notification No.  25/2012-Service Tax
New Delhi, the 20th June, 2012
2.   Definitions (Definition Prior to Amendment)
(s) “governmental authority’’ means a board, or an authority or any other body established with 90% or more participation by way of equity or control by Government and set up by an Act of the Parliament or a State Legislature to carry out any function entrusted to a municipality under article 243W  of the Constitution;  


14 January 2014

Amendment to ST Mega Exemption Notification


Service Tax :
Central Govt extends service tax exemption to sponsorship of national sports events; Amends Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012 - ST

Notification No.01/2014 Service dated January 10, 2014 

08 January 2014

FM-Stern Action-Service Tax Evaders



--
Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
30-December-2013 12:34 IST
Press Statement of the Finance Secretary on VCES

There has been an overwhelming response to the VCES . In the last four days, we have received over 16,000 applications involving Rs. 1500 crores of service tax dues. Upto 29-12-2013 we have received over 40,000 declarations involving over Rs 5500 crores. This would broadly correspond to Rs 55,000 crores of services, which have escaped the tax net. I would like to remind all service providers, both registered and unregistered, that this scheme is open till 31-12-2013 only. There will be no extension of the scheme since the last date is laid down in the Finance Act. We are making every effort to help all declarants. Our offices have been open on Saturdays and this last weekend, even on Sunday. Seeing the response, we have decided that today , the 30th of December 2013, the offices will be open well beyond normal working hours , in order to attend to all those who come in to file their declarations . Tomorrow, the 31st December 2013, the offices will be open till midnight to facilitate acceptance of declarations.

Another special measure is that the Government has also extended banking hours in the designated branches , upto 6 pm on 31-12-2013. In addition, all Commissionerates have been advised to accept demand drafts/ pay orders submitted by declarants, under the Receipt Payment Rules.

It is hoped that with all these measures, the service providers would respond and avail the benefits of VCES. The declarants are once again reminded that they have to pay 50% of the declared tax dues by 31-12-2013, failing which they would be ineligible for the scheme.

I would like to advise that from 1st January, 2014, stern action will be taken against service tax evaders and the provisions in the Finance Act relating to arrest and prosecution will be enforced in right earnest.

***


CA Exams rescheduled

Looking current situation CA Exam is rescheduled: CA inter and final exams will from 21st Nov . CA foundation will be from 8th Dec 2020.