Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Assessee not liable to reverse CENVAT credit on amount written off as bad debts

Bimal jain
Financial services firm not required to reverse CENVAT credit for bad debts; IRCTC services credit allowed. The Hon'ble CESTAT Chandigarh ruled that the appellant, a financial services provider, is not required to reverse CENVAT credit on amounts written off as bad debts, as there is no provision in the CENVAT Credit Rules or the Finance Act mandating such reversal. The tribunal observed that the services on which the appellant claimed CENVAT credit qualify as 'input services.' The court also found that the denial of CENVAT credit on services from IRCTC was erroneous, as these were not catering services but advertisement services, thus entitling the appellant to the credit. (AI Summary)

The Hon’ble CESTAT Chandigarh in SBI CARDS AND PAYMENTS SERVICES PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI [2022 (1) TMI 449 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] set aside the order confirming the demand for reversal of CENVAT credit on the amount written off as bad debts. Further, held that there is no such provision in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (“theCENVAT Credit Rules”) or in the Finance Act, 1994 (“the Finance Act”) for reversal of CENVAT credit for the services provided for which no consideration for service provided is received by an assessee.

Facts:

SBI Cards and Payments Services Pvt. Ltd. (“the Appellant”) is engaged in providing banking and other financial services, credit card, debit card etc., and business support services. The Appellant received various input services for providing their output services and availed CENVAT credit thereon. In some cases, the Appellant could not recover certain payments from their customers and wrote them off as bad debts in their financial records. The Appellant also entered into a co-brand credit card agreement with Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (“IRCTC”) to launch co-brand credit card. The Appellant paid fixed charges to IRCTC for every subscriber of credit card and in turn the IRCTC agreed to promote the credit card by modifying its website, through press advertisements and related collaterals. IRCTC raised invoices on the Appellant for the said purpose and the Appellant availed the CENVAT credit of service tax paid thereon.

This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Original dated March 31, 2017 (“the impugned order”) confirming the demand for reversal of CENVAT credit for the period April 2009 to March 2012, on the amount written off as bad debts and on advertisement & sales promotion services and denying CENVAT credit on input services received from IRCTC by classifying them as catering services.

Issue:

Whether the Appellant is liable to reverse the CENVAT credit on the amount written off as bad debts and on advertisement & sales promotion services?

Held:

The Hon’ble CESTAT Chandigarh in SBI CARDS AND PAYMENTS SERVICES PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI [2022 (1) TMI 449 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH]held as under:

  • Observed that, the services on which the Appellant has taken CENVAT credit are ‘input services’ in terms of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules and is a provider of output service. Therefore, in terms of Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, the Appellant is entitled to avail such credit on input services.
  • Noted that, there is no such provision in the CENVAT Credit Rules, or in the Finance Act for reversal of CENVAT credit for the services provided for which no consideration for service provided is received by the Appellant.
  • Set aside the impugned order.
  • Held that, the Appellant has correctly availed the CENVAT credit on input services although the amount of non-recoverable taxable service has been written off by the Appellant for the period prior to April 01, 2011 and the Appellant cannot be liable for reversal of CENVAT credit for the services provided after April 01, 2011 on which the Appellant has paid the service tax.
  • Further held that, w.r.t. denial of the CENVAT credit on the invoices issued by IRCTC, it does not prescribe that IRCTC has provided any ‘catering service’ to the Appellant. In fact, the lower authority has fell in error holding that IRCTC is providing only ‘catering service’ and the denial of CENVAT credit is only on the basis of assumption and presumption. Thus, the Appellant is entitled for CENVAT credit on the services provided by IRCTC as advertisement services.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles