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 a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
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: '' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID :

availment of service tax credit for GTA out ward services

ramswaroop vyas

Respected Sir,

Thanks for your wonderful replies to my query on above subject i would have not got such details even after paying...but my query still remains open....As nobody has covered that if i am showing freight separately and not paying excise on the same........

so can you please expert throw light in this...can i still take service tax credit as i am charging freight separately in invoice.

regards

ramswaroop

Eligibility for Service Tax Credit on GTA Outward Services Requires Excise Duty Payment on Freight Component A user inquired about the eligibility to claim service tax credit for goods transport agency (GTA) outward services when freight is shown separately on invoices and excise duty is not paid on it. An expert clarified that excise duty must be paid on the freight component to avail input service credit, regardless of how freight is displayed. Another contributor highlighted the necessity of proving the buyer's doorstep as the place of removal through contractual terms and other documentation. A Supreme Court judgment on CENVAT credit for GTA services was mentioned, but its applicability was questioned, suggesting potential referral to a larger bench for interpretation. (AI Summary)
answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
KASTURI SETHI on Feb 5, 2016

Sh.Ramswaroop Ji,

Pl. wait for today only.

Mahir S on Feb 5, 2016

Sir,

In your case, You need to pay excise duty on the freight part also and you can avail input service credit thereon.

Showing freight separately has no connection with payment of excise duty and availment of input service credit.

KASTURI SETHI on Feb 6, 2016

I agree with Sh.Mahir S. Sir. I intend to add that in order to prove that place of removal is buyer's doorstep the following points are to be followed. These are:-

1. Terms and conditions of the contract must prove that place of removal is buyer's doorstep.

2. At what point of time is sale effected.

3. Date of payment of the goods sold.(including freight)

4. Ownership remained with the manufacturer (seller) till the delivery of the goods.

5. Insurance/risk factor of the manufacturer till the goods are delivery of the goods.

Documentary evidence in respect of all the points is required.

YAGAY andSUN on Feb 6, 2016

Please check Supreme Court's Judgment in the matter of Ispat Industries Ltd for availment of CENVAT credit on GTA Services.

KASTURI SETHI on Feb 6, 2016

Dear Sirs,

I am of the view that this judgement of Supreme Court would not be accepted by the Board. Since all the three judgements i.e. Ispat Industries Ltd, EMCO Ltd., Roofit Industries Ltd. have been passed by the Double Benches of the Supreme Court, there is every possibility that matter would be referred to Larger Bench of the Apex Court by the Board after consultation with the Ministry of Law. The very basis of the judgement in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. and Roofit Industries Ltd. is Section 19 of Sale of Goods Act. It is a matter of interpretation/question of law. No rule has been struck down by the Supreme Court.

+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Issues