TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1006
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... charging interest of Rs. 43.62 lakhs for the period from April 2007 to March 2012. 2. Learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellant asserts that tax liability was never in dispute and that interest liability does not arise because the appellants had been discharging all tax liabilities and, that too, on time. Consequently, according to him, the liability to penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 would also not arise. According to Learned Authorized Representative, the impugned order involves determination of tax liability which also must be subject to proceedings here. 3. As the perspective offered on behalf of the appellants were at variance and the tax ordered for recovery and appropriation in the impugned order is su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce on the decision of the Tribunal in Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2011 (24) STR 562] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Reliant Advertising [2013 (31) STR 166 (Tri-Del)] to justify the imposition of penalty. According to him, the mechanics adopted by the appellant had not been known to the department which was tantamount to suppression. In view of our finding that section 78 can be invoked only in relation to non-payment of taxes or short payment of taxes under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 as on the date of issue of show-cause notice, these decisions do not advance the cause of Revenue on this issue. 6. A dispute on the point of taxation has been camouflaged by the adjudicating ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndustry). According to Learned Chartered Accountant, this amount could not to be retained if the proposer failed to meet the qualification prescribed for conversion from proposer to insured. In the circumstances of the present dispute, such a contingency does not appear to have occurred and all receipts with proposals have been duly absorbed as premium income of the appellant. Hence, the only issue for determination is the point at which liability to tax arises and on that will hinge the promptitude that can escape consequential interest. 9. According to Learned Chartered Accountant, the appellant is an insurer rendering such service that would commence only with acceptance of the proposal for insurance leading to acknowledgement of first ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as to the point at tax liability arises. For the first time, in 2011, rules for determining the point of taxation in various circumstances was notified and would therefore apply to only a portion of present disputed amount. The adjudicating authority has taken note of rule 3 and rule 6 of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 as originally notified and prior to amendment of 17th March 2012 and, according to him, the receipt of payment is sufficient to determine the point of taxation. We have perused the statement which has been extracted in the show-cause notice as well as in the impugned order and take note that the average turnover time can vary from three to twelve days between the receipt of the proposal and the issue of the policy. It is only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been made in section 65(105), section 67 and rule 6 of 27. Service Tax Rules, 1994 to link payment of service tax with the receipt of payment for the taxable services provided or advance payment received towards taxable services to be provided in future. When payments relatable to taxable services are received during the course of provision of service, service tax is liable to be paid to the extent of receipt of payment. In other words, a person is liable to pay the tax as soon as the consideration towards the taxable services is received.' 14. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kwality Ice-cream Company & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2012-TIOL-252-HC-DEL-CX] to submit that the curbs of lim....