Service Tax Returns |
Returns FAQs (Procedure)
|
Download ST3 Return Excel Utility
|
Landmark Service Tax Judgments: Service Tax Returns |
Who is required to File Return of Service Tax: |
The Service Tax return is required to be filed by any person liable to pay the Service Tax. The person liable to pay Service Tax should himself assess the Tax due on the Services provided by him and shall furnish to the Superintendent of Central Excise on a half yearly basis, in Form ST-3. [Please Refer: Section 70(1), Finance Act 1994.]
|
|
Due Date for Filing of Service Tax Return: |
Each Half-yearly Return should be submitted within 25 days from the end of the half year period:
Half-year Period |
Due Date |
April to September |
25th October |
October to March |
25th April |
Where 25th October or 25th April falls on a public holiday, the return can be filed on the next working day.
|
|
Provisions regarding Input Service Distributor: |
The input Service distributor shall furnish a half yearly return in Form ST-3, giving the details of credit received and distributed during the half year period to the Superintendent of Central Excise. [Please Refer: Rule 9(10) CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.] CDL Practice Test
Half-yearly Return should be submitted before the last day of the following month from the end of the half year period:
Half-year Period |
Due Date for Input Service Distributor |
April to September |
31th October |
October to March |
30th April |
|
Documents Required for Filing of Service Tax Return: |
Service Tax return is to be filed in Form No. ST-3 in triplicate (3copies). However, it is advisable that assessee should have 4 copies, one copy will be returned back as an acknowledgement to the assessee by the Central Excise Officer.
Copies of challan [GAR-7 or TR-6] should be attached with the Service Tax Return
When assessee has opted for provisional assessment, Memorandum in Form no ST-3A should be filed indicating difference between provisional payment of Service Tax and actual amount payable for each month.
If CENVAT Credit has been utilised for payment of Service Tax then a separate sheet should be attached mentioning therein Document on which CENVAT Credit is availed, details of input Service provider like Service Tax Registration No., Address should be provided. Amount of CENVAT Credit utilised, its opening and closing balance should also be given. cdl practice test
If assessee is filing the return for the first time then he should furnish a list (in duplicate) to the Superintendent of Central Excise Officer of financial records maintained in the ordinary course of business as well as all the accounting records related with inputs, input Services, capital goods, exempt Services, Taxable Services, manufacture or sale, etc. [Please Refer: Rule 5(2) Service Tax Rules, 1994.]
|
|
If assessee provides more than one Service: |
A single Service Tax return should be filed in respect of all Taxable Services provided by an assessee. Separate returns are not needed for separate Services provided under single registration. While filling up ST-3 Form details regarding all the Taxable Services should be shown separately. [Please Refer: Circular No. 97/8/2007, dated 23-08-2007.] |
|
Filing of Revised Return of Service Tax: |
An assessee may submit a revised return, in Form ST-3, to correct a mistake or omission, within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of the return. Where an assessee submits a revised return, the ‘relevant date’ for the purpose of recovery of Service Tax not levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded u/s 73 of the Act shall be the date of submission of such revised return. [Please Refer: Rule 7B, Service Tax Rules, 1994.] |
|
Filing of NIL Return of Service Tax: |
If assessee has not provided any Taxable Services during the period for which he is required to file the return, still it is in the interest of the assessee to file the Return of Service Tax to avoid the late fees chargeable for non-filing of return u/s 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. |
|
E-Filing of Service Tax Return |
Delay in Filling of Return |
|
Case Laws Related |
STO 2012 CESTAT 872
Works Contract: Mistake committed in giving declaration in ST-3 is rectifiable defect and cannot create demand: Matter remanded. |
STO 2011 CESTAT 121
Service Tax: Valuation: Banking and Financial services: Extended period of Limitation: When the respondents have not disclosed the entire taxable value in the statutory ST - 3 Return, and they have omitted to include part of the value coupled with non-payment of requisite amount of tax in respect of such amounts, it definitely amounts to suppression and willful mis-statement and hence the extended period of limitation is applicable. Hence, the order of the lower appellate authority is modified and the duty demand along with interest relating to the extended period of limitation is confirmed. (para 3)
Service Tax: Valuation: Banking and Financial services: Penalty: Section 80: Considering the fact that the respondents are a public sector-bank and also other attendant circumstances of the case, the penalties imposed on the respondents are wavied invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. (para 4)
|
STO 2011 CESTAT 178
Service Tax: Refund: Notification No. 41/2007-ST dt. 06.10.2007: Remand: Primarily, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been passed on the ground that specific discrepancies noted were not reconciled by the appellants. Set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter to him for fresh consideration after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing and after taking into account the evidence that may be produced by the appellants. (para 6)
|
STO 2011 CESTAT 163
Service Tax: Refund: Effective date of merger: In the present case, the Ministry’s order clearly specifies the effective date, which is 01.04.2004. Therefore, the original authority’s order rejecting the refund claim holding that the effective date for amalgamation is from 02.05.2007, cannot be approved. Appellate Commissioner’s order appears legal and proper. The registration certificate has been surrendered on 04.05.2007 is also not relevant as on the said date both IOCL and IBP were present only as IOCL. IOCL has taken over the assets and liabilities of erstwhile IBP w.e.f. 01.04.2004 in view of the amalgamation. Undisputedly the surrender formalities were also undertaken by IOCL. Therefore, IOCL stepping into the shoes of erstwhile IBP, have claimed the refund.(Para 7).There is no valid ground to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (A).(Para 8). The appeal by the department is rejected. The stay petition is also disposed of.(Para 9).
|
STO 2011 CESTAT 170
Service Tax: Demand: Waiver of pre-deposit: Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, 1994: In view of the provision of Rule 7C of the Rules, the revised return cannot be ignored simply on the ground that the same has been filed after a period provided under Rule 7B of the Rules. The matter requires re-consideration by the adjudicating authority in view of the provision of Rule 7C of the Rules. The impugned order is set aside, after waiving pre-deposit of the amount of service tax, interest and penalty and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh.(Para 3).
|
STO 2009 CESTAT 1297
Service Tax: Recovery of refund erroneously granted of credit of input service tax: The period involved is prior to 18.04.2006 when Section 66A came into effect and, therefore, the appellants were not liable to pay tax for the period prior thereto. Therefore, the refund claims ought not to be rejected for the reason that during the period in dispute, there was no liability cast upon the appellants to pay service tax.(Para 3).
Appeals allowed.
|
STO 2009 CESTAT 1178
Service Tax: Demand u/s 73: The period of the dispute is 16.11.97 to 1.6.98. In an identical case in Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II v. L. H. Sugar Factories Ltd. and Ors. - (2005 (13) SCC 245), this Court agreed with similar conclusions of the Tribunal. In the said case, the conclusions of the Tribunal were as follows: "The above would show that even the amended Section 73 takes in only the case of assesses who are liable to file return under Section 70. Admittedly, the liability to file return is cast on the appellants only under Section 71A. The class of persons who come under Section 71A is not brought under the net of Section 73. The above being the position show cause notices issued to the appellants invoking section 73 are not maintainable." The apex court has followed L.H. Sugar Factories decision of the apex court. Since the issue stands settled against the Revenue by the apex court's decision cited supra, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) |
News Related |
411
|
Confused Department procrastinates tax returns
|
|
|
|
|
|