Errors in ST 3 form – will someone rectify?
When ST 3 from was amended in March 2009, we wrote in DDT 1074:
“An officer told DDT recently that those who prepare these forms do not seem to understand the requirements of the field formations. For example, the present ST 3 form has monthly columns for Service tax payable, and it does not have the "Total" column at the end of the table. To get the total figures, the six months figures should be added by the officers for each return and imagine the work load considering the huge assessee base. In fact, some of the assessees even understood the importance, condoned our babus ' ignorance and on their own added the total column at the end of the table. Isn't it elementary?”
Now, an assessee tells DDT that from the present ST 3 form, the department cannot verify whether the CENVAT Credit on Education Cess / Secondary Education Cess is used respectively for payment of the same on output service. As per Rule 3(7) (b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, credit of Education Cess can be used for payment of education cess only. Similarly, credit of SHE Cess can be used only for payment of SHE Cess only.
In the present ST 3 form, in the table given under “ 5B . CENVAT Credit taken and utilized”, the Education Cess and SHE Cess have been merged and a single column is given. Thus, by looking at the return, nobody can find out if credit of education cess is used for payment of SHE Cess or vice versa.
Now, to rectify this, a few more columns should be added which makes the return more complex. Why should the return be made so difficult? Why should we have single return for all? (Service providers who are liable to pay service tax, service receivers who are liable to pay service tax and input service distributors who distribute credit)
Why can't they follow Income Tax model, specifying different ST returns for different categories? Say one form for service providers, one for service recipients and one for input service distributors?