Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

TRANSITION OF ASSESSEES PAYING SERVICE TAX ON RECEIPT BASIS IN GST

GST DAILY DOSE OF UPDATION

 
TRANSITION OF ASSESSEES PAYING SERVICE TAX ON RECEIPT BASIS IN GST:
 
 
In the current service tax regime, the rate of service tax is determined by the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011. However, to provide relief to specified professionals working on small scale, special provision was introduced for individuals, partnership firms, LLPs wherein specified professionals having total receipts of Rs. 50 Lakhs or less in the previous financial year from all premises. The point of taxation for such specified professionals was stated to be date of receipt of payment in order to enable them to pay service tax on receipt basis rather than accrual basis. It is pertinent to mention that prior to 01.04.2012, the provision was contained in Rule 7(c) of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 but the same has been omitted w.e.f. 1.4.2012. However, the benefit has been continued to be provided to the assessee and only the position of the benefit has been changed. The provision has been shifted to fourth proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 containing the provisions pertaining to payment of service tax. It has been provided that the individuals, partnership firm and one man companies whose aggregate value of taxable services provided from one or more premises is 50 lakh rupees or less in the previous financial year, the service provider has the option to pay tax on taxable services provided or agreed to be provided by the specified dates in which payment is received. The effect of shifting the provision is that prior to 01.04.2012, the point of taxation for specified assessees was date of receipt of payment but now, the benefit has been extended by way of facility to pay service tax on receipt of consideration. Hence, the point of taxation for such specified assessees is governed by general rule and only the benefit of payment of service tax is given on receipt of consideration.  
 
 
The present update is concerned with the difficulties that the specified assessees would be facing while switching to the new GST regime because there is no such benefit under the proposed GST regime. Now, a big question stands in front of the assessees that have opted for payment of service tax on receipt basis that how they will be discharging their service tax liability in the GST regime for the payments received relating to prior periods. The answer probably lies in section 188 of the revised GST draft law pertaining to transitional provisions which states that:
 
Taxability of supply of services in certain cases
 
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 13 or 14, the tax in respect of the taxable services shall be payable under the earlier law to the extent the point of taxation in respect of such services arose before the appointed day.
 
Explanation: Where the portion of the supply of services is not covered by this
Section, such portion shall be liable to tax under this Act.
 
This section probably resolves the problem that the specified assessees would face on implementation of GST. This is for the reason that the general rules of point of taxation would apply for specified assessees also according to which if the invoice has been issued and service has been provided prior to implementation of GST, the point of taxation would be in the present service tax law and the tax shall be payable as per the present service tax laws. However, no mechanism of payment has been prescribed as to whether the amount would be payable as service tax or GST and how will it be reflected in the returns by the assessee is also question that remains unanswered. Moreover, if the tax is required to be paid as GST, whether the possible GST rate of 18% would be payable ? In our opinion, since the point of taxation has arose prior to GST, the service tax applicable during the relevant period will only be payable but the government is very unpredictable as similar problem was faced by such specified assessees when the rate of service tax was increased from 10.3% to 12.36%. It is pertinent to mention that during that time, clarification was issued vide Circular No. 154/5/2012-ST dated 28.03.2012 and Circular No. 158/9/2012-ST dated 08.05.2012 wherein it was stated that such specified assessees were required to pay increased service tax. However, these two circulars were challenged and quashed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DELHI CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS SOCIETY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2013 (29) S.T.R. 461 (DEL)]. It is submitted that although, as per provisions it is understood that the service tax applicable during the material time will be payable by specified assessees but government is free to issue clarifications as mentioned above. Moreover, if the assessee is compelled to pay GST at the rate of 18%, what will be the fate of extra 3% payable by him? Whether the extra 3% can be recovered from the service recipients and whether credit will be passed on is also not clear. Well, the true colours of the proposed law and the difficulties faced by the assessees on transition will be revealed only after implementation of the revolutionary taxation reform.
 
 
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com