Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update (Circular No. 47/21/2018-GST)dated 08-06-2018

(Circular No. 47/21/2018-GST)dated 08-06-2018
Update on Clarifications of certain issues under GST

 
This update intends to discuss about the certain clarifications issued vide circular No. 47/21/2018-GSTdated 08-06-2018.Let us analyze the following Clarifications issued by CBIC:-
 
  1. Moulds and dies owned by Original Equipment Manufacturers(OEM) that are sent free of cost (FOC) to a component manufacturer (regarding liability of tax & reversal of credit)
Since in the service tax regime, the cost of free supply of material supplied by service recipient to service provider was to be added in the taxable value. This concept has generated a lot of litigation and ultimately, it has been decided by Apex Court in case of Bhayana Builders. But there is no such concept in the GST regime. Thus, the cost of free supply material is not to be added to arrive at taxable value. This is also clarified by CBIC in this circular.
 
However, circular further says that if the agreement between provider and recipient says that the material was to be supplied by provider only. But the recipient has supplied this material to provider then its value is to be added in the taxable value. Hence, the litigation of service tax regime does not end here and continued in the GST also.
 
Moreover, the problem arises when the moulds and dies are supplied free of charge by recipient. But the agreement says that the same is to be purchased by provider onhis own. But crux of problem is that the complete value of dies and moulds cannot be loaded in a single transaction. A example will clarify the same.
 
Suppose,a die of Rs, 10,000/-can be used to manufacture 10,00,000 pieces. But the recipient has ordered only 5000 pieces @ 10/- per piece. Now the complete cost of die comes to Rs. 10,000/- cannot be loaded to supply of 5000 pieces. Hence, the amortised value is to be arrived at and value is to be added.   So, we will calculate the amortized value by dividing 10,000 by 10,00,000 and will add per unit cost in the GST value. This was concept
prevailing in service tax regime and now it has been added in GST regime also. Litigation will take place on this issue also.  
 
 
  1. Liability of tax in case of Servicing of cars involving both supply of goods (spare parts) and services (labour) -
 
This dispute was going on since long as to whether the service provided by authorized service stations will be termed as composite supply and it will be taxed accordingly. But most of the service providers, bill separately for material as well as for labour charges. Many representations have been sent to the Government in this regard.  Hence, they were billing at the rates applicable on them.
 
Now it has been clarified that if assessee supply both goods and services and the value of such goods and services supplied are shown separately, then goods and services would be liable to tax at the rates as applicable to such goods and services separately.
 
  1. Auction of tea, coffee, rubber etc. (regarding maintenance of books of accounts & eligibility to avail input tax credit)
 
Books of accounts will be maintained  at the principal place of business and additional place(s) of business as follow-
 
  • The principal and the auctioneer may declare the warehouses, where such goods are stored, as their additional place of business.
 
  • The buyer is also required to disclose such warehouse as his additional place of business if he wants to store the goods purchased through auction in such warehouses.
 
(For the purpose of supply of tea through a private treaty, the principal and an auctioneer may also comply with the said provisions) The principal and the auctioneer are required to maintain the books of accounts relating to each and every place of business in that place it.
    However, in case of any difficulty, they may maintain the books of accounts relating to the additional place(s) of business at their principal place of business. (Principal and the auctioneer are required to intimate their jurisdictional officer in writing about the same.)
 
  Principal and the auctioneer shall be eligible to avail input tax credit subject to the fulfillment of other provisions of the CGST Act read with the rules made there under.
  1. E-way Bill-Whether goods can be delivered without producing e-way bill at the time of delivery in case of transportation of goods by railways.
It has been clarified that Railways shall not deliver the goods unless the e-way bill is produced at the time of delivery.
 
  1. Whether e-way bill is requiredin the following cases-
  2. Where goods are sent in another State while moving from one area in a State to another area in the same State
The circular states that, If the goods are sent in second State while moving from one place in a State to another place in the same State, an e-way bill is required to be generated.
 
  1.  Where goods move from a DTA unit to a SEZ unit or vice versa located in the same State-
Where goods move from a DTA unit to a SEZ unit or vice versa located in the same State, there is no requirement to generate an e-way bill (this exemption is applicable only if state has exempted the same.)
Means for Rajasthan E-way is required to be generated as there is no exemption regarding the same.
           
 
 
The content of this GST update is for educational purpose only and not intended for solicitation.
 
You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com, at our facebook page onhttps://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/ as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21
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