Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update 14.01.2016

‘CONSIDERATION’ IN DRAFT GST ACT, 2016

GST DAILY DOSE OF UPDATION:-
 
‘CONSIDERATION’ IN DRAFT GST ACT, 2016:-
 
Section 2(20) defines consideration in relation to the supply of goods and/or services to any person, includes-
(a)            Any payment made or to be made, whether in money or otherwise, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of, the supply of goods and/or services, whether by the person or any other person;
(b)            The monetary value of any act or forbearance, whether or not voluntary, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of, the supply of goods and/or services, whether by the person or any other person:

Provided that a deposit, whether refundable or not, given in respect of the supply of goods and/or services shall not be considered as payment made for the supply unless the supplier applies the deposit as consideration for the supply.

It is worth observing that presently, the term consideration is not defined in the Central Excise Laws but is defined in section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. As per Service Tax Laws, consideration includes any amount that is payable for the taxable services provided or to be provided and includes any reimbursable expenditure or cost incurred by the service provider and charged in the course of providing or agreeing to provide taxable service. It is also pertinent to note that there has been a long litigation as regards inclusion of the value of reimbursable expenditure in the value of taxable services. The Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 stipulating that reimbursement expenditure is to be treated as consideration for taxable service was recently quashed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of INTERCONTINENTAL CONSULTANTS & TECHNOCRAFTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2013 (29) S.T.R. 9 (DEL)] as ultra vires the provisions of section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, in order to nullify the decision of Delhi High Court, the government came up with amendment in the meaning of consideration given under section 67 with effect from 14.05.2015 so as to specifically include reimbursable expenditure within its ambit. It is submitted that inspite of the fact that consideration includes ‘any amount’ payable for taxable services, the reimbursable expenditure was specifically mentioned in the meaning of consideration. If we pursue the defination of consideration proposed in the Draft GST Act, 2016, it is found that any type of payment is covered in it. Accordingly, whether reimburseable expenditure incurred will also form part of consideration will be again a matter of dispute.
 
Furthermore, the amount received in respect to forbearance is specifically included in the defination of consideration thereby meaning that GST will be levied even on the act of tolerance or forbearance as is specifically declared service on which service tax is payable currently.
 
Moreover, the proviso to the defination specifically excludes all kinds of deposits, whether refundable or not, from the ambit of consideration unless the deposit is utilised against consideration for the supply. This is appreciable from trade and industry as in the past there has been lot of litigation as regards inclusion of notional value of interest on deposits given by the buyers/service recipients to the manufacturers/service providers. For example- in case of renting of immovable property, acceptance of security deposits are common feature to secure against possible damages to the property by the tenant. In Excise Laws also, deposits are received from the buyers to indemnify manufacturers against any possible losses on account of non-delivery of goods by the buyers. It was contended by the revenue authorities that notional interest on the deposits is included in the transaction value/taxable value of services. However, the issue was finally settled by the Supreme Court decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III VERSUS I.S.P.L. INDUSTRIES LTD. [2003 (154) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] wherein it was concluded that the notional interest is not to be included in assessable value of goods unless and until it is brought notice that the deposit has influenced the price of goods. In simple words, if it is evidenced that there is different price if deposit is given and higher price if no deposit is given by the buyer, it is only in that situation that the notional interest would be includible in the assessable value of goods. However, in the draft GST Act, 2016 deposit is excluded from the ambit of consideration but nothing is specified about the notional interest.

 
 
 

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