Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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