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

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