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 on Industry wants to know-Part-I

Daily Dose of GST update on FAQ in seminar with Industries

Daily Dose of GST update on FAQ in seminar with Industries:-


These FAQs are a step forward in the series of updates on GST prepared by us on this page. These have been prepared on the basis of questions asked from us in the seminars conducted by us with various industries and feedback received by us. Various queries and questions have been raised by the industries which may or may not be thoroughly answered in the model GST law and the rules. Presenting the 1st part of the series:

Question 1: it was asked constantly that whether dual system of taxation is a necessity of the new regime and is there any way to have a single GST system throughout the country?

Answer: GST is an imported concept and it is a well known fact that India is a federal system. In such a scenario, it seems a distant probability to have a single taxation all over the country. Dual taxation is a necessity which can’t be avoided. Moreover the constitutional amendments have been carried out incorporating dual taxation and to undo it, another constitutional amendment will have to be introduced which would only take the whole process back to square one.

Question 2: Isn’t the dual jurisdiction concept only a repetition of the current system and isn’t it against the motive of GST?

Answer: yet again the current system of taxation is the major reason of dual jurisdiction. Currently the excise and service tax are under the control of the centre and the VAT is being controlled by the state government. Even now there is conflict evident on the distribution of assessees between state and centre. Even the trade associations have represented against the dual control. In the first meeting of the GST council also, it was decided that the traders below the limit of Rs. 1.5 crore will be controlled by state authorities only whereas the service tax assessees will be managed by Centre only as they are already doing it. But the conflicts arose between the centre and state over the same in the next GST council meeting. Even the associations of central Government employees and state government employees respectively have represented against the same. Hence the dual control is indispensable in current situation and so is provided in GST law also.

Question 3: What will be the rate of tax under GST?

Answer: It has not been decided yet and GST council will take a decision on the same. In the third GST council meeting, after a lot of conflict and discussion, indication were that there will not be a single GST rate but there will be multiple GST rates. The slab would comprise of 0, 6, 12, 18 and 26% as rates and 18% would be the merit rate wherein most of the items will fall. Probably the agricultural and food items will be kept exempted and majority of the goods will fall under the rate slab of 18%. However, consensus cannot be reached between state and centre and they will decide about the same in next meeting. However, multiple tax rates goes against the very principle of GST of "ONE TAX, ONE NATION."

Question 4: Will import at concessional rate of duty rules and procedure continue under the new regime?

Answer: There is no specific mention of these rules under the new regime. As the procedure is covered under the custom laws, it may remain intact but predicting anything on the new procedure and its applicability may prove to be a far-fetched imagination at this time.

Question 5: Will there be any change in the tax structure on imports of goods?

Answer: The custom duties will be applicable as it is because the customs will not be covered by the GST. Although with introduction of IGST, the excise duties and cess may get subsume in it. In place of CVD and SAD, the IGST will be applicable. There may also be a new levy in form of cess by which the centre intends to compensate the states. Hence, all existing cess like educaiton cess and Secondary and Higher education cess will go away. But a new cess will come in its place.

Question 6: What will be the treatment of difference of rates of tax on input goods and finished goods?

Answer: As of now under Central Excise and service tax, no mechanism of refund or adjustment of excess cenvat has been prescribed in cases where the rate of duty on finished goods is less than the rate of duty on inputs. But this has been prescribed in GST which is welcome step for the trade and industry. Now the refund will be granted when the rate of tax on finished goods is less than rate of tax on inputs. The refund of CGST and SGST will be granted by respective authorities.

Question 7: What will happen of the cenvat availed on the common inputs and services under the new regime and used in taxable and exempted goods.

Answer: The regime disallows the cenvat of the goods and services used in exclusively exempted goods and services. Although there is yet no prescription of the treatment of common input goods and services. It is written in draft GST law that mechanism will be prescribed for the same. It is highly probable that such mechanism will be provided in the final law.

Question 8: Will the export of goods under bond and LUT will continue under the GST?

Answer: Yes, the export under bond and LUT will continue under the new regime also. Even the refund of unutilised credit will be allowed under GST law.

Question 9: Will the rates of duty drawback be re-declared under GST?

Answer: Although there is no such statement in the model law, but it is highly probable and in a way necessary too because currently the rates comprise only excise and service tax portion but does not comprise any VAT component. To attain relevance in the changing law, the rates must be revised to keep them up to date.

Question 10: what are the new provisions regarding payment of GST on receipt of advance and its taxation?

Answer: Two most asked questions on advance are that will the asseessee have to raise the invoice on receipt of advance and whether cenvat of the tax paid on such advance will be admissible to the recipient of invoice. It is clear that tax has to be paid on the receipt of the advance but the rest two questions are yet to be answered. However, as per our opinion, the invoice can be raised when goods are supplied. For advance, no goods are supplied, hence the invoice cannot be raised. Secondly, the credit is admissible when the goods are received. But credit of GST paid on advance payment cannot be taken by recipient as he has not received the goods. Hence, there will be tax paid on advance but the credit of the same will be allowed when the goods are received by buyer.

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