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-16.1.2017 Definition of Turnover in a State and Zero rated supply

Definition of Turnover in a State and Zero rated supply

GST DAILY DOSE OF UPDATION
Definition of Turnover in a State and Zero rated supply
Taking further to our discussion, we are continuing our discussion the definitions given under Section 2 of revised GST law and comparing the same with old model GST law to know the changes made in revised law:-
2(107): Turnover in a State: The new definition reads as follows:
Turnover in a State means the aggregate value of all taxable supplies, exempt supplies, exports of goods and / or services made within a State by a taxable person and inter-state supplies of goods and / or services made from the State by the said taxable person excluding taxes, if any charged under the CGST Act, SGST Act and the IGST Act, as the case may be; 
Explanation.- Aggregate turnover does not include the value of inward supplies on which tax is payable by a person on reverse charge basis under sub-section (3) of Section 8 and the value of inward supplies.;

The amendment bought in this definition is that earlier the turnover in a state included the non taxable supplies too. In the old draft non taxable supplies were not defined. In the revised draft, the non taxable supplies have been excluded from the definition of ‘turnover in a state’. It has also been defined in section 2(100) to mean a supply of goods or services which is not chargeable to tax under this Act;

As a result the taxable person opting for composition levy, while calculating the limit of 50 lakhs as turnover in a state won’t have to include such non taxable supplies giving the benefit of additional margin of turnover.

Also the Input service distributors, while calculating the ratio of the units where the cenvat has to be distributed, won’t have to include the value of non taxable supplies to the total turnover.

But there is definition of "exempt service" given under Section 2(44) which reads as follows:-

“exempt supply” means supply of any goods and/or services which are not taxable under this Act and includes such supply of goods and/or services which attract nil rate of tax or which may be exempt from tax under section 11

Thus, the definition of exempt supply include the supplies which are not taxable under this Act. It implies that non taxable supply has been excluded from the definition of "Turnover of a state" but it is included under the definition of "exempt service". Hence, there will not be material effect of this exclusion. To the mind of authors , it seems that it has been done to clarify the situation where the "non taxable supply" was included twice in "Turnover in a state" in Model GST law. Firstly, in the main definition and secondly as a part of exempt service. Now, "non taxable supply" will be included in aggregate turnover in a state as part of "exempt service".

2(111) Zero rated supply: the new definition reads as follows:
Zero rated supply means supply of any goods and/or services in terms of section 15 of the IGST Act 2016
In the IGST act it is defined as any of the following taxable supply of goods and/or services, namely -
(a) export of goods and/or services; or
(b) supply of goods and/or services to a SEZ developer or an SEZ unit

First of all it should be noted that reference is given that of section 15 whereas it should have been section 16. There seems to be a clerical error. Further if compared to the old definition, it can be noted that supply to SEZ unit or developer have been included in the scope of zero rated supplies. Also the old definition had the condition that cenvat shall be allowed against zero rated supply which is now been given in the form of section 16(2). There is no mention of the EOU or export through merchant exporters which might mean that duty will have to be paid on the supplies made to these entities and subsequently if law provides, refund may be available. This will increase the need of working capital for these sectors and consequently the cost of exports.

 

You may visit us at 
www.capradeepjain.com and also at 
https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN

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