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 MSME exemption limit doubled to Rs 40 lakh

GST UPDATE MSME exemption limit doubled to Rs 40 lakh
MSME exemption limit doubled to Rs 40 lakh
 
The 32 GST council meeting concluded on 10 Jan 2019 provides major relief to MSME’s. The GST Council decided to double the exemption limit for Goods and Services Tax registration to Rs 40 lakh from Rs 20 lakh to ease cost of compliance for MSME’s who are engaged in supply of goods. No relaxation has been given to supplier of services.
This means businesses with an annual turnover under Rs 40 lakhs will now be exempted from registration and payment of GST. In case of special category states such as North-Eastern and hilly states, the exemption limit will be doubled to Rs 20 lakh. However, this exemption limit would be applicable from 1st April, 2019 after passing required amendment bill.
States have been given an option to increase the exemption limit to Rs 40 lakh and will be given the discretion to opt for lower exemption and registration limit. States would have the option to decide about one of the limits within a week’s time.
Now the following questions pop up in the mind as we do the depth analysis of recommended exemption limit. The question is being explained with the help of an example; a taxpayer is registered in Rajasthan wherein threshold limit is 20 lacs. He wants to commence his business in Haryana as well with the same PAN where the threshold limit decided by the government is 40 lacs.
However, at present his turnover in Rajasthan is 30 lacs.
As per section 2(6) of the CGST Act, 2017, “Aggregate turnover” means the aggregate value of all taxable supplies (excluding the value of inward supplies on which tax is payable by a person on reverse charge basis), exempt supplies, exports of goods or services or both and inter-state supplies of persons having the same Permanent Account Number, to be computed on an all-India basis but excludes Central tax, State tax, Union territory tax, Integrated tax and cess.
Since in the discussed example, his turnover on PAN India basis exceeds 20 lacs, he will be required to compulsorily register in state of Rajasthan under the GST regime as per Section 22(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. If he registers in state of Rajasthan then he cannot avail the exemption limit of Rs. 40 Lakh in Haryana State.
In the same example, if the taxpayer gets registered in Haryana with different PAN. He can enjoy the threshold limit of 40 lacs and need not to get registered if his aggregate turnover for that particular PAN is within the 40 lacs.
GST law was implemented with the basic motive of One Nation, One tax. This decision has given the option to States to choose their own exemption limit of registration. This will create disparity between different states of country regarding registration limits and discrimination between the taxpayers registered in different states.
In addition to this, if the taxpayer wants to withdraw his registration from April 2019 onwards as his estimated turnover for the upcoming financial years will be limited to 40 lacs, when he would be required to surrender registration?
Every registered taxpayer is required to file his GSTR 3B return till the 20th of the next month. Taxpayers would be required to file return of March 2019 month till 20th April 2019. This indicates that he cannot surrender his certificate before 20th April. Then even if he surrender it on 20th April, what about the sales done between the period 1st April 2019 till his surrender application is approved by the department. The question arises whether he should charge GST between this period?
One more demarcation in this decision is pertaining to applicability of exemption limit to taxpayers who are earning ancillary income of interest from FDR, rent from residential property etc. Denying exemption to these taxpayers will put such assessees at disadvantageous position.
Well, confusions are inbuilt in the newly implemented GST regime and are expected that the same would be resolved while issuing necessary bills and notifications in respect to this decision.

This is solely for the educational purpose.
 
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