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 No 110 on clarification on services supplied by restaurants through ECO

GST update No 110 on clarification on services supplied by restaurants through ECO
The GST council in is 45th meeting held on 17.09.2021 shifted the liability to pay tax on e-commerce operator (ECO) with respect to restaurant services provided by it. Notification No. 17/2021 dated 18.11.2021 has been issued to make the provision applicable with effect from 01.01.2022. However, a lot of confusion is prevailing in the minds of assessees as regards various issues with respect to implementation of this provision shifting the liability of payment of tax from restaurants to ECO. Recently, clarification was released by the CBIC vide Circular No. 167/23/2021-GST dated 17.12.2021 in this respect which is the subject matter of discussion of our present update. The issues touched upon by the circular are discussed as follows:- 1. Deduction of TCS by ECO :- Presently, ECOs are required to collect TCS @1% on the net value of taxable supplies made through it by other suppliers. The restaurant service providers were doubtful as to whether the ECO would continue to collect TCS on supplies made through them. It is clarified that there is no need to deduct TCS on the supplies for which GST is to be paid by the ECO. 2. Separate registration by ECO:- ECOs are already registered for collecting TCS and are filing GSTR8. Doubts were raised as to whether separate registration is required to be taken by ECO for concluding transactions through restaurants on which liability to pay tax is on the ECO. It is clarified that there is no need to take separate registration by the ECO and the existing registration would suffice. 3. Liability to pay tax for unregistered restaurants:- It is clarified that even for restaurants having aggregate turnover less than Rs. 20 Lakhs, if supplies have been made through ECO, GST would be payable by the ECOs. 4. Computation of aggregate turnover for restaurants:- There was confusion as regards inclusion of such turnover in the aggregate turnover of restaurant service provider or the ECO. It is clarified that the supplies made through ECO would be considered as supplies made by restaurant service provider and will be included in the aggregate turnover of restaurants. 5. Whether restaurant supplies through ECO considered as inward supplies liable to RCM for ECO? :- It is submitted that as per section 2(93)(a) of CGST Act, 2017, recipient of service means person who is liable to pay consideration. As in the present case, the customer ordering food through ECO is the recipient, ECO cannot be considered as recipient of the restaurant service and so the transaction cannot be considered as inward supplies for ECO. Similar view has been taken by CBIC and it is clarified that ECO are not recipient of restaurant service. 6. Requirement of proportionate reversal by ECO:- Representations have been raised seeking clarification on whether the ECO is liable to reverse proportionate ITC as per Rule 42 and 43 of CGST Act, 2017 since input credit is not admissible on restaurant services. To this, it is clarified that ECO charges commission and fee etc. for the services which it provides to restaurants. Hence, it is clarified that ECO need not to reverse ITC on account of restaurant services provided as it is merely appointed by government to discharge GST on restaurant services provided through it. Further, it is clarified that ECO shall pay entire amount in cash on such restaurant services. As the output tax is being paid in cash by ECO and actually it is engaged in facilitating restaurant service provider to supply food to customers, there is no requirement to reverse proportionate ITC. 7. Compliance for other than restaurant services by ECO:- It is clarified that the requirement to collect TCS would continue for services other than restaurant services provided through ECO. Moreover, the liability to issue invoices in case of services other than restaurant services provided through ECO would continue to be issued by the service providers. In case of composite supplies made by ECO, separate invoice is to be issued by ECO for restaurant services provided through it. ECO is liable to issue invoices for restaurant services provided through it. 8. Reporting in GST returns:- Transaction of supply of restaurant services through ECO would be reflected as B2B (in case of registered restaurants)/B2C (in case of unregistered restaurants) supplies in table 4A or table 7A(1) of GSTR-1 of ECO and as outward taxable supplies in GSTR-3B filed by them. However, restaurants would report such supplies as Nil rated/exempt supplies under table 8 of GSTR-1 and serial no. 3.1(c) of GSTR-3B. The government shifts liability to pay tax in specific sectors in order to check revenue leakage. One of the reasons for the change in tax mechanism for services provided by restaurants through ECO is to generate revenue on the supplies being made from unregistered restaurants. It is worth mentioning that Uber has also filed writ petition before the Delhi High Court against the move of the government to levy tax on auto-rickshaw services provided through ECO w.e.f. 01.01.2022 which are otherwise exempt on the grounds of discrimination. We can expect similar petitions being filed with respect to restaurant services provided through ECO.
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