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 No 119 on Warranty claim and taxability of repair/maintenance

GST Update No 119 on Warranty claim and taxability of repair/maintenance
The concept of advance rulings has been introduced in the GST regime with a view to bring clarity as regards various issues that can be matter of confusion in the minds of assessee. After the advent of GST, thousands of advance rulings have been pronounced and most of the matters have been resolved. However, the interpretation of law is a continuous process and so rulings pronounced seeks to settle various doubts. Recently, advance ruling rendered in the case of M/s SOUTH INDIAN FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN SOCIEITES [ADVANCE RULING NO. KAR ADRG 74/2021 DATED 06.12.2021] discussed the GST leviability on free supplies made during warranty period and the taxability of repair and maintenance services provided with respect to fishing vessel. The reasoning adopted is the subject matter of discussion of our present update. The applicant is a Charitable Society engaged in undertaking various welfare activities for poor fisherman and providing them with necessary fishing requisites at concessional rates. The applicant sought advance ruling on following: ? Applicability of GST rate on marine engines and spares ? Levy of GST on supply made during warranty period ? Tax rate on puff insolated ice box used by fisherman for maintaining good hygiene ? Taxability of repair charges of supply of material and labour ? Tax rate on marine engine supplied to Defence Department. The Counsel of Department submitted following contentions with regard to questions sought: ? As far as applicable GST rate on Marine Engine and spare parts is concerned, 5% rate shall be applicable as per entry SI. No. 252 of Schedule I of Notification No. 01/2017 Central Tax dated 28.06.2017. ? Further, the department contended that in Sectorial FAQs by CBIC, it was clarified that no GST shall be chargeable on replacement if supply is made without consideration during warranty period. The value of supply already includes charges to be incurred during warranty period. Further, it was also clarified that supplier is notrequired to reverse the ITC on replaced parts. ? Further, the counsel of department contended that since puff insolated ice box falls under Customs Tariff Heading 3933, it shall attract GST @18% as provided in Schedule III of Notification No. 01/2017-Central Tax dated 28.09.2017. ? The revenue submitted that as far as collection of repair charges on supply of material and labour is concerned, if there is specifically provided in the contract and value of spare parts and services is separately charged in invoice, GST @5% shall be attracted i.e. the rate applicable to such spare parts and services. ? Further, as per Schedule I of Notification No. 01/2017- Central Tax dated 28.06.2017, in case any marine engine is supplied to Defence and other agencies for relief operations, GST shall be attracted at the rate of 5%. The AAR upheld the views of Counsel of Department. It was held that since replacement services were done without charging consideration, it does not fall in the ambit of supply u/s 7 of CGST Act, 2017 and hence, no GST shall be levied. Further, AAR clarified that in case of puff ice boxes used for good hygiene, GST at the rate 18% shall be charged because the product cannot be considered as a part of fishing vessel and hence, it shall not be eligible for concessional rate of GST. Moreover, AAR held that GST at the rate 18% shall be chargeable on collection of repair charges on supply of material and labour including supply of spare parts instead of 5%. The analogy taken by the AAR is that it is a composite supply wherein principal supply is supply of repair and maintenance since there is no transfer of goods in title. The issue regarding GST rate applicable on marine engine and spare parts was also raised in the case of “In re MAN Energy Solutions India Private Limited” wherein it was held that 5% GST shall be attracted. As regards taxability of goods supplied free of cost under warranty scheme is concerned, the issue is settled by clarification that as the original supply included the cost of warranty, no GST is payable on the free supplies made during warranty. However, with respect to repair and maintenance services, there may be divergent view as regards treating the said transaction as composite supply and applying the GST rate of 18%. In our opinion, if the value of spare parts are separately identifiable, the same should be liable to GST at their respective rates with the labour charges attracting GST rate of 18%.
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