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 152 on leviability of GST on Guest Lectures by professor

GST Update No 152 on leviability of GST on Guest Lectures by professor
The concept of Advance Ruling plays a vital role, particularly when there is confusion as regards the applicability of exemption notification to the assessee. At times, there is situation wherein goods/services appear to be covered under more than one exemption entry and there is confusion as regards the taxability of the said goods/services. Recently, the issue regarding leviability of GST on the guest lectures rendered by professor was raised before Karnataka AAR in the case of SRI SAIRAM GOPALKRISHNA BHAT. The analysis of this decision is subject matter of our present update. The applicant is a Professor of Law at National Law School of India University, Bengaluru and is engaged in classroom teaching of students. The applicant sought advance ruling as to whether the income earned for conducting Guest Lectures amounts to taxable supply of service. Further, whether income earned from research and training projects sponsored by the Ministry of Government is a taxable supply, taxed at NIL rate as per Heading 9992 or at 18% under Heading 9983. The applicant contended that the services provided by way of training is recreational activities related to art and culture and hence, exempt under Entry No. 80 of the notification no. 12/2017. The applicant further submitted that teaching and training under research program granted by Government of India is nature of pure services under Article 243G or 243W of the Constitution of India. Further, the said activities are covered under serial no. 72 of Notification No. 12/2017 since the entire expenditure is borne by Government and it stands exempted from tax bracket. The applicant also submitted MOU between Ministry of Environment and Centre of Environment Law Education in support of the contentions placed by them. Reliance was placed on the decision of Apex Court in the case of LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST wherein it was held that ‘education’ was defined as a process of training and developing knowledge, skill and character of students by normal schooling. The AAR held that the services provided by the applicant as a guest lecturer is not covered under the list of exemption of educational activity since it is not known that the guest lecture is part of the curriculum designed by the educational institution. Further, the applicant is providing guest lectures on law and legal awareness and not on art and culture. Therefore, it shall not be covered under Entry No. 80 pertaining to recreational services. It was held that the services provided by the applicant in the capacity of guest lecturer shall be taxable at 18% GST as the same is covered under “other professional, technical and business services”. Moreover, it was stated that in order to claim exemption of Entry No 72, two conditions are required to be fulfilled i.e. training services to be provided only to Government and total expenditure is to borne by Government itself in this regard. Furthermore, it was held that there is no privity of contract between Ministry of Environment, Government of India and the applicant. Therefore, it was concluded that the above service shall stand taxable at the rate of 18%. The above decision is yet another example that reflects that the exemption notifications are to be interpreted in a strict manner as merely providing guest lectures to an educational institute would not entitle the lecturer for exemption unless and until it is established that the said lectures were part of the curriculum offered by the educational institute. However, GST liability may be avoided in this case if the guest lecturer is on the payroll of the educational institute and there exists employer/employee relationship between them but practically the guest lecturers are not employees of the educational institute. The efforts of the applicant to get the transaction covered under either of the exemption entries-3, or 72 or 80 of the notification no. 12/2017-Central Tax were in vain as the AAR concluded that the said services are liable to GST at the 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