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 157 ON ITC ELIGIBILITY ON FREEBIES

GST UPDATE No 157 ON ITC ELIGIBILITY ON FREEBIES
The concept of “Input Tax Credit”, in Indirect Tax Reform has been introduced to eliminate the cascading effect and promote seamless flow of input tax credit throughout the transaction chain. However, it is not so easy to justify the availment of input tax credit on freebies. The revenue authorities are adamant while interpreting the provisions of input tax credit and consequently, refrain from giving input tax credit easily to the taxpayers. The present update seeks to discuss the issue of admissibility of input tax credit on freebies given by business for sales promotion. Quoting the recent judgment imparted by Apex Court in the case of M/S APEX LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. V/S DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the ruling that pharmaceutical companies are not entitled for deduction of expenses incurred on distribution of freebies/incentives to medical practitioners. The Hon’ble Court was of the view that the freebies ranging from gifts, fridges, chains, LCD TVs etc. are technically not “free”. Their cost is generally included in the prices of the drugs and therefore gearing the overall prices of the commodities. The above decision was rendered in the context of Income Tax Laws. However, if the analogy of the Apex Court judgment is enforced in the GST regime as well, it can cast a doubt on the applicability of provisions contained in section 17(5)(h) of CGST Act, 2017 wherein input credit is blocked in case goods are distributed as free samples or gifts. The revenue authorities are of the view that input credit on freebies shall stand blocked since goods disposed of as a freebie doesn’t attract any output tax. However, looking into the current scenarios, it is the common practice followed by almost all the business houses specially during festive seasons to distribute their products as free sample. The burning question that arises is whether freebie given by business can be considered as gift? Gifts in common parlance is anything given voluntary, without expecting anything in return, out of love and affection. The question that arises is will any company which runs business to earn profits, distribute goods to its dealers or customers out of love and affection? The answer is a big NO. Goods distributed to dealers and customers are indeed towards business purposes so as to promote and boost the sales resulting into overall business profitability. The underlying motive behind this act is nothing but furtherance of business. Had the situation been that the goods are distributed on a voluntary basis and without any business motive, it would have been useless to argue that ITC should be denied on these transactions. On the contrary, the present situation is far different as goods distributed are with the motive of sales promotion. There are plethora of Judicial pronouncements which have ruled in negative as regards availability of input tax credit on freebies. In the case of BIOSTADT INDIA LTD, Maharashtra AAR held that ITC is denied on distribution of gold coins by the company to its customers on achievement of targets. Further, in case of SANOFI (INDIA) LIMITED, AAR held that ITC was denied in case goods were distributed without any consideration to the customers on fulfillment of certain conditions. Furthermore, the AAR deny the input credit on the basis that since there is no written contract or agreement which existed between the parties. It is submitted that the views taken by AAR as stated above needs to be revisited in light of the Apex Court decision holding that freebies are part of the cost of the product. If such a view is being accepted in GST Laws too, goods distributed as free are infact part of the cost of product on which GST is being paid so technically, they are not free. Hence, one may argue that ITC cannot be denied if goods are distributed as free samples or as gifts to consumers or dealers in the ordinary course of business. The admissibility of input tax credit on freebies has been a matter of dispute since inception. A proper clarification favoring the taxpayers in this regard from the Government is anticipated by the business communities thus marking an end on the unwanted litigations on this issue.
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