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 226 on tax implication on supply of food and accommodation to students

GST Update No 226 on tax implication on supply of food and accommodation to students
Although, the advent of GST has brought a paradigm shift in the sector of Indirect Taxation, the question regarding applicability of GST on education sector is a matter of grave concern for all. However, the legislation has retained the concept of “bundled services” from erstwhile GST regime, the question related to supply of food and accommodation services provided to students is a matter of discussion till date. On similar lines, one of the cases was reported before Telangana AAR in the case of M/S HEALERSARK RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED. The decision imparted in this case is the subject matter of our present update.
 
The applicant is engaged in the business of providing boarding and lodging to the students who are undergoing training under healthcare related vocational programs. Following question in this respect were raised before AAR:
1.     Applicability of GST SAC and GST Rate on above stated supply of service
2.     Whether it is a composite supply or mixed supply?
3.     Whether the service is exempted vide Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
 
The applicant submitted that they are charging Rs. 9000/- per candidate per month for lodging and boarding services provided to students who are undergoing training under vocational program out of which Rs. 3,500/- is towards rent and Rs. 5,500/- is for food on basis of head count. It was further submitted that they are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28.06.2017 since the value of supply of accommodation is below Rs. 1,000/- per day. It was contended that Rs. 9,000/- is charged per month which amounts to Rs.300/- per day and be treated as composite supply. Further, it was argued that since the supply of food will be ancillary and accommodation is principal supply, service would be exempted being a composite supply.
 
The AAR placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma V/s Smt. Raj Kumar Sharma- AIR 1996 SC 869, wherein concept of composite supply was explained. Further, looking onto the facts, it was held that rent is fixed at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- whereas food is charged at Rs. 5,500/- as per the head count. This demonstrates that the price is variable to the extent of food supplied. No single price is charged from the customer no matter how much of the package is actually received. Hence, the above two supplies are integral part of one another. Reference was drawn to the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Abott Health Care Pvt. Ltd. wherein it was held that the two supplies are composite supply since they are affected on “as is where is” basis. In the present scenario the conditions are not fulfilled and hence, the supplies are distinct supply. Therefore, it was clarified that the two supplies are distinct supplies wherein supply of accommodation is exempt and on supply of food, GST is leviable.
 
It is pertinent to mention here that there are divergent rulings and views delivered on the subject matter under consideration. To illustrate, Rajasthan AAAR in the case of M/s Mody Education Foundation wherein it was held that supply of food along with hostel accommodation service is not naturally bundled and therefore, be treated as mixed supply and chargeable to highest rate of tax. Similarly, in the case of M/s Sarj Educational Centre, West Bengal AAAR upheld the same view-point, treating it as mixed supply. Although, it is well settled law in law that the advance rulings are binding only on the assessees who sought it, yet these contradictory rulings lay down a foundation for the revenue department to initiate action against the assessees. The need of the hour is that consistency is maintained while pronouncing advance rulings so that unwarranted confusion could be avoided.
 
 
 
 
 
 
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