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 256 on GST implications on administration of Covid-19 vaccines

GST Update No 256 on GST implications on administration of Covid-19 vaccines
It is well known fact that health care sector is one of the most sensitive sectors wherein levy of GST is prone to litigation as the ultimate intention of the government is to provide free medical facilities to the citizens of the Country. The outbreak of Covid-19 placed a need to safeguard the interests of the citizens and after several clinical trials, vaccination drive being one of the significant leaps in India’s public health started to play its role. However, doubts were in the minds of assessees as to whether the said supply shall be covered under Health Care Services and thus, exempted from levy of GST. Recently, one case was reported before Andhra Pradesh AAR in the case of M/S KRISHNA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES LIMITED wherein it was enquired as to whether administering of COVID-19 vaccination by hospitals is supply of good or supply of service. The decision imparted in this case is the subject matter of discussion of our present update.
 
The appellant is a multi-specialty hospital engaged in rendering health care services which are exempted vide Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28.06.2017. The company also supplies pharmacy based on prescription to outdoor patients on which tax is levied. The company was permitted to administer the Covid-19 vaccine. The process of administration of vaccine was explained in detail specifying that health care personnel who administers vaccine should be authorised medical practitioner and should have received competency-based training on vaccine administration. The Government’s institute i.e. NEGVAC will guide the aspects of covid-19 vaccine. Further, it was stated that administration process involves pre-vaccine, vaccination and post-vaccination process. The appellant sought an advance ruling on following issues:
1.     Whether the administration of Covid-19 vaccination by hospitals is supply of goods or supply of services?
2.     Whether administration of vaccine qualify as “health care service” and thereby stand exempted from levy of tax?
3.     Whether administrating of Covid-19 vaccine by clinical establishment is exempt under GST?
 
The appellant referred to definitions of goods, services, composite supply and healthcare-services as defined under Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28.06.2017. It was further submitted that vaccines vial is not available for sale by pharmacy and the beneficiaries are not at liberty to get vaccinated by themselves or by any other person other than medical professional. Further, the beneficiaries visit hospital to get vaccination directly injected into the body. Therefore, it should not be considered as supply of goods. Further, various activities undertaken during the process of vaccination were considered concluding that the vaccination involves combination of supply of goods and services and thereby it is termed as composite supply. As regards to health care services, it was argued that the process is undertaken for the care of beneficiaries to develop their immunity against the chronic illness and hence, it shall stand exempted being health care service vide Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax Rate.
 
The AAR discussed as to whether administering of Covid-19 vaccine by hospital is supply of goods or services or both. It was concluded that there are two activities in the transaction, sale of vaccine being supply of goods and administering of vaccine being supply of service. Therefore, in the present case it is composite supply which is naturally bundled and principal supply being supply of goods since it is a choice of recipient which vaccine to be injected i.e. Covishield or Covaxin. Therefore, sale of vaccine shall be chargeable at the rate of 5%. As far as exemption is concerned, it is stated that inpatient services are exempted under GST and supply of vaccine is nowhere covered under inpatient services. Therefore, the given supply is not exempted under Health Care Services.
 
The above decision is yet another example to support the fact that advance ruling authorities are following pro-revenue approach and delivering adverse rulings. It is pertinent to mention here that recently the Apex Court in the case of Mohit Minerals V/s Union of India delivered that it is not possible to bifurcate the service portion in a composite supply so as to levy GST on the said service portion separately. However, it is extremely disheartening that the lower authorities are not following the analogy adopted by the Apex Court. In the present case, the principal supply in the composite supply of administering of COVID-19 vaccine is the health care service and not sale of vaccine. Consequently, levy of 5% GST on such vaccines is totally unjustifiable. Moreover, COVID-19 vaccines were being provided free of cost to the individuals and so the transaction should not be considered as supply in the first place itself as it lacks consideration. As such, no GST should be leviable on this transaction.
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