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 321 on cotton seed is not an agriculture produce

GST update No 321 on cotton seed is not an agriculture produce
It is well known fact that agriculture sector is one of the most sensitive sectors wherein the levy of GST is exposed to litigations as the ultimate intention of Government is to grant exemption to this sector from levy of GST. However, the availment of exemption in case of agriculture produce is debatable due to the definition stated in GST Laws. Recently, one case was reported before Punjab AAR in the case of M/S KAKA RAM HARI CHAND. The decision imparted in this case is subject matter of discussion of our present update.
The applicant is engaged in business of cotton seeds “banaula” for which they avail the services of GTA wherein GST is payable by the recipient under reverse charge mechanism. The applicant raised a question as regards to applicability of exemption notification in the present case wherein tax on GTA is exempted in relation to “agriculture produce” vide Entry No.21. It was observed that the query of applicant as regards to availability of exemption notification is squarely covered within ambit of Section 97 of CGST Act, 2017 on which appropriate ruling can be offered by the AAR.The applicant submitted that they are engaged in trading of cotton seeds for which they avail services of GTA wherein the tax is payable under reverse charge mechanism. The service of GTA with respect to agriculture produce is exempt. Further, as per the exemption entry, Punjab Agriculture Produce Markets Act in its Schedule at S.No. 15 incorporates cotton seeds “banaula” as an agriculture produce. Reference was drawn to decision of Delhi CESTAT in the case of R.K. & Sons v/s CCE Rohtak wherein it was stated that “ginned cotton” is covered under “agriculture produce”. Further, as per the survey, other suppliers were also having same practice as regards to applicability of GST on the transportation of said commodity.The authority submitted that S. No. 21 of exemption notification provides exemption for transportation of agriculture produce by GTA. The traders are considering oil seeds as agriculture produce and fail to pay tax on freight amount under RCM. However, the department disagrees with the opinion of taxpayers and states that they are required to pay tax on freight on purchase of cotton seeds. Further, the definition of agriculture produce is very restrictive in nature. The exemption is provided only to those producers which are directly harvested from the farms on which no processing is done to make it marketable. In the present case, the cotton seeds are derived from the cotton plant which consists of lint and seed together known as “seed cotton”. The seed cotton is ginned for extraction of fiber and cotton seed from it. In the process of ginning, cotton is first dried to remove moisture and then cleaned to remove any foreign particles and processed further. Therefore, cotton seed is obtained from seed cotton by way of industrial processing called ginning and hence, it is not an agriculture produce.
There had been instances wherein different statues are interpreted in different manner and the interpretation depends on objectives of particular statue with which it is enacted. Therefore, if cotton seeds are interpreted as agriculture produce under any other Acts and not under GST Law, due to the fact that GST Law has specific definition of agricultural produce for granting exemption.The above decision is a setback for the trade and industry wherein the cotton seeds cannot be termed as agriculture produce. Although it is well established that advance rulings are applicable only on the applicant who sought it and not on any other applicant. However, it is also well known that the advance ruling delivered are generally pro-revenue. The dispute as regards whether a particular commodity is agricultural produce or not was prevalent in Service Tax Regime too. To illustrate- there was lot of dispute as to whether rice is agricultural produce or not as it required lot of processing before it could be marketable. The government had resolved the dispute by granting specific exemption to transportation and storage services of rice. However, the ripples of erstwhile litigation can be observed in GST era too.
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