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. 91st ON ITC ADMISSIBILITY TO RWA HAVING COMMERCIAL SHOPS

GST UPDATE No. 91st ON ITC ADMISSIBILITY TO RWA HAVING COMMERCIAL SHOPS
The issue regarding taxability of contribution received by Resident Welfare Association (RWA) from its members as well as admissibility of ITC has always been a matter of dispute. Recently, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of “M/S TVH LUMBINI SQUARE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, CHENNAI”, question was raised regarding taxability limit of the amount contributed by members to RWA. AAR held that in case contribution exceeds rs.7500/- per member per month then entire amount will be taxable. Moreover, circular no. 19/28/2019 has also clarified that GST will be payable only on amount exceeding Rs. 7500/- per member per month. However, a unique issue was raised before the Maharashtra AAR in the case of M/S VISHAL COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. wherein it was asked as to whether the society can surrender the GST registration as the contribution received by them is less than Rs. 7,500/- but there arecommercial shops also along with residential flats. Furthermore, question was also raised regarding the admissibility of input tax credit. The outcome of this decision is the subject matter of discussion of our present update. The AAR held that according to the circular no. 109/28/2019 GST dated 22.07.2019, RWA shall be required to pay GST on monthly subscription contribution charged from its members only if such subscription is more than Rs. 7,500/- per month per member and aggregate annual turnover of RWA by way of supplying goods and services is also Rs. 20 Lakhs or more. In the present case, though annual turnover is more than Rs. 20 Lakhs, monthly maintenance per month per member is less than Rs. 7,500/- but society has commercial shops along with residential flats and garages. The AAR held that since the question as to whether applicant is required to surrender their registration is not covered by the scope of advance ruling under section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017, the same is not answered. As regards admissibility of input tax credit on various works contract services availed by them is concerned, it was held that credit will not be available to the extent of capitalisation as mentioned in explanation to section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. AAR also concluded that with respect to admissibility of input tax credit on various services such as professional fees, bank charges, insurance premium, stationery items, security services etc. the applicant is eligible for availing proportionate input tax credit in proportion to commercial flats because GST is exempted on the contribution below Rs. 7,500/- pertaining to residential flats. The above decision seeks to highlight that the provision contained in section 17(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 42 of the CGST Rules, 2017 pertaining to proportionate reversal will be applicable in case of projects where RWA is being set up for collecting contributions with respect to residential flats and commercial shops. However, the AAR does not clarify on the mechanism and computation aspect of such proportionate input tax credit. It is also worth mentioning that usually there are separate RWA for residential flats and commercial shops. Consequently, the common input tax credit will have to be apportioned in the ratio of commercial shops by considering the contribution received for residential flats as exempt. To illustrate- if the common credit is Rs. 10,00,000/- and the total contribution of RWA from residential flats is Rs. 25,00,000/- whereas the total contribution of RWA from commercial shops is Rs. 30,00,000/-; the computation of input tax credit admissible with respect to commercial shops would be = 10,00,000*30,00,000/55,00,000 being Rs. 5,45,455/-. Hence, the assessee will have to avail common credit to the extent of Rs. 5,45,455/- out of the total credit of Rs. 10,00,000/-. This would be definitely be a cumbersome task for the assessee and would add to the burden of compliance.
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