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 ON 18% GST for aerated water supplied in hotel restaurants, 28% for cigarettes: AAR 143/2020-21

GST Update ON 18% GST for aerated water supplied in hotel restaurants, 28% for cigarettes: AAR 143/2020-21
In the recent advance ruling of MFAR Hotels & Resorts Private Ltd. (GST AAR Tamilnadu), the Applicant owns and manages Hotels & Resorts. The applicant has applied for Advance Ruling on the following matters:
  • Rate of tax on supply of soft beverages and tobacco when supplied independently and not as composite supply in the restaurant.
  • Taxability of supply of liquor
  • Taxability of supplies free food to the employees
At the time of submission of application, the second and third question were as follows-
2. Whether supply of liquor is deemed to be the “exempt supply” under GST Act as per Section 2(47) of CGST Act for the purpose of proportionate reversal of ITC as per Rule 42 of CGST rules 2017?
3. It is obligatory on the part of employer to supply free food to the employees. Whether such free supply of food is liable to reverse ITC on inputs as per Rule 42 of CGST Rules 2017?
However, during Personal Hearing held on 30.08.2019, the applicant stated that in respect of 2nd and 3rd question, they wish to rephrase the questions and hence it was changed to initially mentioned questions.
 The applicant submitted that it provides a variety of services such as rooms, suits banquets, dinning spa etc. At times it supplies Aerated beverages, water and tobacco to the guests not as part of the food in the buffet or as composite supply and the billing of such items is done separate. The applicant stated that it charges 28% + Cess on cigarettes whereas customers claim the tax rate to be 18% as part of composite supply. The applicant further stated that the food provided to employees is from a separate in-house canteen but procurement of raw material is common.
On the matter of supply of aerated beverages and tobacco products in the restaurant and to the room guests, the definition of supply and composite supply along with section 8 was examined by the AAR. The Authority also observed that Aerated beverages and Tobacco products are also listed on the menu of the hotel and one can simply order the beverage or the cigarette without ordering any other food item. When a guest (resident or non-resident) comes to the restaurant and orders from the menu either soft beverages or aerated water, it involves supply of goods (soft beverages/aerated waters) and supply of services by the restaurant. In this case both the supplies are taxable. The serving of any items on the menu involves the supply of the items along with the use of the facilities/ staff of the restaurant. These two are naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction each other and hence is a composite supply as per Section 2(30) of the Act. Hence, it is in nature of restaurant service will be taxable at 18% since the hotel is a 5-star hotel and that room rent is more than Rs. 7000/-.
In case of the tobacco products the AAR ruled that supply of cigarette is not simply the supply of goods. Sale of cigarettes products are not naturally bundled together with the restaurant services as the services of the restaurant involves serving of food and beverages alone in the normal course. Therefore, it is not a composite supply as per Section 2(30) of the Act. And since it is not naturally bundled the same is a mixed supply. Therefore, the highest rate of the cigarette i.e. 28% shall be applicable.
On the question of alcoholic liquor, the AAR ruled that since it is not taxable as per CGST Act, GST on the same is not to be charged.
On the question of supply of free food to employees, the AAR ruled that employees are related persons. Thereby under Para 2 to Schedule 1 the supply of food to employees is a supply of service and taxable at the rate of 18%.
This AAR ruling has been very contradictory in the first question raised. In case of supply of beverages/aerated water in restaurants, the supply is naturally bundled with services; while in the case of supply of cigarettes, supply and services are not naturally bundled is a peculiar observation. The AAR made no distinction between supply of aerated beverages and food if supplied independently in restaurant or room. However, by this ruling even when a customer orders no food and simply aerated beverage/water, the same would be taxable as restaurant service. This would be alarming situation for all the restaurants as it is common practice of serving beverages all alone.
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