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 ADMISSIBILITY OF GST EXEMPTION TO IIM

GST UPDATE ON ADMISSIBILITY OF GST EXEMPTION TO IIM
GST UPDATE ON ADMISSIBILITY OF GST EXEMPTION TO IIMs:
The Advance Rulings have pronounced contrary decisions as regards leviability of GST on the various courses offered by IIMs. The Authority for Advance Ruling Bangalore and Madhya Pradesh have concluded that when there is specific exemption available to IIM with respect to specific courses offered by it under serial no. 67 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, then, the benefit of general exemption as contained in serial no. 66(a) of the same exemption notification which is applicable to ‘educational institution’ will not be admissible to IIM even after enactment of IIM Act. However, on the contrary, the decision rendered by AAR Kolkata in case of Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta [2018-TIOL-242-AAR-GST] is entirely different from the decision as pronounced by AAR Bangalore and AAR Madhya Pradesh. The AAR Kolkata has opined that after the enactment of IIM Act, it is very well covered by the definition of educational institution for the purpose of general exemption under serial no. 66(a) of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2018. It was held that IIM being covered by the term educational institution is equally entitled for the benefit of both the entries being 66(a) and 67. It was also concluded that Supreme Court has held that if assessee is entitled for two benefits, it is at the option of the assessee to avail any benefit irrespective of the fact that the benefit is claimed under general exemption or specific exemption. Since there were contrary decisions on the issue, clarification from the government was the need of hour and recent clarification issued vide Circular No. 82/01/2019-GST dated 01.01.2019 has resolved the conflict as regards admissibility of exemption to IIM for courses other than those specifically mentioned in serial no. 67.
 
The circular has clarified the position as regards leviability of GST for different periods on the various courses offered by IIMs as follows:-
 01.07.2017 to 30.01.2018:-
IIMs were not covered by the term ‘educational institution’ and so were not eligible for the exemption under serial no. 66(a) of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). Consequently, IIMs were eligible for GST exemption only on specified courses as mentioned in serial no. 67 of the said notification no. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) which reads as follows:-
 (i) two-year full time Post Graduate Programmes in Management for the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, to which admissions are made on the basis of Common Admission Test (CAT) conducted by the Indian Institute of Management,
(ii) fellow programme in Management,
(iii)five years integrated programme in Management
Therefore, GST was payable on other courses offered by IIMs except the courses listed above.
W.e.f. 31.01.2018:-
Indian Institutes of Management Act, 2018 came into force on 31.01.2018  , ‘IIMs’ are educational institutions as they provide education as a part of curriculum for obtaining qualification recognised by law for the time being in force. Consequently, w.e.f. 31.01.2018, IIMs has the option to claim general exemption under serial no. 66(a) of the notification no. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) or specific exemption under serial no. 67 of the notification no. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). The justification for availing exemption under either of the serial no. 66(a) and 67 is backed by decisions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if there are two or more exemption notifications available to the assessee, the assessee can claim the one that is more beneficial to him. However, IIMs are liable to pay GST at the rate of 18% for short term programs for executives/professionals as such programs are not for any qualification recognised by law.
 
Now, the clarification issued by the Tax Research Unit (Ministry of Finance) supports the view of Authority of Advance Ruling of Kolkata. However, as regards IIM, Bangalore and IIM, Madhya Pradesh is concerned, they are bound by the decision pronounced by the respective advance rulings according to the provisions contained in section 103 of the CGST Act, 2017. However, it is worth noting that the provision contained in sub-section (2) of the section 103 states that the advance ruling shall be binding unless the law, facts or circumstances supporting the original advance ruling have changed. It is worth mentioning that while pronouncing the decisions by Advance Ruling, the fact that IIM Act has been implemented with effect from 31.01.2018 was considered and adverse opinion was framed. Consequently, there is no change in the facts or circumstances supporting the original advance ruling. Now, the question arises is that whether issuance of clarification vide Circular can be considered as change in law so as to invoke the provisions of section 103(2) in case of IIM Bangalore and IIM Madhya Pradesh? Well, confusions are inbuilt in the newly implemented GST regime and are expected that the same would be resolved only after bearing of litigation cost by the helpless assessees.
The content of this GST update is for educational purpose only and not intended for solicitation.
You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com, at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21
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