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 ADVANCE RULING ON GST LIABILITY ON OCEAN FREIGHT PAID UNDER CIF CONTRACTS

GST UPDATE ON ADVANCE RULING ON GST LIABILITY ON OCEAN FREIGHT PAID UNDER CIF CONTRACTS
The present update seeks to discuss the recent Advance Ruling pronounced in case of M/s M.K. Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. on the issue of liability to pay IGST by the importer on ocean freight in case of CIF contracts under reverse charge mechanism. It was pleaded by the applicant that since IGST is paid on import of goods whether on FOB terms or CIF terms, they are not liable to pay IGST on ocean freight under CIF contracts once again as it would lead to double taxation. It was also pleaded by the applicant that they are not covered under the term ‘recipient of supply of goods or services or both’ as they have not paid consideration to the foreign shipping line and the agreement for transportation of goods is entered into by the foreign supplier and the foreign shipping line with foreign supplier making payment to the said foreign shipping line. It was also pleaded by the applicant that the transaction is to be considered as composite supply and the value of freight is to be included in the value of goods for the purpose of discharging IGST on import of goods. Therefore, there is no need to separately pay IGST on the element of ocean freight again under reverse charge mechanism. The AAR Karnataka concluded that there is no double taxation involved in the above transactions as these are two distinct taxable transactions, one relating to supply of goods and other relating to supply of services. Hence, it was held that IGST should be paid by the importer on ocean freight in case of CIF contract. However, it was also stated that since the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and is sub-judice. Consequently, it was stated that the decision is subject to the outcome of the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court.
 
Now, the question arises is that whether the Authority for Advance Ruling is competent to pass such an order that the decision is subject to outcome of the decision to be pronounced by the Gujarat High Court in near future?  If we pursue the provisions contained in section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017 pertaining to ‘Procedure in receipt of application’, there is no express provision regarding the type/nature/contents of order that can be passed by the authority of advance ruling. However, by applying the general principles of law, the concept of judicial discipline should be adhered to according to which if any issue is sub-judice before higher appellate forum, the matter should be transferred to call book and decision should be passed by the subordinate authority only after the final outcome of the decision by the higher appellate authority. The decision confirming the liability to pay IGST on ocean freight incurred on CIF contracts under reverse charge mechanism subject to the outcome of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court’s final decision is absurd as it leads to unnecessary litigation cost for the applicant. The applicant is required to follow the decision pronounced by the authority for advance ruling as the same is binding on it unless the said decision is appealed further before the appellate authority for advance ruling. Furthermore, as we all know that the final decision pronounced by the High Court involve considerable period of time and if the final decision is rendered in favour of the assessee that there is no need to pay IGST on ocean freight under CIF contracts, the applicant will be put at highly disadvantageous position. Needless to mention, the procedure for claiming refund of IGST already paid on ocean freight under CIF contracts will be a cumbersome task for the applicant. We can say that the above cited decision of the advance ruling is like “Half Yes and Half No” which confirms leviability of the GST liability on ocean freight but subject to outcome of decision of High Court which puts the applicant in ambiguous situation.   

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