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 CHANGE IN RATE FOR JOB WORK SERVICES-INCREASING COMPLEXITIES

GST UPDATE ON CHANGE IN RATE FOR JOB WORK SERVICES-INCREASING COMPLEXITIES
GST UPDATE ON CHANGE IN RATE FOR JOB WORK SERVICES-INCREASING COMPLEXITIES:-
The government issued Notification No. 20/2019-Central Tax (Rate) dated 30.09.2019 wherein GST rates have been specified for certain types of job work. The amendments made in the serial no. 26 of the principal notification no. 11/2017-Central Tax dated 28.06.2017 is highlighted for the sake of easy identification as follows:-
S. No. Chapter, Section or Heading Description of service Rate (per cent.) Condition
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
26 Heading 9988 (Manufacturing services on physical inputs (goods) owned by others) (i) Services by way of job work in relation to-
(a) Printing of newspapers;
[(b) Textiles and textile products falling under Chapter 50 to 63 in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51of 1975)]55;
[(c) all products other than diamondsfalling under Chapter 71 in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51of 1975);]56
(d) Printing of books (including Braille books), journals and periodicals;
[(da) printing of all goods falling under Chapter 48 or 49, which attract CGST @ 2.5per cent. or Nil]57
(e) Processing of hides, skins and leather falling under Chapter 41 in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51of 1975).
[(ea) manufacture of leather goods or foot wear falling under Chapter 42 or 64 in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51of 1975) respectively;] 58
[(f) all food and food products falling under Chapters 1 to 22 in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51of 1975); (g) all products falling under Chapter 23 in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51of 1975), except dog and cat food put up for retail sale falling under tariff item 23091000 of the said Chapter;
 (h) manufacture of clay bricks falling under tariff item 69010010 in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51of 1975);]59
[(i) manufacture of handicraft goods.
Explanation.- The expression “handicraft goods” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the notification No. 32/2017 -Central Tax, dated the 15th September, 2017 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R. 1158 (E), dated the 15th September, 2017 as amended from time to time.] 60
[****]61
2.5 -
    [(ia)Services by way of job work in relation to- (a) manufacture of umbrella; (b) printing of all goods falling under Chapter 48 or 49, which attract CGST @ 6 per cent 6 -]62
    (ib) Services by way of job work in relation to diamonds falling under chapter 71 in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51of 1975); 0.75 -
    (ic) Services by way of job work in relation to bus body building; 9 -
    (id) Services by way of job work other than (i), (ia), (ib) and (ic) above; 6 -
    [(ii) Services by way of any treatment or process on goods belonging to another person, in relation to-
(a) printing of newspapers;
(b) printing of books (including Braille books), journals and periodicals
{(c) printing of all goods falling under Chapter 48 or 49, which attract CGST @ 2.5 per cent. or Nil.}63
2.5 -]64
    [(iia) Services by way of any treatment or process on goods belonging to another person, in relation to printing of all goods falling under Chapter 48 or 49, which attract CGST @ 6per cent. 6 -]65
    [[(iii) Tailoring services. 2.5 -]66]67
    [(iv) Manufacturing services on physical inputs (goods) owned by others, other than (i), (ia), (ib), (ic), (id), (ii), (iia) and (iii) above 9 -]68
 
Before analysing the impact of amendments made in the above cited serial no. 26, we first discuss certain terms which will be useful in arriving at correct conclusion.
According to section 2(68) of the CGST Act, 2017 “job work” means any treatment or process undertaken by a person on goods belonging to another registered person and the expression “job worker” shall be construed accordingly.
 
According to section 2 (72) of the CGST Act, 2017 “manufacture” means processing of raw material or inputs in any manner that results in emergence of a new product having a distinct name, character and use and the term “manufacturer” shall be construed accordingly.
 
Now, from the above definitions, one may interpret that job work is process/treatment taken on goods belonging to others and such process may or may not amount to manufacture. However, if the above serial no. 26 is pursued, it is found that there are specific GST rates on certain job work in relation to manufacture such as manufacture of leather goods or foot wear attracts GST rate of 5%, job work in relation to manufacture of handicraft goods attracts GST rate of 5%. At the same time, it is found that there is one entry (iv) according to which manufacturing services on physical inputs (goods) owned by others, other than all the entries specified in serial no. 26 attracts GST rate of 18%. It is pertinent to mention that the amendment inserts new entry (id) which is residual entry which states that services by way of job work other than (i), (ia), (ib) and (ic) attracts GST rate of 12%. On simultaneous reading of entry (id) and (iv), it is observed that if job work is in the nature of manufacturing services on goods belonging to others except all other entries including (id), then GST rate of 18% will be applicable. Consequently, this notification seeks to distinguish between the job work services resulting in manufacture and prescribes higher GST rate on the same. This will lead to raising new dispute that whether the job work process is manufacturing service or not? Moreover, the term “manufacturing services” is not defined anywhere in the notification. If we consider the meaning of manufacture given in the CGST Act, 2017, we can conclude that any job work process which results in emergence of new product having distinct name and character will be covered by the specific entry (iv) of the serial no. 26 of the notification according to the principle that “SPECIFIC PREVAILS OVER GENERAL”. However, one may also interpret that the manufacturing services means the job work pertaining to manufacture of goods. Say for example- If steel wire is being sent to job work for making steel rollers then we can infer that the said job work results in emergence of new distinct product and tantamount to manufacturing services thereby liable to GST at the rate of 18%. However, if hot rolled patta patti is being sent for cold rolling then such job work will not result in emergence of new distinct product and it can be said that it will get covered under entry no. (id) of the serial no. 26 of the notification and will attract 12% GST rate. Hence, the amendment has lead to creating confusion in the minds of assessee as regards the applicable entry (id)/(iv) and applicable GST rate as it can be contended that the process undertaken on job work does not amount to manufacturing services which will have to be determined on case to case basis.
Moreover, the GST paid by job worker will be credited in electronic credit ledger of supplier, hence the complete exercise is revenue neutral. Hence, the logic behind lowering of rate on job work charges is beyond imagination.

This is solely for the educational purpose.
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