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 Circular No. 61/2018-GST dated 04.09.2018

GST Update on Circular No. 61/2018-GST dated 04.09.2018
This circular has been issued by the government in order to clarify on certain issues pertaining to E-way bill in case of storing of goods in godown of transporter as prescribed in the Circular No. 61/2018-GST dated 04.09.2018. This circular is being issued for small textile trader or processors who purchase the material but do not take delivery as there is scarcity of space in their premises. They keep the same in the godown of transporter. Later on, whenever the material is required then they take the delivery from the godown itself. But this practice was not allowed as per GST law. Hence they have sought the clarification from the CBIC.
The Government had received many representations for clarifications regarding the compliance of E Way Bill procedures if the goods are stored at the transporter’s godown on temporary basis. In this regard, the government has clarified that in case where consignee/ recipient taxpayer stores his goods in the godown of the transporter, then the transporter’s godown has to be declared as an additional place of business by the recipient taxpayer. The above interpretation has been adopted on the grounds of  Section 2(85) of the CGST Act that defines the “place of business” to include “a place from where the business is ordinarily carried out, and includes a warehouse, a godown or any other place where a taxable person stores his goods, supplies or receives goods or services or both”.
An additional place of business is the place of business from where taxpayer carries out business related activities within the state, in addition to the principal place of business. In our case since the recipient taxpayer is storing their goods in the godown of the transporter in the same city, hence this godown has to be declared as an additional place of business by the recipient.
The supplier of goods will send the goods to this small tax payer and will declare the godown of tax payer as destination as it is declared as additional place of business. The delivery will be concluded as and when it reaches the godown of transporter. Further, whenever the goods are taken from the transporters’ godown to the place of this small assessee, then challan for movement of goods from one premises of taxpayer to another godown of taxpayer along with e-way bill will be issued. The recipient taxpayer is also required to maintain records as per rules 56 and 57 of the CGST Rules at this godown also. However, the transporter is not required to follow any additional compliance requirements apart from those prescribed. But the problem comes when a number of such small traders have declared this premises as additional place of business. All these have to maintain records at same place. This does not seem to be feasible.
It is clarified in this circular that the above provisions would apply mutatis mutandis in the case where the supplier of the goods and the transporter are located within the same state.
 
 
But we have come across another situation like this only. In such situation, prior to introduction of GST, the factory owner used to send the unsold material to various locations in other states. This unsold material was kept with transporter. The agent of factory is told about same. Whenever the material was sold, the delivery was taken from transporter and handed over to purchaser. The bill was raised by factory owner afterwards.
This situation does not fit into the same. As the additional place of business can be added in the same state, but it is normally outside the state.  Hence, a separate registration is to be taken and this will act as depot of factory.
 As per Section 25 of CGST Act, 2017 which reads as follows:
(2) A person seeking registration under this Act shall be granted a single registration in a State or Union territory: Provided that a person having multiple business verticals in a State or Union territory may be granted a separate registration for each business vertical, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.
Thus, on the basis of the interpretation of the above provision it can be concluded that the supplier is required to obtain a separate registration in a state for every state that he wishes to declare as an additional place of business. However, it is impracticable for the supplier to obtain separate registration for each and every state where the warehouse of the transporter of goods is located.
But taking registration of transporter godown is big task as ownership document or rent deed agreement is required.  Moreover, a number of factory owners used to keep their material with the same transporter but it is not feasible to take registration of same premises by number of persons. Hence, this practice has stopped and factory owner supplies the goods to specific clients only.
The government required to consider the cases where the unsold goods are kept by the supplier at the transporter’s godown in other state for further sale. It would be difficult for the supplier to abide by the compliance requirements of the law as this would lead to a substantial increase in the compliance costs.
Hence, the government is required to issue further clarifications on these matters.
 
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