Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update on Client based software valuation on the basis of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) / Retail Sales Price (RSP) 78/2020-21

GST Update on Client based software valuation on the basis of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) / Retail Sales Price (RSP) 78/2020-21

The issue regarding payment of Additional duty of Customs (CVD) on the basis of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) / Retail Sales Price (RSP) or on the CIF value declared by the appellants.
 
The appellant has visited the premises of institutions and understood the software requirement of these institutions. These requirements were told to foreign software developers and they have developed these customized software.  The Appellant imported software tools from foreign suppliers on the basis of customised orders placed by these institutions to meet their specific needs.  The question arose was whether these software shall be considered as packaged software or not and secondly whether the same is liable for assessment on the basis of MRP price or RSP value or not.
 
The Department has started an investigation against the assessee that they have not declared MRP/RSP or correct MRP/RSP on their product. The appellants have allegedly evaded the payment of countervailing duty (CVD) which was leviable on the basis of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) / Retail Sales Price (RSP) as per the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is applicable to the imported goods also for the purpose of levy of countervailing duty (CVD). Department issued show case notice saying that the goods are liable for reassessment on the basis of MRP /RSP for the purpose of levy and assessment of the Additional Duty of Customs (CVD).
 
The appellant have declared transaction value which was arrived by declaring MRP less overhead cost.
 
The Assesses vehemently contested that the provisions of Se4ction 4A of the Central Excise Act relating to Valuation of goods on MRP/RSP are not applicable to the Software imported for institutional buyers. Provisions of Section 4A is applicable only to those goods in relation to which it is required under the Legal Metrology Act or rules made there under to declare the retail sale price on the package and such goods have been specified by the Notification issued under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act.
 
The MRP based assessment in respect of packaged software or canned softwarewas brought into force vide notification No. 49/2008-CE and the abatement allowed was 35%.
 
For the purpose of above notification, "packaged software or canned software" means software developed to meet the needs of variety of users, and which is intended for sale or capable of being sold off the shelf."
 
The Provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act would be applicable to only if the following two conditions are satisfied –
 
(i) Software is developed to meet the needs of variety of users; and
(ii) Software is intended for sale or capable of being sold off the shelf.
 
The appellant submitted that the software imported by them were for use for institutional buyers for their specific use. Hence, it is not to be used by variety of users. Hence, the MRP based valuation is not applicable on the same.
 
The assesses also relies upon the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner, UOI vs Suksha International and Nuton Gems, Global Sugar Ltd. Vs. CCE, CCE vs JCT Electronics Ltd, and CCE vs. Paradeep Phospate Ltd.
 
Assesses declared that software imported is for the industrial or educational or institutional use which are customized on the basis of order placed by these institutions for specific needs. Such software cannot be treated as packaged software because such software is developed to meet the specific requirements of a particular customer and they cannot be used by other users. Further, such softwares cannot be put to sale off the shelf as the same has been developed for a particular customer/department for specific requirements. Thus, such software shall surely not be covered under ‘packaged softwares’ and cannot be put to assessment based on MRP.
 
But even after reaching to the conclusion, the matter was remanded to adjudication authority to examine individual software that it can be termed as packaged software.
 
Software is always being matter of dispute between department and taxpayer. The dispute revolved around was whether the software is good or service? It was decided that packaged software with no right of amendment is “goods” and customized software with facility of amendment are “services”. Now further dispute arose about their valuation in this matter. If is customized software to be used by institution only then it will not be liable to MRP and hence it will not be chargeable to MRP based valuation. But it has not been considered that it will be classified as “goods” or it will be termed as “service”. 

This is solely for 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