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 COMPOSITION SCHEME FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS

GST UPDATE ON COMPOSITION SCHEME FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS

In the 32nd GST Council Meeting held on 10.01.2019, proposal was made for introducing composition scheme for suppliers of services and supplier of services and goods both and this has been finally implemented vide Notification No. 2/2019-Central Tax (Rate) dated 07.03.2019. However, the notification does not have reference of section 10 of the CGST Act, 2017 pertaining to composition levy. The notification no. 2/2019 has been issued  as Central Tax (Rate) Notification having reference of section 9(1) pertaining to levy and collection, section 11(1) specifying power to grant exemption from tax and section 16(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 stating eligibility and conditions for taking input tax credit. The main portion of the notification specifying the powers under which the notification has been issued itself indicates that the notification no. 2/2019-Central Tax (Rate) is not composition scheme and rather it is kind of exemption notification.
The composition levy under section 10 of the CGST Act, 2017 is different from the levy of GST under section 9 of the CGST Act, 2017 (normal scheme). As per the notification, the first supplies of goods or services or both upto an aggregate turnover of fifty lakh rupees made on or after 1st April, in any financial year by a registered person shall attract central tax at the rate of three per cent on all outward supplies subject to fulfilment of the condition that supplies made in the preceding financial year was fifty lakhs rupees or below.  Furthermore, there is an explanation to the notification which reads as follows:-
Explanation.-For the purposes of this notification, the expression “first supplies of goods or services or both” shall, for the purposes of determining eligibility of a person to pay tax under this notification, include the supplies from the first day of April of a financial year to the date from which he becomes liable for registration under the said Act but for the purpose of determination of tax payable under this notification shall not include the supplies from the first day of April of a financial year to the date from which he becomes liable for registration under the Act.
 
Now, since this scheme is applicable with effect from 01.04.2019, there is doubt amongst the already registered assessees having turnover less than Rs. 50 Lakhs in preceding financial year to avail the benefit of this notification no. 2/2019 along with the benefit of Rs. 20 Lakhs given under section 22(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. This is for the reason that the limit of Rs. 20 Lakhs given under section 22(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 is not exemption threshold but the limit for getting registration under GST Law. Now, if an assessee wants to avail dual benefit, whether it is possible to surrender the registration so that the benefit of notification no. 2/2019 along with benefit of Rs. 20 Lakhs given under section 22(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 is availed? It is submitted that even if the benefit of Rs. 20 lakhs is availed by surrendering the existing registration, then too, the benefit of Rs. 20 Lakhs will be available only if there is no liability under reverse charge mechanism as if there is any such liability, assessee will be mandatorily required to get registration under section 24 of the CGST Act, 2017.The above provision can be explained with the help of an example as follows:-
 
M/s ABC Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in providing consultancy services. The aggregate turnover in the financial year 2018-19 was Rs. 35 Lakhs. M/s ABC Pvt. Ltd. has surrendered its existing registration on 31.03.2019. The value of supplies made during the month of April, 2019 was Rs. 2 Lakhs. M/s ABC Pvt. Ltd. received services from advocate in the month of May, 2019 and paid the advocate an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 17.05.2019. Consequently, M/s ABC Pvt. Ltd. became liable to get registration in the month of May, 2017 and is required to take registration within period of 30 days from 17.05.2019. Now, suppose, the value of supplies made upto 17.05.2019 is Rs. 75,000/-.
 
According to the explanation, the value of supplies made from 01.04.2019 will be included for computing the eligibility limit of applicability of composition levy to the extent of Rs. 50 Lakhs but no tax will be payable under composition scheme for the supplies made from 01.04.2019 to 17.05.2019. M/s ABC will be liable to pay GST at the rate of 6% only on supplies made w.e.f. 18.05.2019.
 
It is submitted that the limit of Rs. 20 Lakhs given under section 22 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 is only with respect to registration under the GST Law and is not any threshold limit of exemption. Consequently, the assessee is not liable to pay GST only upto the time when he is not liable to get registration as per section 22(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. It is pertinent to mention that section 24 of the CGST Act, 2017 specifies the categories wherein compulsory registration is to be taken by the assessee in certain cases wherein one of the case is liability to pay GST under reverse charge. As the para 7 of the notification clearly states that the assessee opting for composition levy will be liable to pay GST at applicable rates under reverse charge mechanism, the assessee will be liable to pay GST at the rate of 6% as soon as the assessee becomes liable to take registration even under section 24 of the CGST Act, 2017. It is pertinent to mention that the section 24 of the CGST Act, 2017 only overrides the section 22(1) and does not override section 23. However, since the assessee engaged in exempted supply of goods or services cannot opt for composition scheme, the assessee is not rescued by the rigours of section 24 pertaining to mandatory registration.
 
Now, another question that needs to be answered is the compliance to be done by the assessees under notification no. 2/2019. It is worth noting that one Removal of Difficulty Order No. 3/2019-Central Tax dated 08.03.2019 has been issued in order to clarify that person option for the notification no. 2/2019 shall issue bill of supply under section 31(3)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. However, there is no mention regarding the returns to be filed by such assessee. Presently, the assessees opting for composition scheme under section 10 of the CGST Act, 2017 are required to file quarterly return under GSTR-4 and even the form of annual return for such assessees is GSTR-9A. However, since the present composition scheme for service providers is not covered under section 10 of the CGST Act, 2017, a suitable clarification as regards the applicability of returns is expected from the government. Moreover, there are separate Rules for composition dealers regarding restriction of inter-state goods/imported goods held in stock on the date of exercising option of composition scheme. There is also procedure for withdrawal from the scheme and procedure for giving stock details on the date of opting out from the scheme in order to avail the input tax credit. It is worth noting that all the Rules specifically have reference of section 10 of the CGST Act, 2017 but since the present composition scheme for supplier of services or goods or services both does not mention section 10, it is sure that the said Composition Rules are not applicable for assessee opting for composition under notification 2/2019. Well, it appears that a lot is required to be done by government else it will lead to chaos and confusion as regards the new composition scheme launched by them.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