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 divergent rulings on printing to be considered as supply of goods or services 59/2020-21

GST Update on divergent rulings on printing to be considered as supply of goods or services 59/2020-21
 

GST Update on divergent rulings on printing to be considered as supply of goods or services

 

Printing Industry is a very wide Industry ranging from Newspapers to Commercial Books and Periodicals. The present update seeks to discuss about the divergent advance rulings pronounced by different AARs in the case of same assessee, M/s Macro Digital Imaging Pvt Ltd. where the applicant is registered in different States.

On the first occasion, the applicant has sought ruling before the Authority of Advance Ruling in the state of Telanganaas to whether the supply of printed trade advertisement material will be treated as a supply of goods under (HSN 4911) or supply of services.The Applicant is in the business of printing and sale of printed trade advertisement material (i.e. banner flex), which is freely moveable from one place to another. The preparation of such printed material would be undertaken as per the customer’s designs and specifications. The clients / customers do not provide any materials and all materials required for the preparation of the advertisement materials are procured by the Applicant. The major cost incurred in the printing is for materials like ink, paper etc. On perusal of the rate schedules in these notifications, and also the various chapters in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, printed advertisement materials are classifiable under chapter 49. Furthermore, Chapter Note 5 to Chapter 49 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 inter alia provides that heading 4901 does not cover publications that are essentially devoted to advertising (for example, brochures, pamphlets, leaflets, trade catalogues, year books published by trade associations, tourist propaganda). Such publications are to be classified under heading 4911. Furthermore, reference has also been drawn to para 5 of TRU Circular No. 11/11/2017- GST dated October 20, 2017 wherein it is stated that the supply of printed envelopes, letter cards, printed boxes, tissues, napkins, wall paper etc. falling under Chapter 48 or 49, printed with design, logo etc. supplied by the recipient of goods but made using physical inputs including paper belonging to the printer, predominant supply is that of goods, and the supply of printing of the content [supplied by the recipient of supply] is ancillary to the principal supply of goods, and therefore such supplies would constitute the supply of goods falling under respective headings of Chapter 48 or 49 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

The Telangana AAR has held that supplying printed advertisement material to customers who only provide the specifications and designs to be printed, involves a transfer of title of goods and is a supply of goods classifiable under HSN 4911, which is liable to GST at the rate of 12%.

Based on the decision pronounced by Telangana AAR, the applicant has also sought ruling in the state of West Bengal where his distinct unit was situated on the same question and facts discussed earlier. The Applicant contended that printed advertising material is a composite supply. lt includes the supply of goods in the form of printed PVC material and of the service of printing the content provided by the recipient. The Applicant also argued, that it is the supply of the printed PVC material. The service of printing is ancillary and merely enhances the value of the advertising material.However, the West Bengal AAR has held that their activity is service of printing falling under SAC 9989. The applicant further appealed to the appellate authority against the ruling where it was confirmed by the Appellate Authority that in the present case, the service portion is predominant and so the activity shall be classifiable under services and shall be taxable accordingly.

The Applicant has sought the ruling in the state of Karnataka on the same question before the AAR whereby it was observed that the PVC sheet does not have any other usage other than displaying the advertisement content and the advertisement materials carry specific messages meant for customers and the contents are very specific to the product for which the advertisements are made and the content is exclusively the property of the client who entrusts the job to the appellant and the usage right of the content remains with the client of the appellant. It held that the supply is a composite supply, the supply of service being predominant.

A wide divergence in interpretation of the legal provisions on similar facts by differentAARs creates compliance challenges for taxpayers who have multi-locational operations in different states which compels the taxpayer to follow different approaches in each state for a particular transaction and defeats the vision of One Nation One Tax.Similarly, as regards classification of solar power plants also, there were contrary advance rulings in the case of M/s Giriraj Renewables.

Thereis an urgent need to create a centralised appellate authority for advance rulingwhich could deal with the cases of conflicting decisions on the same issue by two or more advance ruling authorities. There is a need to make the advance ruling mechanism more effective efficient and more taxpayer friendly,comprising of judicial members so that principle of consistency is followed.

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