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 Employee Reimbursement under GST 24/2020-21

GST Update on Employee Reimbursement under GST 24/2020-21

This update intends to bring out clarification with respect to taxability of transaction between employee and employer.

With implication of GST Act, lot of confusion has prevailed regarding the taxability of transaction between employee and employer and applicability of Reverse Charge Mechanism on such transaction.In this update, we look at the applicability of GST on employee reimbursement in detail.

GST is applicable on “Supplies” of goods and services. The scope of the term “supplies” has been elaborately defined in Section 7 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 which primarily includes transactions made for a consideration. However, in cases referred to in Schedule I to the CGST Act, transactions are treated as supplies even if the consideration is absent which includes supplies between related persons when such supplies are made in the course or furtherance of business.

In this context, it would be relevant to note that the explanation to Section 15 of the CGST Act provides that employer and employee will be deemed to be “related persons”. Accordingly, supplies by employer to employees would be liable to GST even though these supplies are made without consideration since they are considered as related persons (except gifts upto Rs 50,000 which has been detailed at a later point in time in this document).

However, Schedule III to the CGST Act provides that “services by employee to the employer in the course of or in relation to his employment” will not be considered as supply of goods or services and hence GST is not applicable on services rendered by employee to employer provided they are in the course of or in relation to employment.
Hence, transactions which are excluded from the levy of tax for transactions between employee and employer are
1. Supply of services by employee to employer in the course of employment
2. Gifts by Employer to employee not exceeding Rs 50,000 in a Financial Year. Based on the above stated statutory provisions, in the ensuring paragraphs, we have tried to analyse the tax impact on various transactions between the employer and employee

a)        Employee Reimbursement – Purchase from Registered Dealer
-           Reimbursement of expenses relating to goods / services procured from registered supplier and the GST Number of the employer is quoted on the invoice – Vendor to charge tax (if taxable supplies) and employer entitled to claim credit subject to input tax credit restrictions.
-           Reimbursement of expenses relating to goods / services procured from registered supplier and the GST Number of the employer is not quoted on the invoice – Vendor to charge tax (if taxable supplies). Employer not liable to GST under reverse charge since the procurements have been made from registered dealer except that the GST Number of the employer has not been quoted on the invoice

b)        Gift to Employee under GST
As per provisions of Schedule II, read with Section 7 of the CGST Act, “gifts not exceeding fifty thousand rupees in value in a financial year by an employer to an employee shall not be treated as supply of goods or services or both”.
The definition of gift has not been provided in the GST Acts hence we have to consider the definition as provided under other Acts. As per section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the definition of gift is as under:
“Gift is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person to another and accepted by or on behalf of the donee.”
Hence it can be concluded that anything given voluntarily without any consideration can be considered as a gift. Therefore, Diwali gifts given to employee will not be subject to GST if value is less than INR 50,000 in any financial year.
 
C)        Notice Pay Recovery
 
Employees who resign from their job are expected to serve notice period as mentioned in the employment contract. If the employee does not serve such notice period, the salary of the unserved portion of notice period is retained by the employer.
 
Notice pay recovery (Savings in expense which can be viewed as income to the employer) This issue was subject matter of litigation in service tax laws also and there were contrary decisions as regards levy of service tax on notice pay. The revenue authorities contend that the consideration to the employer for “tolerating the act” of the employee to not serve the notice period which was the employee’s contractual obligation and so the transaction is liable to GST. However, recently, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held in the case of GET & D India Ltd. that service tax is not leviable on notice pay recovery from employees as it cannot be considered to have been covered by declared service of tolerating an act. It can be said that the ratio of this decision can be applied in GST regime as well and GST should not be levied on notice pay recovery.
 
d)        Disposal or Sale at concessional rate
Companies might allow employees to retain asset like laptop, Bike & Car etc. when he quits the organization or allow the employee to use a company asset for personal purposes. In such cases, the employer will have to pay taxes on the value of such assets if credit is availed on such assets since this transaction will get covered under Sl. No 1 of Schedule I to the CGST Act, 2017.
Based on the above, we can observe many transactions occurs between employee and employer and the leviability of GST needs to be examined individually on case to case basis.

Stay Safe & Stay Away to Stay Together !!

The content of this document is solely for informational 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