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 exemption on transfer of business from one state to another as going concern 97/2020-21

GST Update on exemption on transfer of business from one state to another as going concern 97/2020-21

The increased competition in the global market has prompted the Indian companies to go for mergers and acquisitions as an important strategic choice. The increased participation of the Indian companies in the global corporate sector has further facilitated the merger and acquisition activities in India. Business restructuring is a comprehensive process, be it financial or technological or market or organisational.

 

In the present update we will focus on the recent ruling as pronounced by AAR Andhra Pradesh in the case of M/s Shilpa Medicare Limited wherein the authority said that sale or transfer of a business classified as going concern would be classified as supply of service under the GST, but it would be exempt from the tax. This would be applicable to running units sold wholly or its independent parts.  A going concern is a concept of accounting and applies to the business of the company as a whole. Transfer of a going concern means transfer of a running business which is capable of being carried on by the purchaser as an independent business.

In the instant case, the authority stated that Part 4 (c) of Schedule II of the CGST Act, 2017 refers to the ‘transfer of business assets’. A plain reading of the same clarifies that the transfer of business assets is ‘supply of goods’. But in case of M/s Shilpa Medicare Limited, the business in its entirety is transferred or sold along with capital assets. Thus, it disqualifies the going concern’ to be grouped under ‘supply of goods’ as per the above-mentioned clause 4(e).

The definition of services qualifies ‘anything other than goods’ as service. In this context it is obvious that the ‘going concern’, which was excluded form list of ‘supply of goods’ as discussed above, would automatically fall under ‘supply of services’.

 

Similar ruling also came in the case of M/s Rajashri Foods Pvt Ltd Karnataka bench of the AAR wherein the applicant wanted to sell one of its units along with fixed and current assets as well as liabilities, including bank loans, for a lump sum consideration.

 

Even in the earlier tax regime it was a settled legal proposition based on judiciary in case of Shree Cement Limited 2002 CESTAT-DEL, Flex Laminator 2002 CESTAT-DEL that in case of merger/demerger, credit would be available to the transferee company even if the invoice of the vendors were in the name of the transferor company.

 

Recently, board has also issued a Circular no.133/03/2020 dated 23rd march 2020 clarifying the apportionment of ITC in case of demerger of units and transition of such ITC by the transferor. Issuance of theses clarifications is welcomed as it would resolve various anomalies around the calculations of the ratio for the apportionment of unutilised ITC and filing of ITC-02. The business re-organisations are very frequent in today’s time. The circular also clarified that the formula for the apportionment of unutilised credit shall apply in all the cases i.e. in case of slump-sale or transfer of business as a going concern.

 

Entry 2 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28th June, 2017 provides an exemption from GST for services by way of transfer of going concern, as a whole or an independent part thereof. Similar exemption was available also in service tax regime. In clause 4(c) transfer of business as a going concern shall constitute supply of service and the applicant can file the Form ITC-02 as prescribed by Rule-41 for transferring of credit which is subject to the condition that the liability of the business is also transferred along with the assets, along with the details of unutilised input tax credit lying in the hands to the transferee.

 

The AAR rightly held that the activity of transfer of business as a going concern should not attract GST.

The ruling should aid in offering clarity to GST implications on conventional hiving off/demerger transactions. This ruling categorising the transaction of transfer of running business as an exempt supply of service would also force amalgamating company for proportionate reversal of common input tax credits.

 

Revival of companies will definitely be more cost effective than setting up a new structure altogether. Also this will give a push to the investors to take over such companies and create more job opportunities in India.

 

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