Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE ON FAQ

GST UPDATE ON FAQ’S RELEASED ON REAL ESTATE AMENDMENTS PART-10:-
GST UPDATE ON FAQ’S RELEASED ON REAL ESTATE AMENDMENTS PART-10:-
 
In earlier update, we have discussed about the provision regarding input tax
credit availability to the landowner with respect to notification no. 03/2019-
Central Tax (Rate) dated 29.03.2019. In the present update, we wish to discuss
certain clarifications given vide Circular No. 354/32/2019-TRU dated
07.05.2019. Before proceeding to discuss the FAQs, it is pertinent to highlight
that the clarification has disclaimer that the answers provided do not have
force of law and the content of the notification will have precedence over the
answers given for the FAQs. It is submitted that the FAQs cover certain aspects
which are not explicitly covered by the notifications issued by the CBIC. In such
a situation, the hapless assessees are still in delimma as regards the
applicability of the clarification issued on various practical aspects. It is also
worth noting that the update seeks to discuss only important FAQs that have
practical application rather than the general FAQs mentioned in the
clarification.
 
Question no. 9 If the value of purchases as prescribed above from the
registered supplier is less than 80%, what would be the applicable GST rate on
such purchases?
Answer: Promoter has to pay GST @ 18% on reverse charge basis on all such
inward supplies (to the extent short of 80% of inward supplies from registered
supplier) except cement on which tax has to be paid (by the promoter on
reverse charge basis) at the applicable rate, which at present is 28% (CGST
14% + SGST 14%)
 
We have mentioned in our GST Update on Real Estate Part-4 that from
harmoniously reading the provisions of the notification, it appears that the
developer will be required to pay GST on cement under reverse charge at the
applicable rate of 28% on all purchase of cement from unregistered dealers
and the clause of 80% purchase from registered persons is not to be applied
for purchase of cement. It is submitted that the answer given to the question
no. 9 also indicates that the developer is required to pay GST at 18% only with
respect to shortfall in case of inputs OTHER THAN cement for which GST at the
rate of 28% will be payable on entire purchases made from unregistered
 
persons. Therefore, we can conclude that the interpretation taken by us in our
update is in conformity with the view taken by the CBIC.
 
Question no. 10 In case of new rate of 5% / 1%, whether the conditions of
payment of tax through Cash Ledger, payment of tax under RCM subject to
80% limit, non-availing of Input Tax Credit, reversal of credit, maintenance of
project wise account, reporting of ITC not availed in corresponding GSTR-3B
etc. are required to be complied mandatorily by the Developer ?
 
Answer: Yes. All the specified conditions against clause (i) to (id) of Sl. No 3 of
Notification No. 11/2017-CTR are mandatory.
 
We had discussed in our GST Update on Real Estate Part-9 that the definition
of promoter given under section 2(zk) of the RERA is wide enough to cover the
landowner within its ambit and so the landowner is also eligible to avail the
benefit of concessional rate of GST prescribed by the Notification No. 3/2019-
Central Tax (Rate) dated 29.03.2019. However, as per Fourth Proviso to the
conditions stated in the notification no. 03/2019-Central Tax (Rate) dated
29.03.2019, the clause (ii) allows the landowner to avail input tax credit of the
tax charged by the developer provided the landowner sells the apartments
before completion certificate/first occupancy, whichever is earlier and pays tax
not less than that charged by the developer. We had pointed out that although
the landowner is allowed to avail the input tax credit of the tax charged by the
developer but due to restriction of discharging tax liability in cash only,
practically the landowner may not be able to avail the intended benefit of
input tax credit. As such, there is confusion as regards utilisation of input tax
credit by the landowner. However, if the FAQ no. 10 is observed, it is found
that it states that the conditions of payment of GST in cash, complying with the
condition of procurement of 80% inputs/input services from registered
supplier etc. is to be mandatorily complied by the developer. It does not
mention the term ‘promoter’ and so it can be inferred that the landowner can
pay GST by utilising input tax credit even if the option to pay GST under
notification no. 3/2019-Central Tax (Rate) is exercised. It is to be noted that
although the contents of the circular do not have legal sanctity but still they
can be basis of bonafide belief of the assessee.
 
The other important questions will be discussed in our next update.
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