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 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