Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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