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 HIGHLIGHTED RULING ON MERCHANT TRADE TRANSACTION BY GUJARAT AAR 76/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON HIGHLIGHTED RULING ON MERCHANT TRADE TRANSACTION BY GUJARAT AAR 76/2020-21
GST UPDATE ON HIGHLIGHTED RULING ON MERCHANT TRADE TRANSACTION BY GUJARAT AAR
Currently, two subjects are matter of discussion among the tax professionals; GST registered taxpayers and varied educated class of persons i.e. Corona and AAR rulings in GST regime. The effects of Corona has been eye witnessed by everyone and likewise AAR rulings are also highlighting the front page of the newspapers, websites etc.
 In a recent advance ruling in case of M/s. Sterlite Technologies Ltd, Gujrat AAR
GST is payable on goods sold to customer located outside India, where goods are shipped directly from the vendor’s premises (located outside India) to the customer’s premises.
The applicant is engaged in the development and supply of software with respect to the telecommunication qua wi-fi service management platform. OSS/BSS alongside packet core with the flexibility of modular and pre-integrated offerings etc. and trading in hardware.

They procure requisite hardware from the vendor located within India or outside India on payment of applicable duties/taxes. Such hardware is sold as per the requirement of the customer on payment of GST, except in case of export.

The applicant proposed to undertake transaction and supply of hardware, commercially known as ‘Merchant Trade Transaction’, wherein the applicant will receive an order from the customer located outside India, and as per their instruction, Vendor would directly ship the goods to a customer located outside India.

The vendor would issue an invoice on applicant against which payment would be made in foreign currency and the applicant would raise invoice on customer and would receive consideration in foreign currency.

In the above transaction, goods would not physically come into India but would move from place outside India to another place outside India.

The applicant has in their application dated 24.5.2018 raised the following issues for determination before the Authority:

i) Whether GST is payable on goods procured from a vendor located outside India in a context where the goods so purchased are not brought into India?

ii) Whether GST is payable on goods sold to customers located outside India, where goods are shipped directly from the vendor’s premises (located outside India) to the customer’s premises?

The AAR referred to provisions under CGST Act and observed that the term ‘export of goods’ has been defined under sub section 5 of Section 2 of IGST Act, 2017 which reads as under: Export of goods would mean—‘With its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means taking goods out of India to a place outside India’.

The above definition indicates that the act of taking goods out of India to a place outside India qualifies as export. In the instant case, the goods have not crossed the Indian customs frontier and as such it is clear that the goods are not physically available in the Indian Territory.

When the goods are not available in the Indian Territory, the question of taking goods out of India does not arise. Thus, the subject transaction does not qualify as export of goods.

In the instant case, the applicant is selling goods for a consideration in the course or furtherance of business and as such the transaction tantamount to ‘supply’ in terms of the definition of ‘supply’. In the event that the supplier is located in India and the place of supply is outside India, such supplies shall be treated as Inter-stated supplies.
In view of the above, it appears that the transaction is covered under the ambit of Inter-state supply and is neither exempted nor covered under the export of services. Thus, the theory of elimination takes us to the conclusion that such supplies will be subject to the levy of IGST.

Thus, AAR affirmed that (i) GST is not payable on goods procured from a vendor located outside India, where the goods so purchased are not brought into India.

ii) Applicable GST is payable on goods sold to a customer located outside India, where goods are shipped directly from the vendor’s premises (located outside India) to the customer’s premises.
From the decisions cited above, the point of discussion arises in case of second question answered by the authority.
The Authority refers to Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 which defines the term ‘Supply”. But it refers to only sub-section (1) of Section 7 and omits to refer or to see sub-section (2) of Section 7 which begins with a non obstante clause and, thus, has an overriding effect over sub-section (1). It provides that activities or transactions specified in Schedule III shall be treated neither as a supply of goods nor a supply of services. The above discussed ruling seems to be incorrect since it does not considers all the provisions of the amended law in GST Act. Paragraph 7 to the Schedule-III to the CGST Act 2017; amended by CGST (Amendment) Act 2018, is reproduced states that
“Supply of goods from a place in the non-taxable territory to another place in the non-taxable territory without such goods entering into India”.
It can be seen that the above case of Sterlite Technologies Ltd clearly falls under the para 7 as mentioned above. Therefore, it should not be treated as supply under the provisions of the law. While ruling was pronounced, this para to Schedule III is ignored completely. The assessee should move its file to Court for immediate relief from the ruling imposed on the transaction which is out of GST purview.
In our opinion, since the applicant has filed application for determining the liability by AAR before the introduction of CGST Amendment Act, 2018, there is high probability that this provision was not taken into consideration. The ruling must have been determined in respect of transactions undertaken before prospective amendment was made in Para 7 of Schedule III. However, since this ruling has not specified about the period of applicability; the government should come into role and provide some clarifications to re build the trust of AAR rulings among the taxpayers.
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