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 LEVIABILITY OF IGST ON DUTY FREE SHOPS

GST UPDATE ON LEVIABILITY OF IGST ON DUTY FREE SHOPS
GST UPDATE ON LEVIABILITY OF IGST ON DUTY FREE SHOPS
 
The Duty Free Shops (DFS) located at Airports have been showered with various exemptions from levy of taxes so that they are internationally competitive with other DFS and also to promote foreign trade and conservation of foreign exchange. With the introduction of GST regime, a big question that remained unanswered was whether IGST is leviable on the procurement of goods from foreign countries by DFS and sale of goods by DFS to international passengers travelling abroad. This question was raised by M/s Rod Retail Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 206 (A.A.R.-GST)] before the Delhi Authority for Advance Ruling under GST wherein it was ruled that under GST regime, the scenario has changed and export under GST takes place only when goods are taken out to a place outside India. Hence, export takes place only when goods cross territorial waters/airspace of India and not merely on crossing the customs barriers. As DFSs are established beyond customs Frontiers but are not located outside India, sales of goods by DFS at airport do not qualify as export and IGST is payable on sale of goods by DFS. However, this issue was once again litigated by way of writ petition filed in Bombay High Court reported as Sandeep Patil Versus Union of India [2019 (31) G.S.T.L. 398 (Bom.)]. The present update seeks to discuss the reasoning adopted by the Hon’ble High Court as regards applicability of IGST on sale of goods by duty free shops (DFS). The issue regarding admissibility of input tax credit on various services procured by DFS and eligibility to claim refund of the same under Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017 was also examined by this writ petition. 
The observations made in this case are summarized as follows:-
  1. DFSs are located in customs station as defined in Section 2(13) of the Customs Act, 1962. DFS are issued a special warehouse licence under Section 58A of the Customs Act and are part of ‘custom area’ as defined in the Customs Act.
 
  1. Whenever goods are imported by DFS, bill of entry for warehousing is being filed under section 46 of the Customs Act and also executes a bond after which ‘space certificate’ is issued for physical storage of goods into customs bonded warehouse. When the goods move from special warehouse to DFS, the same are moved under physical supervision of proper officer. The imported goods continue to be within the custom area and are not removed for home consumption as provided for under Section 68 of the Customs Act, which is by filing an ex-bond bill of entry for clearance for home consumption on payment of duty. It, therefore, follows that all sales and supplies take place from or within the custom area.
 
  1. Invoice issued by DFS at the time of sale of goods to outbound passengers, which is signed by outbound passenger and cashier clearly mentions that supply of duty free goods is with condition that passenger will not consume goods until he lands at the final destination outside India, and further that passenger shall become owner of goods only upon reaching the final destination. It is also ensured that if the passenger is not able to board the aircraft leaving India, the goods will have to be returned back to DFS whereupon the sale is declared void and refund is given to the passenger.
 
  1. DFS also procures various input services such as rent, warehouse and other charges, maintenance services, CHA Services, Professional Services, etc., which are used in the course or in furtherance of its business. Hence, credit of entire GST paid on input services is available to DFS under Section 16(1) of the CGST Act and refund of the same can be claimed under Rule 89 of the CGST Rules as supplies made by DFS to outbound passengers is to be considered as export.
 
Reasoning adopted by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court:-
 
  • The decision given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. Through Hotel Ashokav. CCT, [(2012) 3 SCC 204 = 2012 (276) E.L.T. 433(S.C.)]in the matter of DFSs at international airport at Bengaluru was followed wherein it was confirmed that when goods are kept in bonded warehouses, it cannot be said that they have crossed the Customs Frontiers and so the goods sold before importation are not liable to tax. The above reasoning adopted by referring the provisions of Article 286 of the Constitution which mentions that State has no right to tax supply of goods or services where such supply takes place in the course of import of goods or services or export of goods or services or both out of the territory of India. Hence, since purchase of goods by DFS remains in customs area and the sale from DFS also takes place outside the Customs Frontiers of India, no tax can be levied on the said transactions.
  • It was also held that CBIC itself had clarified vide circular dated 29th May, 2018 that the Advance Ruling given in the case of Rod Retail Private Limited is not applicable to DFS and the dispensation allowed to DFS will not be effected in any manner as the applicant in advance ruling was duty paid shop and not duty free shop. 
  • Reliance was also placed on various judgments delivered by various High Courts by following the Supreme Court decision stated above.
  • With effect from 1st February, 2019, in view of the CGST (Amendment) Act, 2018, supply of warehouse goods before clearance for home consumption have been notified/classified as activities or transactions which shall not be treated as a supply of goods. Accordingly, effective from 1st February, 2019, sale of goods from arrival DFS falls under Entry 8(a) of Schedule III to CGST/SGST Act; and further, Section 17(2) of the CGST Act is amended according to which reversal of ITC pertaining to activity specified in Schedule-III is not required. Accordingly, DFS is eligible to claim ITC. Once this ITC is eligible, refund of entire ITC pertaining to departure and arrival is eligible, based on formula of refund prescribed in Rule 89. It was also held that since DFS located in other States are getting refund of input tax credit, there cannot be discrimination against the DFS located in the State of Maharashtra.
 
  • As regards levy of IGST on sales made to arriving passengers, it was held that arriving passenger’s baggage is exempt from the integrated tax in view of the Customs Notification No. 43/2017-Cus., dated 30th June, 2017 and IGST Notification No. 2/2017-IGST (Rate), dated 28th June, 2017. In view of the above exemption read with the duty free allowance available under the Baggage Rules applicable to arriving passengers, neither customs duty (upto the permitted baggage allowance) nor IGST is levied on such goods. Such import of goods by arriving passengers across custom frontier as passenger baggage is therefore an exempt supply under the GST, hence no IGST is payable by either the DFS on its imports, or on supply to arriving passengers. The arriving passengers are also not required to pay any IGST on crossing the custom frontiers, in view of the above exemption read with the duty free allowance under the Baggage Rules.
 
Hence, on the basis of above reasoning, it was concluded that the DFS is neither required to pay GST on procuring goods from foreign countries nor liable to pay GST on sale of goods to arriving/departing passengers. Furthermore, DFS is also eligible to claim ITC of various services procured by it and claim refund of the same under Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
 
The above landmark decision confirms that High Courts do intervene in deserving cases inspite of the fact that alternate remedy is available to the applicant. It is pertinent to mention that consequent to amendment in Schedule III to the CGST Act, 2017, the government issued notification no. 11/2019-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 29.06.2019 wherein exemption has been granted from levy of IGST to supply of goods by a retail outlet established in the departure area of an international airport, beyond immigration counters, to an outgoing international tourist which is applicable with effect from 01.07.2019. 
This is only for educational purpose.

You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com and also at our facebook page at
https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/ and follow us on twitter 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