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 LEVY OF GST ON CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS OF SOCIETY 157/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON LEVY OF GST ON CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS OF SOCIETY 157/2020-21
 Supply of goods and services by clubs, societies to its members has always been a matter of discussion as to the applicability of the principle of mutuality be it in the case of Income tax, sales tax or service tax. This dispute is even been carried forward to goods and service tax regime. In this update we shall be discussing the ruling pronounced by Maharashtra AAAR in the case of M/s Apsara Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.  M/s Apsara Co-Operative Housing Society is a Co-operative Housing Society, registered under the Maharashtra State Co-operative Society Act 1960. The main object as per the bye-laws are to obtain the conveyance from the promoter, to manage, maintain and administer the property of the society, to raise funds for achieving the objective of the society, to undertake and provide for, on its own account or jointly with Co-operative etc. For the purpose of obtaining the above objectives of the society, they raise funds by collecting contributions from the members of the Society, which are also called “charges” in terms of the bye-laws. The charges include property taxes, water charges, common electricity charges, contribution to repair and maintenance fund, contribution to the sinking fund, services charges, car parking charges, interest on the default charges, non-occupancy, insurance charges, etc. The AAR has passed the decision against the applicant wherein it was held that activities carried out by the Appellant would amount to supply in terms of Section 7(1)(a) of the CGST Act,2017 and accordingly would attract GST, as provided under Section 9 of the CGST Act,2017.
The following questions were put before the Maharashtra AAR
i) Whether the activities carried out by appellant would amount to supply and whether the same are liable to GST?
ii) Whether they are correctly discharging the GST liability, for which they provided the illustrative invoices raised on the members of the society?
Being aggrieved, the applicant filed an appeal before AAAR wherein the following contentions were submitted
a.     It is submitted that the ruling was passed without considering the judgement passed by Honourable Supreme court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Calcutta Club Limited.
b.     Further AAR have based their ruling on the basis of circulars and notifications issued by CBIC issued under GST.
c.      They are not carrying out any business as per Section 2(17) of CGST Act 2017 as the main objective is maintenance of society and is not engaged in any trade.
d.     Reliance has been placed by the applicant on the following cases pronounced by the Maharashtra AAAR
1)     M/s Lions Club of Poona Kothurd
2)     M/s Rotary club of Mumbai Western Elite.
In the above cases, it was asserted that the society charges which are meant toward meeting the administrative expenses of the society are similar to membership fees collected by the club and the same shall not be construed as “Consideration”. Therefore, society charges shall not be subject to GST.
e.     Reliance had also been placed on the favourable high court judgements which are as follows
1)     M/s Saturday Club Limited.
2)     M/s Sports Club of Gujarat Limited.
Maharashtra AAAR ruled that activities carried out by the appellant would amount to ‘Supply’ on the basis of the following
·         All the activities of Appellant would rightly get covered under the definition of term ‘business’ as provided under section 2(17)(e) of the CGST Act,2017, which unequivocally stipulates that provision by a club, association, society, or any such body (for a subscription or any other consideration) of the facilities or benefits to its members would be included under the meaning of the term business.
·         The term ‘service’ has been rendered a very wide connotation. It is clear that the activities undertaken by Appellant would rightly be covered under scope of the term ‘service’.
·         Since the Appellant is providing services to its members against the consideration named as ‘society charges’ in the course or furtherance of business, therefore, the activities would be construed as ‘supply’ in terms of Section 7(1)(a) of the CGST Act ,2017 , and accordingly will be liable for GST.
·         As regards the second question raised i.e. whether they are correctly discharging their GST liability, the AAAR agreed with ruling of AAR wherein they have held that it cannot be answered in terms of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, on the premise that the AAR can only comment on the determination of the liability as to whether any supply of goods or services or both are liable for GST or otherwise but cannot comment on the computation or assessment of the tax liability.
The tussle regarding levy of tax on goods or services provided by club or society to its members is continuing in GST regime as well inspite of favourable decisions rendered by Supreme Court on the similar issue in the erstwhile regime. Nonetheless, it appears that the dispute will be settled by Supreme Court for provisions contained in GST regime as well.

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/@capradeepjain21and u may also follow us on Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16
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