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 IGST ON OCEAN FREIGHT UNDER RCM PART-2

GST UPDATE ON LEVY OF IGST ON OCEAN FREIGHT UNDER RCM PART-2

GST UPDATE ON LEVY OF IGST ON OCEAN FREIGHT UNDER RCM PART-2

In our earlier update, we have discussed the contention regarding double taxation as regards levy of IGST on ocean freight under reverse charge mechanism to be paid by importer. The present update seeks to discuss the viability of the second ground regarding importer not to be considered as ‘recipient of service’ and not liable to pay IGST under reverse charge mechanism.

 

Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that recently, the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of MOHIT MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA has declared the notification no. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and entry no. 10 of the notification no. 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 pertaining to levy of IGST on ocean freight under reverse charge mechanism by the importer as ultra vires the provisions contained in IGST Act, 2017. It is also worth noting that the contention that importer is not ‘recipient of service’ was accepted by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and has been discussed in detail in the judgment delivered. The submission is discussed in detail as follows:-

 

The term 'recipient' is not defined in the IGST Act. However, sub-section (24) of Section 2 of the IGST Act states that the words and expression not defined in the IGST Act but defined in the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (CGST Act), the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 shall have the same meaning as assigned to them in the said Acts.

 

Sub-section (93) of Section 2 of the CGST Act defines the term 'recipient' as under:

 

 

“(93) 'recipient' of supply of goods or services or both, means

 

(a) where a consideration is payable for the supply of goods or services or both, the person who is liable to pay that consideration;

 

(b) where no consideration is payable for the supply of goods, the person to whom the goods are delivered or made available, or to whom possession or use of the goods is given or made available; and

 

(c) where no consideration is payable for the supply of a service, the person to whom the service is rendered and any reference to a person to whom a supply is made shall be construed as a reference to the recipient of the supply and shall include an agent acting as such on behalf of the recipient in relation to the goods or services or both supplied.”

 

Thus, the term 'recipient is defined as a person liable to pay consideration, where the consideration is payable for the supply or the person to whom the services are rendered, where no consideration is payable for the supply of service.

 

In case where goods are being imported on CIF basis, i.e. the contract is for supply of goods delivered at the Indian port, the transportation of goods in a vessel is the obligation of the foreign exporter. The foreign exporter enters into contract with the shipping line for availing the services of transportation of goods in a vessel. The obligation to pay consideration is also of the foreign exporter. The importer is not at all concerned with how the foreign exporter delivers the goods at the Indian port or whether the  consideration of the shipping line has been paid by the foreign exporter or not.

 

Thus, the importer could be said to have neither availed the services of transportation of goods in a vessel nor he is liable to pay the consideration of such service. Hence, the importer is not the 'recipient' of the transportation of goods in a vessel service as per Section 2(93) of the CGST Act.

 

 In our opinion, the above interpretation is legally sound and also aligns with the decision given by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. It is submitted that as per the provision contained in section 5(3) of the IGST Act, 2017, the government can specify categories of supply on which tax shall be paid the recipient of the supply. The Hon’ble High Court also pointed that the section 5(3) of the IGST Act, 2017 does not provide that government can specify any other person other than recipient of supply to pay tax under reverse charge mechanism. Under section 5(3) of the IGST Act, 2017 only recipient can pay tax under reverse charge mechanism. As we have already discussed that the importer cannot be considered as ‘recipient of service’ of ocean freight rendered by foreign shipping line, the question of paying IGST under reverse charge mechanism does not arise. Therefore, we concur with the reasoning adopted by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mohit Minerals and expect that suitable amendment removing levy of IGST on ocean freight to be paid by importer under reverse charge mechanism is carried by the government soon.

 

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