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 MISC POINTS IN 28TH COUNCIL MEET

GST UPDATE ON MISC POINTS IN 28TH COUNCIL MEET

              GST UPDATE ON MISC POINTS 28TH COUNCIL MEET
Some of the recommendations as discussed in the 28th Council meeting held on 21st July 2018 under the Chairmanship of Shri Piyush Goyal ,acting as Finance Minster along with our observations on these amendments are as under:-
1. Definition of Supply

  • The following transactions shall be not be treated as supply (no tax payable) under Schedule III:

a. 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;
This was important as trade and industry was demanding the same. The goods have not entered in to Indian Territory but the GST was payable only due to the fact that billing is done from India. This is a welcome step.
b. Supply of warehoused goods to any person before clearance for home consumption; and
c. Supply of goods in case of high sea sales.
This was also demanded and there was confusion whether the GST is payable twice on High sea Sale. First time, when High sea sale is done and secondly when the actual import takes place. The Government has clarified that GST is payable on import only. But the law suggested against the same. Another point was also raised that proportionate credit is to be reversed on high sea sales. Now, this amendment has put an end to all such disputes.
2. Appeals and Recovery

  • Amount of pre-deposit payable for filing of appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Tribunal to be capped at Rs. 25 Crores and Rs. 50 Crores, respectively.

 The amount of pre-deposit was 10% for first appeal and 20% for the next appeal before tribunal. The demand of trade and industry was that it should 7.5% and 10% as was in Service Tax and Central Excise regime. It was not adhered to but overall cap has been provided in these rules. Hence, this will benefit the large tax payers who have huge demands. But poor small assessee has to pay 10% in appeal before Appellate authority and 20% in appeal before appellate tribunal.

  • Recovery can be made from distinct persons even if present in different states.

 
This example will clear it. Suppose one assessee having two registrations, one in state of Rajasthan and another in Assam. If the PAN number is same and demand is pending in Rajasthan then it can be recovered from Assam unit. When the registrations are separate then the separate then the recovery should be separate only. But if refund is applied in Assam then recovery of Rajasthan will be adjusted by officer. But the modus operandi to implement this procedure is to be seen. The officer may delay the refund by saying that he has asked other unit of same PAN whether any demand is pending against him.   This should not happen.
3. Credit/ Debit Notes

  • Registered persons may issue consolidated credit/debit notes in respect of multiple invoices issued in a Financial Year instead of issuing and co-relating one credit/debit note against each invoice.

This was also demanded by industry at large. Suppose, discount is given to buyers on overall turnover then it is very cumbersome to issue number of credit notes linking it with invoices. The whole industry was finding it difficult. Moreover, number of credit notes is to be raised for each invoice. This has been relaxed by the department.
4. Job Work

  • Commissioner to be empowered to extend the time limit for return of inputs and capital sent on job work, upto a period of one year and two years, respectively.

This is also a welcome step. Otherwise, in earlier provisions, it was said the material did not return in specified period will be termed as supply. But now the permission can be taken from the commissioner.

  • Place of supply in case of job work of any treatment or processdone on goods temporarily imported into India and then exported without putting them to any other use in India, to be outside India. 

This amendment will lead to non-payment of GST on such job work
5. Multiple Registrations

  • Taxpayers may opt for multiple registrations within a State/Union territory in respect of multiple places of business located within the same State/Union territory.

Earlier it was allowed only in case of separate business vertical. But now it is allowed if the assessee wishes so then he can take separate registration. This was needed by assessee as they have separate cost centre and it was very difficult to operate separate units and then compile the data of all the units in the same state.
 
 
 
We hope the above is useful to you.
 
Your Need Our Concern…
Thanking you,                                                                                 
Regards,
               
Pradeep Jain, F.C.A.
 

Opinion

              GST UPDATE ON MISC POINTS 28TH COUNCIL MEET
Some of the recommendations as discussed in the 28th Council meeting held on 21st July 2018 under the Chairmanship of Shri Piyush Goyal ,acting as Finance Minster along with our observations on these amendments are as under:-
1. Definition of Supply

  • The following transactions shall be not be treated as supply (no tax payable) under Schedule III:

a. 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;
This was important as trade and industry was demanding the same. The goods have not entered in to Indian Territory but the GST was payable only due to the fact that billing is done from India. This is a welcome step.
b. Supply of warehoused goods to any person before clearance for home consumption; and
c. Supply of goods in case of high sea sales.
This was also demanded and there was confusion whether the GST is payable twice on High sea Sale. First time, when High sea sale is done and secondly when the actual import takes place. The Government has clarified that GST is payable on import only. But the law suggested against the same. Another point was also raised that proportionate credit is to be reversed on high sea sales. Now, this amendment has put an end to all such disputes.
2. Appeals and Recovery

  • Amount of pre-deposit payable for filing of appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Tribunal to be capped at Rs. 25 Crores and Rs. 50 Crores, respectively.

 The amount of pre-deposit was 10% for first appeal and 20% for the next appeal before tribunal. The demand of trade and industry was that it should 7.5% and 10% as was in Service Tax and Central Excise regime. It was not adhered to but overall cap has been provided in these rules. Hence, this will benefit the large tax payers who have huge demands. But poor small assessee has to pay 10% in appeal before Appellate authority and 20% in appeal before appellate tribunal.

  • Recovery can be made from distinct persons even if present in different states.

 
This example will clear it. Suppose one assessee having two registrations, one in state of Rajasthan and another in Assam. If the PAN number is same and demand is pending in Rajasthan then it can be recovered from Assam unit. When the registrations are separate then the separate then the recovery should be separate only. But if refund is applied in Assam then recovery of Rajasthan will be adjusted by officer. But the modus operandi to implement this procedure is to be seen. The officer may delay the refund by saying that he has asked other unit of same PAN whether any demand is pending against him.   This should not happen.
3. Credit/ Debit Notes

  • Registered persons may issue consolidated credit/debit notes in respect of multiple invoices issued in a Financial Year instead of issuing and co-relating one credit/debit note against each invoice.

This was also demanded by industry at large. Suppose, discount is given to buyers on overall turnover then it is very cumbersome to issue number of credit notes linking it with invoices. The whole industry was finding it difficult. Moreover, number of credit notes is to be raised for each invoice. This has been relaxed by the department.
4. Job Work

  • Commissioner to be empowered to extend the time limit for return of inputs and capital sent on job work, upto a period of one year and two years, respectively.

This is also a welcome step. Otherwise, in earlier provisions, it was said the material did not return in specified period will be termed as supply. But now the permission can be taken from the commissioner.

  • Place of supply in case of job work of any treatment or processdone on goods temporarily imported into India and then exported without putting them to any other use in India, to be outside India. 

This amendment will lead to non-payment of GST on such job work
5. Multiple Registrations

  • Taxpayers may opt for multiple registrations within a State/Union territory in respect of multiple places of business located within the same State/Union territory.

Earlier it was allowed only in case of separate business vertical. But now it is allowed if the assessee wishes so then he can take separate registration. This was needed by assessee as they have separate cost centre and it was very difficult to operate separate units and then compile the data of all the units in the same state.
 
 
 
We hope the above is useful to you.
 
Your Need Our Concern…
Thanking you,                                                                                 
Regards,
               
Pradeep Jain, F.C.A.
               GST UPDATE ON MISC POINTS 28TH COUNCIL MEET
Some of the recommendations as discussed in the 28th Council meeting held on 21st July 2018 under the Chairmanship of Shri Piyush Goyal ,acting as Finance Minster along with our observations on these amendments are as under:-
1. Definition of Supply

  • The following transactions shall be not be treated as supply (no tax payable) under Schedule III:

a. 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;
This was important as trade and industry was demanding the same. The goods have not entered in to Indian Territory but the GST was payable only due to the fact that billing is done from India. This is a welcome step.
b. Supply of warehoused goods to any person before clearance for home consumption; and
c. Supply of goods in case of high sea sales.
This was also demanded and there was confusion whether the GST is payable twice on High sea Sale. First time, when High sea sale is done and secondly when the actual import takes place. The Government has clarified that GST is payable on import only. But the law suggested against the same. Another point was also raised that proportionate credit is to be reversed on high sea sales. Now, this amendment has put an end to all such disputes.
2. Appeals and Recovery

  • Amount of pre-deposit payable for filing of appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Tribunal to be capped at Rs. 25 Crores and Rs. 50 Crores, respectively.

 The amount of pre-deposit was 10% for first appeal and 20% for the next appeal before tribunal. The demand of trade and industry was that it should 7.5% and 10% as was in Service Tax and Central Excise regime. It was not adhered to but overall cap has been provided in these rules. Hence, this will benefit the large tax payers who have huge demands. But poor small assessee has to pay 10% in appeal before Appellate authority and 20% in appeal before appellate tribunal.

  • Recovery can be made from distinct persons even if present in different states.

 
This example will clear it. Suppose one assessee having two registrations, one in state of Rajasthan and another in Assam. If the PAN number is same and demand is pending in Rajasthan then it can be recovered from Assam unit. When the registrations are separate then the separate then the recovery should be separate only. But if refund is applied in Assam then recovery of Rajasthan will be adjusted by officer. But the modus operandi to implement this procedure is to be seen. The officer may delay the refund by saying that he has asked other unit of same PAN whether any demand is pending against him.   This should not happen.
3. Credit/ Debit Notes

  • Registered persons may issue consolidated credit/debit notes in respect of multiple invoices issued in a Financial Year instead of issuing and co-relating one credit/debit note against each invoice.

This was also demanded by industry at large. Suppose, discount is given to buyers on overall turnover then it is very cumbersome to issue number of credit notes linking it with invoices. The whole industry was finding it difficult. Moreover, number of credit notes is to be raised for each invoice. This has been relaxed by the department.
4. Job Work

  • Commissioner to be empowered to extend the time limit for return of inputs and capital sent on job work, upto a period of one year and two years, respectively.

This is also a welcome step. Otherwise, in earlier provisions, it was said the material did not return in specified period will be termed as supply. But now the permission can be taken from the commissioner.

  • Place of supply in case of job work of any treatment or processdone on goods temporarily imported into India and then exported without putting them to any other use in India, to be outside India. 

This amendment will lead to non-payment of GST on such job work
5. Multiple Registrations

  • Taxpayers may opt for multiple registrations within a State/Union territory in respect of multiple places of business located within the same State/Union territory.

Earlier it was allowed only in case of separate business vertical. But now it is allowed if the assessee wishes so then he can take separate registration. This was needed by assessee as they have separate cost centre and it was very difficult to operate separate units and then compile the data of all the units in the same state.
 
 
 
We hope the above is useful to you.
 
Your Need Our Concern…
Thanking you,                                                                                 
Regards,
               
Pradeep Jain, F.C.A.
 

Post a Comment
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