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 PROPOSAL OF 12% TAX RATE WITHOUT ITC FOR RESTAURANTS

GST UPDATE ON PROPOSAL OF 12% TAX RATE WITHOUT ITC FOR RESTAURANTS

GST UPDATE ON PROPOSAL OF 12% TAX RATE WITHOUT ITC FOR RESTAURANTS
Air-conditioned restaurants currently charge GST @ 18% and non-air-conditioned ones charge 12% GST. As per recent proposal made to GST Council, rate of GST in case of restaurants is being planned to be kept at 12% without the facility of Input tax credit (ITC). If this proposal is materialized by GST Council, it may turn the accounting and financial policies of hotels upside down. This update is about the consequences on hotel industry, if this proposal is implemented:-
Earlier in service tax regime, if credit was availed on the input services that were commonly used for providing taxable and exempted output services; provisions of proportionate reversal were attracted under rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In GST regime, the same concept has been carried forward. The rule 42 of CGST Rules, 2017 prescribes the manner of reversal of Input tax credit (ITC) and this rule also provides for reversal on the services that are commonly used for providing both exempted and taxable supplies.
A hotel provides a number of services like restaurant services, accommodation services, beauty parlour, health and fitness services, etc. A restaurant is indispensible part of a hotel and under the present scenario, majority of ITC availed by hotels comprise of inputs and input services consumed at restaurant. If the proposal under consideration is implemented, the hotels may face the following consequences:-
• The significant part of the ITC will be straight-forward denied as exclusively consumed for providing the exempted services. This will increase the tax payment in cash by the hotels.
• The amount of proportionate reversal will also increase as the entire proceeds from restaurant services will come in the purview of “exempt supply”. However, in service tax regime, the services which were used exclusively in services on which credit was not allowed was termed as “exempted services” and proportionate credit was allowed on the same. But definition of “exempt supply” given under Section 2(47) of CGST Act is not on the same lines. Hence, the department will not ask for the proportionate credit but they will say that the credit completely on common input, input services and capital goods will not be allowed.
• The credit on capital goods will also be effected. Earlier in the service tax and Central Excise regime, the credit of capital goods was not allowed but now the credit of capital goods is also proportionately allowed. Following the same, the credit on capital goods will be allowed proportionately or totally disallowed, it is not clear.
• Further, the credit on input, input services and capital goods used exclusively used in taxable supply will be allowed. But it will be very difficult to prove that these are used in exclusively in taxable supplies particularly in case of input services. Input services like telephone, mobile, security, audit, accounting, consultancy, recruitment, manpower repair and maintenance and almost all input services cannot be said to be exclusively used in taxable services. Moreover, if the department contention of non allowance of any credit of restaurant is accepted then all credit will be disallowed to hotels.
• There are certain inward supplies the end use of which is not determinable at the time of procurement. For eg. food and beverages and other ready to eat products (which may be consumed at restaurant as well as while providing mandap keeper or accommodation services). It will be very difficult to keep a track of all of these products in order to determine the admissibility of ITC.
• Further, there are commonly used items like cutlery, crockery, linen, etc. which can also be used in restaurant as well as while providing the Mandap keeper services. Also, there are certain contractors which supply the man power which is used commonly in restaurant, accommodation, mandap keeper and other services provided by hotel. As of now, hotels are eligible to avail full ITC on these goods and services. But the implementation of above stated proposal may restrict the quantum of ITC.
• The rate of GST is proposed to be reduced from 18% to 12%; thus rate-wise there will be direct benefit of 6%. However, the hotels shall have to forgo a significant amount of ITC for availing this benefit. Further, it will create a lot of ambiguities regarding admissibility of ITC as discussed above. This will add to the complications inherited by GST regime. Moreover, the objective of GST council to ensure the cheaper food for general public will not be achieved. On the contrary, it will increase the cost of food to them.
Due to above mentioned reasons, there will be additions to the ambiguities created by GST in hotel industry. Further, since significant amount of ITC will be at stake, most likely, there will be nominal change in the present rates prevalent at restaurants even after the implementation of above said proposal by GST Council.

You can visit us at www.capradeepjain.com , our facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/… and our twitter account at https://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