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 RCM LIABLITY ON SERVICES AVAILED OUTSIDE INDIA

GST UPDATE ON RCM LIABLITY ON SERVICES AVAILED OUTSIDE INDIA
GST UPDATE ON RCM LIABLITY ON SERVICES AVAILED OUTSIDE INDIA

This update is prepared to discuss about the doubtfulness arising in respect of payment of tax under RCM for expenses like commission paid to the commission agent situated abroad, travelling expenses incurred outside India etc. Though the services are provided to the assessee situated in India but all the expenses have been incurred outside India and payment has also been made therein. Before coming to any conclusion, we hereby discuss the relevant provisions in order to arrive at correct conclusion.
Section 2(11) of the IGST Act, 2017 defines import of service which reads as follows:-
‘‘import of services” means the supply of any service, where––
 
(i) the supplier of service is located outside India;
 
(ii) the recipient of service is located in India; and
 
(iii) the place of supply of service is in India;
 
Furthermore, IGST is payable under reverse charge mechanism on services received from person located in non-taxable territory vide serial no. 1 of the Notification No. 10/2017-Integrated Tax  (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 which reads as follows:-
Sl. No. Category of supply of services Supplier of service Recipient of service
1. Any service supplied by any person who is located in a non-taxable territory to any person other than non-taxable online recipient Any person located in non-taxable territory Any person located in the taxable territory other than non-taxable online recipient.
 
Hence in the present case, the place of supply for the services availed by the commission agent is to be determined by provision contained in section 13(8) of the IGST Act, 2017 which reads as follows:-
The place of supply of the following services shall be the location of the supplier of services, namely:––
 
(a) services supplied by a banking company, or a financial institution, or a non-banking financial company, to account holders;
 
(b) intermediary services;
 
(c) services consisting of hiring of means of transport, including yachts but excluding aircrafts and vessels, up to a period of one month.
 
Since the commission agent is covered by the term ‘intermediary services’ as given under section 2 (13) of the IGST Act, 2017, the place of supply in the present case is location of supplier being outside India. This means that the transaction is not covered under the definition of import of services as given above. However, inspite of the fact that the transaction is not covered under the definition of import of service, we shall discuss about the transaction falling under the ambit of section 7(5)(c) of the IGST Act which defines the meaning of ‘inter-state supply’ as follows:-
 
(5) Supply of goods or services or both,––
 
(a) when the supplier is located in India and the place of supply is outsideIndia;
 
(b) to or by a Special Economic Zone developer or a Special Economic Zone
unit; or
 
(c) in the taxable territory, not being an intra-State supply and not covered
elsewhere in this section,
 
shall be treated to be a supply of goods or services or both in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.
 
Moreover, the phrase ‘supply of goods or services or both in the taxable territory’ is to be determined according to the Place of Supply provisions contained in section 13 whereby section 13(8) would be applied and the services will have to be considered to be provided outside India (being location of service provider). Since the services are not provided in taxable territory, the situation is not covered by section 7(5)(c) and the transaction is not to be considered as Inter State Supply. Hence, no IGST is payable on the said transaction.
It is concluded that there is ambiguity as regards payment of IGST under reverse charge mechanism as discussed above. However, it is pertinent to mention that assessee can avail input tax credit of IGST paid by them under reverse charge mechanism. Hence, it is advisable to assessee to pay the IGST on the said services under reverse charge mechanism and avail the input tax credit of the same to avoid unnecessary dispute in future.
 
The content of this document is solely for informational 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/@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