Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE ON REQUIREMENT OF REGISTRATION BY ASSESSEES EXCLUSIVELY SUPPLYING EXEMPTED GOODS

GST UPDATE ON REQUIREMENT OF REGISTRATION BY ASSESSEES EXCLUSIVELY SUPPLYING EXEMPTED GOODS
GST UPDATE ON REQUIREMENT OF REGISTRATION BY ASSESSEES EXCLUSIVELY SUPPLYING EXEMPTED GOODS:-
 
Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of M/s Jalaram Feeds has ruled that an assessee exclusively engaged in supply of exempted goods is required to take registration under section 24 of the CGST Act, 2017 if the said assessee is required to pay tax under reverse charge. It has been concluded that the contention of the assessee that the provisions of section 24 override section 22(1) and not section 23 is not proper as it would lead to non-payment of tax on GTA services under reverse charge mechanism by both GTA and the assessee which is not intended by the Law. It has been held that the section 23 is not a standalone section as stated by the assessee and rather the provisions of section 23 compliment the provisions contained in section 22 of the CGST Act, 2017. It is held that the according to the provisions of section 22 of the CGST Act, 2017, a supplier making taxable supplies of goods or services is liable to get registered if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds twenty lakhs rupees and the reference of term ‘taxable supplies’ indicates that a person exclusively supplying exempted goods or services is not liable to get registered. It is concluded that since a person exclusively engaged in supply of exempted goods or services is not liable to take registration even by referring to the provisions of section 22(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 without even referring to the provisions of section 23 of the CGST Act, 2017, the provisions of section 23 are in alignment with the provisions of section 22(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, it was pronounced that an assessee exclusively engaged in supplying exempted goods would be liable to take registration if the assessee is liable to pay tax under reverse charge mechanism by referring to the provisions of section 24 of the CGST Act, 2017.
 
In this context, it is pertinent to refer to similar decision given by the AAR West Bengal in the case of Joint Plant Committee wherein it was concluded that the applicant will not be liable to get registered under GST Law if the applicant is exclusively engaged in supplying exempted goods or services subject to the condition that the applicant is not liable to pay GST under reverse charge as in such case, compulsory registration would be required as per section 24(iii) of the CGST Act, 2017. Hence, in nutshell, the benefit of section 23 of the CGST Act, 2017 is subject to the provision of section 24 of the CGST Act, 2017 pertaining to compulsory registration in certain cases.
 
Now, the question arises is that whether the decisions given in the above cited Advance Rulings are correct in interpreting that the provisions of section 24 of the CGST Act, 2017 have overriding effect on both section 22(1) and section 23 of the CGST Act, 2017? In order to better analyse the situation, it is pertinent to refer to the provisions of section 22(1), 23 and 24 of the CGST Act, 2017.
 
Section 22 Persons liable for registration
22. (1) Every supplier shall be liable to be registered under this Act in the State or Union territory, other than special category States, from where he makes a taxable supply of goods or services or both, if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds twenty lakh rupees:
 
Section 23 Persons not liable for registration
23. (1) The following persons shall not be liable to registration, namely:––
 
(a) any person engaged exclusively in the business of supplying goods or services or both that are not liable to tax or wholly exempt from tax under this Act or under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act;
 
(b) an agriculturist, to the extent of supply of produce out of cultivation of land. 
(2) The Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify the category of persons who may be exempted from obtaining registration under this Act.
 
Section 24 Compulsory registration in certain cases
24. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 22, the following categories of persons shall be required to be registered under this Act,––
 
(i) persons making any inter-State taxable supply;
 
(ii) casual taxable persons making taxable supply;
 
(iii) persons who are required to pay tax under reverse charge;
(iv) ................
On perusal of the above cited provisions, it is observed that section 22 and section 23 mutually exclusive sections as they pertain to totally opposite issues. Section 22 pertains to persons liable for registration while section 23 pertains to persons not liable for registration. Furthermore, section 24 pertains to compulsory registration in certain cases starting with ‘Non-obstante’ clause making reference of section 22(1) pertaining to persons liable for registration. Hence, we may infer that the provisions of section 24 describe the situation wherein compulsory registration is required even if the aggregate turnover of person supplying taxable goods or services does not exceed Rs. 20 Lakhs. It cannot be inferred that the section 24 lists out situation wherein person is liable to take registration even if there is no taxable supply of goods or services because it does not override the provisions of section 23 of the CGST Act, 2017. The interpretation taken by the learned AAR Maharashtra that the provisions of section 23 are merely expansion of the provision contained in section 22 and the provisions of section 24 are applicable for both does not appear to be correct in our opinion. If the interpretation taken by the learned AAR Maharashtra is observed, it will render the provisions contained in section 23 as otiose. Such an interpretation will make the provisions contained in section 24 as supreme and the exemption granted under section 23 as redundant as practically GTA service is usually availed by every business, be it exclusively exempted business. Moreover, section 22 and section 23 are diagonally opposite sections and when it is clearly stated in section 23 that the person exclusively engaged in supply of exempted goods or services is not liable to get registered, the said person cannot be compelled to take registration by application of provisions contained in section 24 as section 23 is specific section stating persons not liable to take registration and the specific provisions prevail over general provisions. In our opinion, the conclusion arrived by AAR requires re-consideration. GST UPDATE ON REQUIREMENT OF REGISTRATION BY ASSESSEES EXCLUSIVELY SUPPLYING EXEMPTED GOODS:-
 
Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of M/s Jalaram Feeds has ruled that an assessee exclusively engaged in supply of exempted goods is required to take registration under section 24 of the CGST Act, 2017 if the said assessee is required to pay tax under reverse charge. It has been concluded that the contention of the assessee that the provisions of section 24 override section 22(1) and not section 23 is not proper as it would lead to non-payment of tax on GTA services under reverse charge mechanism by both GTA and the assessee which is not intended by the Law. It has been held that the section 23 is not a standalone section as stated by the assessee and rather the provisions of section 23 compliment the provisions contained in section 22 of the CGST Act, 2017. It is held that the according to the provisions of section 22 of the CGST Act, 2017, a supplier making taxable supplies of goods or services is liable to get registered if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds twenty lakhs rupees and the reference of term ‘taxable supplies’ indicates that a person exclusively supplying exempted goods or services is not liable to get registered. It is concluded that since a person exclusively engaged in supply of exempted goods or services is not liable to take registration even by referring to the provisions of section 22(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 without even referring to the provisions of section 23 of the CGST Act, 2017, the provisions of section 23 are in alignment with the provisions of section 22(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, it was pronounced that an assessee exclusively engaged in supplying exempted goods would be liable to take registration if the assessee is liable to pay tax under reverse charge mechanism by referring to the provisions of section 24 of the CGST Act, 2017.
 
In this context, it is pertinent to refer to similar decision given by the AAR West Bengal in the case of Joint Plant Committee wherein it was concluded that the applicant will not be liable to get registered under GST Law if the applicant is exclusively engaged in supplying exempted goods or services subject to the condition that the applicant is not liable to pay GST under reverse charge as in such case, compulsory registration would be required as per section 24(iii) of the CGST Act, 2017. Hence, in nutshell, the benefit of section 23 of the CGST Act, 2017 is subject to the provision of section 24 of the CGST Act, 2017 pertaining to compulsory registration in certain cases.
 
Now, the question arises is that whether the decisions given in the above cited Advance Rulings are correct in interpreting that the provisions of section 24 of the CGST Act, 2017 have overriding effect on both section 22(1) and section 23 of the CGST Act, 2017? In order to better analyse the situation, it is pertinent to refer to the provisions of section 22(1), 23 and 24 of the CGST Act, 2017.
 
Section 22 Persons liable for registration
22. (1) Every supplier shall be liable to be registered under this Act in the State or Union territory, other than special category States, from where he makes a taxable supply of goods or services or both, if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds twenty lakh rupees:
 
Section 23 Persons not liable for registration
23. (1) The following persons shall not be liable to registration, namely:––
 
(a) any person engaged exclusively in the business of supplying goods or services or both that are not liable to tax or wholly exempt from tax under this Act or under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act;
 
(b) an agriculturist, to the extent of supply of produce out of cultivation of land. 
(2) The Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify the category of persons who may be exempted from obtaining registration under this Act.
 
Section 24 Compulsory registration in certain cases
24. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 22, the following categories of persons shall be required to be registered under this Act,––
 
(i) persons making any inter-State taxable supply;
 
(ii) casual taxable persons making taxable supply;
 
(iii) persons who are required to pay tax under reverse charge;
(iv) ................
On perusal of the above cited provisions, it is observed that section 22 and section 23 mutually exclusive sections as they pertain to totally opposite issues. Section 22 pertains to persons liable for registration while section 23 pertains to persons not liable for registration. Furthermore, section 24 pertains to compulsory registration in certain cases starting with ‘Non-obstante’ clause making reference of section 22(1) pertaining to persons liable for registration. Hence, we may infer that the provisions of section 24 describe the situation wherein compulsory registration is required even if the aggregate turnover of person supplying taxable goods or services does not exceed Rs. 20 Lakhs. It cannot be inferred that the section 24 lists out situation wherein person is liable to take registration even if there is no taxable supply of goods or services because it does not override the provisions of section 23 of the CGST Act, 2017. The interpretation taken by the learned AAR Maharashtra that the provisions of section 23 are merely expansion of the provision contained in section 22 and the provisions of section 24 are applicable for both does not appear to be correct in our opinion. If the interpretation taken by the learned AAR Maharashtra is observed, it will render the provisions contained in section 23 as otiose. Such an interpretation will make the provisions contained in section 24 as supreme and the exemption granted under section 23 as redundant as practically GTA service is usually availed by every business, be it exclusively exempted business. Moreover, section 22 and section 23 are diagonally opposite sections and when it is clearly stated in section 23 that the person exclusively engaged in supply of exempted goods or services is not liable to get registered, the said person cannot be compelled to take registration by application of provisions contained in section 24 as section 23 is specific section stating persons not liable to take registration and the specific provisions prevail over general provisions. In our opinion, the conclusion arrived by AAR requires re-consideration. GST UPDATE ON REQUIREMENT OF REGISTRATION BY ASSESSEES EXCLUSIVELY SUPPLYING EXEMPTED GOODS:-
 
Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of M/s Jalaram Feeds has ruled that an assessee exclusively engaged in supply of exempted goods is required to take registration under section 24 of the CGST Act, 2017 if the said assessee is required to pay tax under reverse charge. It has been concluded that the contention of the assessee that the provisions of section 24 override section 22(1) and not section 23 is not proper as it would lead to non-payment of tax on GTA services under reverse charge mechanism by both GTA and the assessee which is not intended by the Law. It has been held that the section 23 is not a standalone section as stated by the assessee and rather the provisions of section 23 compliment the provisions contained in section 22 of the CGST Act, 2017. It is held that the according to the provisions of section 22 of the CGST Act, 2017, a supplier making taxable supplies of goods or services is liable to get registered if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds twenty lakhs rupees and the reference of term ‘taxable supplies’ indicates that a person exclusively supplying exempted goods or services is not liable to get registered. It is concluded that since a person exclusively engaged in supply of exempted goods or services is not liable to take registration even by referring to the provisions of section 22(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 without even referring to the provisions of section 23 of the CGST Act, 2017, the provisions of section 23 are in alignment with the provisions of section 22(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, it was pronounced that an assessee exclusively engaged in supplying exempted goods would be liable to take registration if the assessee is liable to pay tax under reverse charge mechanism by referring to the provisions of section 24 of the CGST Act, 2017.
 
In this context, it is pertinent to refer to similar decision given by the AAR West Bengal in the case of Joint Plant Committee wherein it was concluded that the applicant will not be liable to get registered under GST Law if the applicant is exclusively engaged in supplying exempted goods or services subject to the condition that the applicant is not liable to pay GST under reverse charge as in such case, compulsory registration would be required as per section 24(iii) of the CGST Act, 2017. Hence, in nutshell, the benefit of section 23 of the CGST Act, 2017 is subject to the provision of section 24 of the CGST Act, 2017 pertaining to compulsory registration in certain cases.
 
Now, the question arises is that whether the decisions given in the above cited Advance Rulings are correct in interpreting that the provisions of section 24 of the CGST Act, 2017 have overriding effect on both section 22(1) and section 23 of the CGST Act, 2017? In order to better analyse the situation, it is pertinent to refer to the provisions of section 22(1), 23 and 24 of the CGST Act, 2017.
 
Section 22 Persons liable for registration
22. (1) Every supplier shall be liable to be registered under this Act in the State or Union territory, other than special category States, from where he makes a taxable supply of goods or services or both, if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds twenty lakh rupees:
 
Section 23 Persons not liable for registration
23. (1) The following persons shall not be liable to registration, namely:––
 
(a) any person engaged exclusively in the business of supplying goods or services or both that are not liable to tax or wholly exempt from tax under this Act or under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act;
 
(b) an agriculturist, to the extent of supply of produce out of cultivation of land. 
(2) The Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify the category of persons who may be exempted from obtaining registration under this Act.
 
Section 24 Compulsory registration in certain cases
24. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 22, the following categories of persons shall be required to be registered under this Act,––
 
(i) persons making any inter-State taxable supply;
 
(ii) casual taxable persons making taxable supply;
 
(iii) persons who are required to pay tax under reverse charge;
(iv) ................
On perusal of the above cited provisions, it is observed that section 22 and section 23 mutually exclusive sections as they pertain to totally opposite issues. Section 22 pertains to persons liable for registration while section 23 pertains to persons not liable for registration. Furthermore, section 24 pertains to compulsory registration in certain cases starting with ‘Non-obstante’ clause making reference of section 22(1) pertaining to persons liable for registration. Hence, we may infer that the provisions of section 24 describe the situation wherein compulsory registration is required even if the aggregate turnover of person supplying taxable goods or services does not exceed Rs. 20 Lakhs. It cannot be inferred that the section 24 lists out situation wherein person is liable to take registration even if there is no taxable supply of goods or services because it does not override the provisions of section 23 of the CGST Act, 2017. The interpretation taken by the learned AAR Maharashtra that the provisions of section 23 are merely expansion of the provision contained in section 22 and the provisions of section 24 are applicable for both does not appear to be correct in our opinion. If the interpretation taken by the learned AAR Maharashtra is observed, it will render the provisions contained in section 23 as otiose. Such an interpretation will make the provisions contained in section 24 as supreme and the exemption granted under section 23 as redundant as practically GTA service is usually availed by every business, be it exclusively exempted business. Moreover, section 22 and section 23 are diagonally opposite sections and when it is clearly stated in section 23 that the person exclusively engaged in supply of exempted goods or services is not liable to get registered, the said person cannot be compelled to take registration by application of provisions contained in section 24 as section 23 is specific section stating persons not liable to take registration and the specific provisions prevail over general provisions. In our opinion, the conclusion arrived by AAR requires re-consideration. 
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