Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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