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 Requirement of registration where medical stores are run by charitable trusts 75/2020-21

GST Update on Requirement of registration where medical stores are run by charitable trusts 75/2020-21
This is to apprise you regarding the recent Gujarat Advance ruling in the case of M/s Nagri Eye Research Foundation wherein the applicant is a not-for-profit charitable trust covered under section 2(84)(m) of the CGST Act, 2017 and they operate a medical store for the sale of medicines at a lower price. The Applicant approached the Authority for Advance Ruling to determine whether the sale of medicines at a lower price constitutes a supply under the GST law. On the similar question ruling was also pronounced by Maharashtra authority for advance ruling in the case of M/s Kasturba Health Society.
In the Gujarat AAR the applicant contended that the trust was not engaged in any business activity but it is created by Municipal Corporation with a view to provide medical facilities to citizens and they offer medicines on a cost to cost basis. The sale of medicines is not a business activity in light of the decision in the case of M/s Saurashtra Kidney Research Instituteby Gujarat Hight Court (2003) where it was discussed that a charitable institution registered as a public trust and engaged in welfare activities provided medical treatment through a medical store on its premises is not business activity. Moreover, the Hon’ble High Court had followed itsearlier order in the case of Bhailal Amin General Hospital (Tax Appeal No.1673/2009) wherein it was observed that the activity of purchasing, selling and supplying medicines was to achieve the object of the Trust and was not a business activity.
However the Authority has stated that the facts of the two cases are different and decision given in case of Saurashtra Kidney Research Institute can’t be applied in Nagri case on the grounds that section 2(10) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act dealing with registration specifically excludes “a charitable, religious or educational institution, carrying on the activity of manufacturing, buying, selling or supplying goods, in performance of its functions, for achieving its avowed objects, which are not in the nature of business”. Similar exclusion clauses are not enshrined under the CGST Act 2017.
AAR contended that the applicant is a charitable trust which appears under the definition of ‘person’ and falls at clause(m) of sub-section 84 of Section 2 of the CGST Act, 2017.As per definition, a charitable trust is a person as per clause (m) of sub section 84 of section 2 of CGST Act, 2017.
The applicant is providing medicines from its medical store at lower rate, so activity of dealer is to provide medicines with less pecuniary benefit. As per the definition of ‘business’ any trade, commerce, manufacture, profession, vocation, adventure, wager or any other similar activity, whether or not it is for a pecuniary benefit is termed as business. Hence, it is clear that any trade carried out whether for pecuniary benefit or not is a business as per CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the applicant is carrying out business activity as per CGST Act, 2017.
Applicant is selling medicines from its medical store. Medicine is goods as per subsection 52 of Section 2 of the CGST Act, 2017. Medicine is a taxable supply as per sub section 108 of section 2 of CGST Act, 2017 and GST is leviable on medicine as per Chapter-30 of HSN code. Therefore, sale of medicine by the applicant is a taxable supply of goods. Applicant is providing medicines from its medical store at lower rate so price paid by the customers is consideration for the applicant as defined in sub-section 31 of Section 2 of the CGST Act, 2017. Further, the activity of supply of goods by the applicant does not fall under the list appearing in Schedule-III of the CGST Act, 2017.
The AAR resonates the view taken in the case of M/s Kasturba Health Society and is evident from the fair discussion of the Gujarat AAR that the applicant has to get registration under the relevant provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore,  the applicant is making taxable supply from its medical store, so as and when aggregate turnover (here medicine) of applicant exceeds threshold limit as specified in sub-section(1) of Section 22 of 6 the CGST Act, 2017, the applicant has to obtain registration under the relevant provisions of the CGST Act, 2017.
There are certain criteria for a charitable trust or an NGO to be exempted from the Goods and Services Tax. The charitable trust or NGO must be registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, and the services provided by the charitable trust or the NGO must be for a charitable cause only. Only the following activities are termed as charitable activity and exempt from GST:
  1. Services relating to public health like:
    • Care or counselling of terminally ill persons or persons with severe physical or mental disability;
    • Persons afflicted with HIV or AIDS;
    • Persons addicted to a dependence-forming substance such as narcotics drugs or alcohol;
  2. Public awareness of preventive health, family planning or prevention of HIV infection;
  3. Advancement of religion, spirituality or yoga;
  4. Advancement of educational programmes or skill development relating to:
    • Abandoned, orphaned or homeless children;
    • Physically or mentally abused and traumatized persons;
    • Prisoners; or
    • Persons over the age of 65 years residing in a rural area;
  5. Preservation of environment including watershed, forests and wildlife.
Hence, if a charitable trust or NGO does not satisfy any of the two conditions, then GST would be applicable and the entity must be registered under GST.
 
This is solely for educational 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