Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE ON TAX RATE ON SERVICES PROVIDED TO NCBS 58/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON TAX RATE ON SERVICES PROVIDED TO NCBS 58/2020-21
GST UPDATE ON TAX RATE ON SERVICES PROVIDED TO NCBS

The entry providing benefit of concessional rate of tax is to be strictly interpreted as it has been held by Courts time and again that exemption notifications are to be strictly read. In the present update, we wish to discuss the applicability of concessional rate of tax on works contract services provided by the applicant M/s Hombale Constructions And Estates Private Limited.

The applicant entered into a works contract agreement with National Centre for Biological Sciences for construction of Hostel building at NCBS Campus in Bangalore. The National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS) began as a separate centre of Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) which receives grants from the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. The question on which advance ruling is sought by the applicant is as follows

“Whether GST @12 % should be charged for service provided to NCBS as per Notification No 24/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 21-09­- 2017”
The above ruling is being sought as the applicant being the contractor who is of the opinion that the composite supply of works contract shall be chargeable at the rate of 18% under residual entry as the nature of service provided by him to the contractee is not covered specifically in Notification No. 11/2017 dated 28.06.2017. However, the contractee does not agree with the contention of the applicant and states that since it is a fully funded aided institute administratively controlled by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), Government of India and the activities of NCBS are related to the educational research , so 12% rate is applicable as per the Serial No.3 of item no.(vi) of Notification No.11/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by Notification No 24/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 21-09­-2017. The applicant also contends that the services rendered to contractee is not to the recipient as mentioned in the notification being Central Government, State Government, Union Territory, a local authority, a Governmental Authority or a Government Entity”. Hence it does not come under the purview of the Notification No 24/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 21-09­-2017.
Hence, the authority of advance ruling had to examine whether the NCBS is covered under any one of the categories “Central Government, State Government, Union Territory, a local authority, a Governmental Authority or a Government Entity”.

 It is clear at the outset that NCBS is not Central Government or State Government or Union Territory or a local authority or a Governmental Authority. In order to ascertain whether it is a Government Entity or not, the definition of Government Entity is discussed below:-

“‘(x) Government Entity” means an authority or a board or any others body including a society, trust, corporation,
(i) set up by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature; or
(ii) established by any Government,
with 90 per cent. or more participation by way of equity or control, to carry out a function entrusted by the Central Government, State Government, Union Territory or a local authority.”

On examination of facts, since NCBS were not set up by an Act of Parliament or were not established by any Government, and moreover, comprised of only 4 members from the government, none of the criteria of the definition were fulfilled. Hence, it is clear that NCBS is not covered under the definition of Government Entity. Therefore, it was concluded that the  service supplied by the applicant is not covered under clause (vi) of Serial No.3 of Notification No.11/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended from time to time and hence is not taxable at 6% CGST and 6% KGST. Consequently, it is taxable at 9% CGST and 9% KGST under the residual item no. (xii) of Serial No.3 of Notification No.11/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended from time to time.

It is rightly held by various courts that strict interpretation is to be adopted for exemption notifications. If the criteria of the entry are not satisfied, the benefit of concession is not available to the assessees. Furthermore, we have discussed in our earlier updates that exemption given to principal contractor is not available to the sub-contractor if the exemption is recipient specific. In the present ruling, the applicant did not provided services to the specified service recipients and so the benefit of concession was not available to them.

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