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 TAXABILITY OF CHARGES COLLECTED BY HOUSING SOCIETY 158/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON TAXABILITY OF CHARGES COLLECTED BY HOUSING SOCIETY 158/2020-21
The determination of taxability on cooperative housing society is always a disputed point and there are many contradictory verdicts by AAR. This update seeks to discuss a recent ruling by AAAR Maharashtra in the case of M/S APSARA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED wherein the issue raised was whether the charges collected by the society amounts to supply and liable to GST and whether they are correctly discharging the GST liability for which illustrative invoices were being provided.
Appellant contended that the charges are not liable to GST in view of Supreme Court decision given in the case of Calcutta Club wherein it was held that services provided by incorporated clubs to its members is not liable to tax. The appellant contended that they are not carrying out any business in terms of section 2(17) of CGST Act, 2017, and hence their activities cannot be considered as “Supply”, as per under Section 7(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Further, it was contended that society charges levied on the members is merely a contribution towards the collective maintenance and upkeep of the Society and cannot be considered as ‘consideration’ defined in Section 2(31) of the CGST Act, 2017 as no profit is being derived from these contributions. Reference has also been made to the decisions of Maharashtra Advance Ruling in the case of M/s Lions Club of Poona Kothurd and M/s Rotary Club of Mumbai Western Elite,wherein it was held thatif the society charges are meant towards meeting the administrative expenses of the society, the said society charges would not be construed as “consideration”. Accordingly, the society charges would not attract GST. The Appellant also referred the following Hon’ble High Court judgements to contend that the activities carried out by them would not amount to “Supply”, and hence the charges are not liable to GST:   
 
  1. Saturday Club Limited Vs. Asstt. Commissioner, Service Tax Cell, Calcutta & Ors. (2005) 180 ELT 437 (Cal HC).
  2. Sports Club of Gujarat Limited Vs. Union of India (2010) 35 VST 375 (Gujarat HC).
 
The Department has argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Calcutta Club Limited, wherein pertains to sales tax regime and that time concept of the term “Supply” was not prevalent. Therefore, the Apex Court Judgement will not be applicable. Reference was made to the term “business” as provide under section 2(17) of CGST Act, 2017 and ‘supply’ under section 7 of the CGST Act which have wider connotation.
After considering the submissions, Maharashtra AAAR has observed that the activities carried out by appellant is to be considered as supply in terms of Section 7(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the same would be liable for GST subject to the condition that the monthly subscription/contribution charged by the society from its members is more than Rs 7,500 per month per member and the annual aggregate turnover of the society by way of supplying of services and goods is also Rs 20 lakh or more. It was held that the definition of the term business and supply are very wide and cover all clubs, whether incorporated or not thereby nullifying the concept of mutuality as was prevalent in erstwhile regime. As regards the issue raised for correctness of GST liability discharged, the AAAR conceded with AAR that they can only comment on determination of tax liability but not on the methodology adopted for discharging tax liability. As the second issue was outside the purview of AAR, the same was not answered.
 
This decision seeks to distinguish the ratio laid down by various High Courts and the Apex Court in the erstwhile indirect taxation regime concluding that services provided by incorporated club to its members is not liable to tax as club and members are not to be treated as separate entities due to application of principle of mutuality. However, the said analogy seems to be fade in GST era as the definition of supply, service and business are wide enough to cover services provided by incorporated/unincorporated club to its members. Therefore, the clubs will definitely face hard time to apply the benefit of decisions rendered in erstwhile regime in the GST era. AAR rulings are not even following the ratio laid down by Apex Court and High Courts. Let us wait for another round of litigation till Apex court when the matter is finally decided.

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   and u may also follow us on Linkedin  https://www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16

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