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 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