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 sub-contracting of GTA services 91/2020-21

GST Update on taxability of sub-contracting of GTA services 91/2020-21
The GTA service providers have the option to pay GST under forward charge at the rate of 12% and avail input tax credit. It is also clear that if the GTA opts for paying GST under forward charge at the rate of 12% with availing the facility of input tax credit, the said option is to be exercised for all the transactions. It is not possible for GTA to declare certain supplies under reverse charge mechanism and certain supplies under forward charge. The issue regarding the GST implication on the transaction of sub-contracting the services of GTA was recently considered by the Maharashtra AAR in the case of M/s Liberty Translines and the outcome of this advance ruling is the subject matter of discussion of our present update.
 
The applicant is engaged in providing services as GTA and has been appointed by M/s POSCO to provide service of transportation of goods by road for its clients. In simple words, the applicant is sub-contractor for providing GTA services to the clients of M/s POSCO.  Hence, the applicant seeks advance ruling on the following questions:-
  1. Whether the services rendered by the applicant to M/s POSCO as sub contractor will be classified as GTA Service?
  2.  Whether assesses can charge GST @12% under Forward Charge mechanism in terms of Notification No 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate) 2017 dated 22 August, 2017 as M/s POSCO is also charging GST @ 12% from its clients?
  3. Whether recipient of service, M/s POSCO would be eligible to claim Input Tax Credit of the invoices issued by the applicant under forward charge mechanism?
  4. Whether is it correct to have two GTA Service Providers and two consignment notes for the same movement of goods?
Goods Transport Agency is not defined in CGST Act, 2017 but the meaning of GTA is given by way of an explanation to Entry 9(iii) of Notification No 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate) 2017 dated 22 August, 2017 which reads as follows:-
 
Explanation to Entry 9(iii):- “goods transport agency” means any person who provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note, by whatever name called.
 
It was concluded that main contractor, M/s POSCO is providing road transport service to the ultimate customer and is issuing consignment notes and so falls under the definition of GTA.  Main Contractor is not the owner of the vehicle but he has appointed a sub-contractor to provide services of transportation of goods by road. However, the applicant cannot be treated as GTA as the applicant is truck owner and has providing services of hiring of trucks to M/s POSCO which is exempt from levy of GST.
 
There is a difference between a GTA and a person who owns truck commonly known as transporter who may give transportation service either by himself or through a transport agent i.e. GTA. It was held that a consignment note is a necessary qualification to be considered as a GTA as per the explanation in Notification 11/2017 (CT) Rate dated 28thJune 2017 . In the transportation industry, where one transporter has takes the help of another transporter by way of sub-contracting the work and the sub contractor bills to main contractor for sub contracting service. It is very clear in the GST Law that who issues consignment note will be treated as goods transport agency. Main Contactor issues consignment note and therefore only main contractor is a GTA for this transaction. Any services by way of transportation of goods by road other than through GTA would be exempt supply as per the notification no. 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated. 22.08.2017.
 
In the present case, assessee is providing the transportation service but not as GTA but only as a truck owner to Main Contractor. Therefore, it was held that the services of applicant are exempt and there is no need to charge GST @12% under forward charge mechanism. 
As regards the regarding admissibility to input tax credit to the recipient, it was held that the question pertains to M/s POSCO and so the AAR refrained from answering the same. Similarly, as regards the question whether there can be two consignment notes for the same transaction, the AAR denied from commenting as the said question is outside the ambit of scope of advance ruling as prescribed in section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.
 
It is pertinent to mention here that in frequently asked question (FAQ) related to registration, it has been clarified that registration is not required in case where services of GTA are being provided to another GTA as services by way of giving on hire, a means of transportation of goods to a GTA are exempt from tax vide entry no. 22 of Notification number 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017.
 
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