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 the Legal, Medical, and financial support by Charitable Trust 82/2020-21

GST Update on Taxability of the Legal, Medical, and financial support by Charitable Trust 82/2020-21
GST Update on Taxability of the Legal, Medical, and financial support by Charitable Trust
In this update, we will discuss recent West Bengal Advance Ruling(03/WBAAR/2020-21 dated 29.06.2020) given in case of a NGO Swayam which is unregistered and facilitates access of the women survivors to legal aids. And it does not charge anything from the survivors for the services it extends.
The NGO facilitates the survivor to the police and the courts and liaise with the lawyers when required. Depending upon the financial circumstances of the survivor, it often provides support in the form of reimbursement of the court fee, lawyers’ fee or medical expenses, including hospitalization or psychiatric counselling. Such financial support is also extended for paying the remuneration of the trainers and charges of the facilitators for trainings and workshops.
The applicant approached the Authority of Advance Ruling to ask whether they are liable to pay tax on the legal, medical, psychological and financial support including training programs and workshops provided to the women and their children survivors.
The AAR observed that applicant merely assist the women and children survivors to support in various ways to get back on their feet. The charitable trust does avail the services but the women or children are the actual recipient of the services. The applicant makes payments not to the supplier of the services, but as financial support in the form of reimbursement to the recipient survivor. Therefore, the applicant is not liable to pay GST on advocate and other services which attract reverse charge mechanism.Further the applicant does not charge any consideration for facilitating the legal aid and other assistance. Such activities of the applicant, therefore, does not result in ‘supply’ of service as defined under section 7 (1) of the GST Act. The applicant is not, therefore, liable to pay tax thereon.
However, Tamil Nadu AAR has ruled that conducting the Marathon event by a charitable organization called ‘Dream Runner Foundation’ is not an “exempt supply”.
Dream Runners Foundation is a registered charitable trust with charitable objects and carries out various charitable programs and activities. It is also registered u/s 12AA of income tax and therefore tax exempt and has certificate u/s 80G which entitles donors to tax deduction.
The principal objects of the Trust as per the Trust Deed is to organize events like Marathon, Blood Donation Camp, Organ Donation Camp, Eye Donation Camp, Health Awareness Camp etc., and utilize the funds raised from such events for charitable cause like funding to NGOs, Hospitals, Trusts and other Charitable Organizations.
Every year since 2012, the trust organizes and conducts a marathon event named ‘Dream Runners Half Marathon’. The event involves collecting donations from the participating runners and also money pooled in through corporate donations for the event. The amount so received is utilized for the conduct of the event that includes permit and approval fees, fees paid to the government authorities, expenses for the conduct of the event that includes prize money for the winners and the balance left is paid as donations to the NGOs supporting the cause or directly to the beneficiaries.
AAR has taken the view that as per Section 2(31) of CGST Act, “consideration” in relation to the supply of goods or services or both includes any payment made or to be made, whether in money or otherwise, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of the supply of goods or services or both, whether by the recipient or by any other person but shall not include any subsidy given by the Central Government or a State Government.
The money collected by the charitable trust from the participants in the Marathon was used for the expenses of organizing the marathon in terms of paying the registration partner, event management charges, prize money, publicity, other organizing expenses such as T-shirts, banners and other related materials etc., as seen in their balance sheets. Thus, AAR has concluded that the money collected from the participants “is a consideration towards the supply of service of organizing and conducting the marathon for the participants and the same is liable to GST”.
Further, although the trust is registered u/s 12AA of Income Tax “only those activities of such an entity are exempt from GST which qualify under the definition of “charitable activities” given in the CGST and SGST Notifications of June 2017.
Thus, according to AAR, the conduct of Marathon event by the trust for participants is a not an exempt supplyunder CGST/TNGST Act and since the trust is providing “taxable supply of services” and has aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeding twenty lakh rupees, the trust is required to be registered under CGST/TNGST Act.
Thus, it can be concluded from the above two rulings that consideration plays an important role in determining the taxability of a transaction or an event. In the West Bengal AAR, the NGO was not receiving any kind of consideration from women and children in respect of whom the charitable activities are being carried on. They are receiving donations from other persons and undertaking charitable activities.  On the contrary, Dream Runners Foundation was receiving consideration from various participants for participating in Marathon. Hence, it is held that these are chargeable to tax. Hence, it can be concluded that if trust is receiving donation from other person who are not beneficiaries of the trust then it is not taxable. But if you are receiving donations from beneficiaries of the trust then it is taxable.
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