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 whether composition rate of 1% on turnover of goods and 6% onservices applicable simultaneously? 65/2020-21

GST update on whether composition rate of 1% on turnover of goods and 6% onservices applicable simultaneously? 65/2020-21

The composition scheme prescribed under section 10 of CGST Act, 2017 was introduced with the objective of minimum compliance for assessees operating at small level. However, the conditions with which this benefit was granted made this scheme less attractive. One of the conditions for availing the composition benefit is that the assessee is not engaged in supply of services except to the extent of 10% of the turnover in State or Rs. 5 Lakhs, whichever is higher. It is worth noting that similar scheme is provided vide notification no. 02/2019-Central Tax Rate dated 07.03.2019 for supplier of services with tax rate of 6% having annual turnover in preceding year upto Rs. 50 Lakhs. Now, the question arises is whether it is possible for an assessee to avail benefit of section 10 of CGST Act, 2017 for turnover of goods and benefit of notification no. 02/2019-Central Tax Rate dated 07.03.2019 simultaneously? This question was raised before the Karnataka AAR in the case of M/s EMPATHIC TRADING CENTRE and the decision pronounced by the AAR is the subject matter of discussion of the present update.

 

The applicant is availing benefit of composition scheme and is engaged in supply of goods and supply of renting of immovable property service and his aggregate annual turnover is much less than Rs. 50 Lakhs. It was contended by the applicant that sincehe is engaged in supply of goods and supply of service which is totally unrelated and unconnected, whether the applicant is liable to pay 1% on turnover of goods and 6% on turnover of services OR 6% on total turnover of goods and services under composition scheme?

 

The AAR held that there is no dispute that both the activities of the applicant are taxable and also supplied by the same person. The provisions of section 10 of the CGST Act, 2017 were analysed and it was concluded that it was possible to pay 1% on the total turnover only if the proportion of service element provided did not exceed 10% of the turnover in State or Rs. 5 Lakhs whichever is higher. Furthermore, the provisions contained in notification no. 02/2019-Central Tax Rate dated 07.03.2019 were also examined and it was found that the notification is not a composition scheme but an optional scheme. Moreover, one of the conditions prescribed in the notification is that the supplies are made by a registered person who is not eligible to pay tax under section 10(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. It was held that since the applicant is availing benefit under section 10(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, he is not eligible for benefit of notification no. 02/2019-Central Tax Rate dated 07.03.2019.

 

However, it was ruled that if the applicant opts out of the composition scheme under section 10(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, and obtains separate registrations for supply of goods and supply of services, he shall be liable to pay 6% GST on each of the turnovers of the registrations. This is for the reason that all registrations under same PAN are to opt for the same benefit.

 

Therefore, it can be concluded that it is not possible for an assessee to opt for benefit of composition under section 10(1) of CGST Act, 2017 prescribing GST rate of 1% with respect to turnover of goods and opt for benefit under notification no. 02/2019-Central Tax Rate dated 07.03.2019 prescribing GST rate of 6% for turnover of services simultaneously. The benefit under section 10(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and notification no. 02/2019-Central Tax Rate dated 07.03.2019 are mutually exclusive and cannot be opted for simultaneously. Hence, if the proportion of service is within the prescribed limit of 10% of turnover or Rs. 5 Lakhs whichever is higher, benefit of 1% under section 10(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 can be availed. However, if the condition of section 10(1) as regards proportion of service element is not satisfied, then benefit of notification no. 02/2019-Central Tax Rate dated 07.03.2019 can be availed by paying CGST @3% and SGST @ 3% but with the condition that the benefit of composition scheme under section 10(1) is opted out by the assessee.

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