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 INTEREST INCOME IS A PART OF AGGREGRATE TURNOVER? 72/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON WHETHER INTEREST INCOME IS A PART OF AGGREGRATE TURNOVER? 72/2020-21
AAR rulings on different matters are creating havoc in the life of taxpayers. Many rulings like GST on sale of developed land, taxability of directors renumeration, interest income is a part of aggregate turnover, GST on cross charge etc are an indicator that it is not a wise decision to take the route of rulings for any guidance for proposed or undertaken transactions in business.
Seeing this trend, strong perception in the Trade and Industry is getting build as to why one should even approach the Advance Ruling Authority who is likely to decide the matter against the assessee and when practically there is no appeal mechanism against the said order. You can file appeal before AAAR but the revenue authorities sitting in this appeal forum also confirms the same order. Absence of judicial member at Advance ruling authority is creating this problem. Hence, judicial member should be appointed for meet the end of justice. Furthermore, Court will not accept the writ petition in each case against the order of authority of advance ruling or appellate authority of advance ruling. Hence, it is now clear message for Consultants and tax payers that they should approach advance rulings. On the other hand, if an assesseeopts the route of the adjudication, the doors of the tribunal as well as the courts would always be open to seek relief.
Recently, the AAR Gujarat in case of Shree SawaiManoharlalRathi [Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/2020/10, Dated: 19th May, 2020] has held that the value of exempted income, like interest on PPF, savings bank account and loans given to family/friends, will be included along with taxable supplies while calculating the threshold limit for obtaining GST registration. Under the Goods and Services Tax law, businesses and individuals are required to obtain GST registration if their aggregate turnover is Rs 20 lakh or more if they are engaged in supply of both goods and services.
An individual, not engaged in any business, had filed an application before the Gujarat bench of AAR asking whether interest received from savings bank, PPF and loans and advances to family would be considered for the purpose of calculating threshold limit of Rs 20 lakh for registration under GST law. The individual, in his application, had disclosed that his total receipts in 2018-19 fiscal were about Rs 20.12 lakh, including rent receipt of Rs 9.84 lakh, while the remaining was interest on bank, PPF deposits and from personal loans extended to friends/family.
The AAR, while ruling that interest income would be included for calculating registration threshold, said that the applicant is required to consider the value of both taxable supply i.e. "renting of immovable property" and exempted supply of service provided by way of extending deposits, loans or advances for which he earned interest income, to arrive at "aggregate turnover" to determine the threshold limit for the purpose of obtaining registration under the GST Act.
 
Entry 27(a) of the Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) and Entry 28(a) of the Notification No. 9/2017 -Integrated Tax (Rate) dated: 28.06.2017 relates to the exemption of services by way of extending deposits, loans or advances in so far as the consideration is represented by way of interest. Therefore, such services are exempted from payment of GST and the individual is not required to discharge GST on the activity of providing services by way of extending deposits, loans or advances where the consideration is represented by way of interest.
However, while referring to Section 7 of the CGST Act which defines the scope of supply; it includes sale, transfer, exchange, barter, license, rental, lease and disposal. If a person undertakes either of these transactions during the course or furtherance of business for consideration, it will be covered under the meaning of Supply under GST. When this interest is not related to furtherance of business, hence should not be taken into consideration for aggregate turnover.
This ruling has neglected the fact that applicant is not engaged in any kind of business and moreover, the interest income earned is purely his personal income and not interlinked with any business. PPF deposits, FDs and personal loan interest income cannot be classified as supply made in course of or furtherance of business. Generally, individuals deposit their money in banks or PPF a/cs as a part of investing their hard earned money and cultivating the habit of savings. On the contrary current bank account is opened to run business. It is worthwhile to note that applicant was not involved in any money lending business too. The major problem in this ruling appears is that it has failed to take into consideration the full facts of the case and the provisions of the u/s 7 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Moreover, if we refer the provisions of Income tax, Interest that gets accumulated in our savings bank account must be declared in tax return under income from other sources. Interest from both fixed deposit and recurring deposits is taxable while interest from savings bank account and post office deposits are tax-deductible to a certain extent. But they are shown under income from other sources.
Further, we enjoy a deduction uptoRs 10,000 on interest received from savings account and recurring deposits. While senior citizens get a deduction uptoRs 50,000 on their interest income from fixed deposits.
If the Income Tax provisions clearly classify the interest income in other source head rather than business income head, then GST cannot overrule such provision. In our opinion, the advance ruling decision is erroneous and should not be considered as a final verdict.
AAR is considered as solution provider but to the contrary, it is working exactly opposite of its motive. This ruling will impact a large number of homemakers, retired persons and freelancers forcing them to take GST registration. In the nutshell, the Authority failed to distinguish between earnings made in the individual capacity and in the business capacity. We can only wait for some clarifications from the end of government which can act as a burnolon the wounded and burning issues.
 
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