Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF GST ON LONG TERM LEASE 46/2020-21

GST UPDATE REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF GST ON LONG TERM LEASE 46/2020-21
 
 
GST UPDATE REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF GST ON LONG TERM LEASE:-
 
The issue regarding GST applicability on lease transactions has been an issue of disagreement by the taxpayer as the law does not seeks to distinguish between the long term lease such as that of 99 years which actually has the character of “sale”. The definition of supply under section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 includesall forms of supply of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course of furtherance of business. Consequently, the activity of lease is specifically included in the meaning of supply and is liable to GST. Now, the question arises is whether the transaction of long term lease, granted for 99 years is liable to GST or not? This issue was considered by the Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of M/s GREENTECH MEGA FOOD PARK PVT. LTD. and is the subject matter of discussion in the present update.
 
The Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Government of India (MOFPI) has granted approval to the applicant company to set up a Mega Food Park. As part of the development or setting up of the Food Park, the applicant company has identified/developed certain individual plots on the project site for the purpose of transferring the plots for a lease of 99 years and setting up of industrial units in accordance with the Scheme Guidelines. The applicant company wishes to enter into agreements with several lessees for a total period of 99 years for separate industrial units situated in Mega Food Park for a consideration towards booking and allotment of developed plot. The question placed before the AAR was whether lease agreement between the applicant company and the lessee for a period of 99 years is a sale of immovable property and is exempt from levy of GST?
 
The AAR referred to entry no. 2(b) of Schedule II wherein it is stated that any lease or letting out of the building including commercial, industrial or residential complex for business or commerce, either wholly or partly, is a supply of services. Since the meaning of lease was not given in CGST Act, 2017, reference was made to Transfer of Property Act, 1992 and it was concluded that the quantum of time for which lease is granted has no relevance and even perpetuity lease such as lease of 99 years is liable to GST. Reliance was also placed on Hon’ble Mumbai High Court decision in the case of BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA wherein long term lease of 60 years was held liable to GST. It was also held that from the lease agreement, lessee has many restrictions as regards further sale of allotted plot whereas in case of transaction of sale, the sale deed purchaser becomes the absolute owner of the plot and is not dependent on the lessor for renewal or extension of the lease period. It was also held that merely charging stamp duty will not change transaction of lease to sales. As the activity of leasing of land by government, local authority or governmental authority or government entity is only exempt, the present transaction is liable to GST at the rate of 18%.
 
The dispute regarding liability of service tax on long term lease stems from erstwhile taxation regime and it has been consistently held that the period of lease does not lead to considering the transaction of lease as that of sales so as to exempt it from levy of service tax. Similar view is being taken in the GST era also and so the activity of leasing land by any assessee other than government is liable to GST even if the lease is for a period as long as 99 years.

However, it was basic intention of GST that transfer of immovable property was outside the net of GST as stamp duty is paid on the same. It comes under the preview of state Government. But now both the taxes are being charged on such lease of 99 years. It is very cumbersome position. Unless and until, these all laws are merged and only GST is applicable, there will be no immunity to poor 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