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 04.03.2017-PLACE OF SUPPLY OF GOODS OR SERVICES PART-III

PLACE OF SUPPLY OF GOODS OR SERVICES PART-III

GST DAILY DOSE OF UPDATION
PLACE OF SUPPLY OF GOODS OR SERVICES PART-III:-
SECTION 10: PLACE OF SUPPLY OF SERVICES WHERE THE LOCATION OF THE SUPPLIER OR THE LOCATION OF THE RECIPIENT IS OUTSIDE INDIA
In continuation to our earlier update, we shall discuss some other provisions of section 10. According to sub-section (8), the place of supply of certain services like banking, intermediary and short term hiring of transport upto one month shall be the location of service provider. This provision is in alignment with the Rule 9 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 which also provides that in case of intermediary services, the place of supply of service shall be the location of service provider. Moreover, the definition of intermediary is also given under section 2(13) of the IGST Act to mean a broker, an agent, or any other person, by whatever name called, who arranges or facilitates the supply of service or supply of goods between two or more persons but does not include a person who provides the main service or supplies the goods on his own account. It is pertinent to mention here that the intermediary includes person who facilitates supply of goods or services. This is appreciated as there was lacunae in the definition of intermediary wherein only person facilitating supply of services was covered. This had the effect that no service tax was leviable in case of services of intermediary located abroad was availed with respect to services but service tax was levied in case of intermediaries facilitating supply of goods and situated abroad. However, this lacunae was removed with effect from 01.10.2014 and as of now, intermediary includes both facilitating supply of goods or services. The incorporation of rectified definition of intermediary in the GST law is highly appreciated.
The other provisions pertaining to determination of place of supply in case of transportation of goods being destination of goods, in respect of transportation of passengers being place of embarkation and supply of services on boarding a conveyance being first scheduled departure of conveyance for journey are same as contained in the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. However, the major change that has continued in the GST regime is regarding place of supply of service for online information and database access or retrieval services (OIDARS). It is worth mentioning that earlier, the OIDARS was covered under Rule 9 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 wherein the place of supply for such services was the location of service provider. However, w.e.f. 01.12.2016, the clause (b) of Rule 9 pertaining to OIDARS has been deleted thereby meaning that the general rule shall be applicable for OIDARS. Moreover, special mechanism has been developed wherein the service provider located outside India and providing such OIDARS shall be liable to pay service tax under forward charge. The drastic amendment has been imported in the proposed GST regime also wherein a new sub-section 12(a) has been inserted to provide that the place of supply in case of OIDARS shall be the location of service recipient. Not only this, a deeming fiction has been created whereby person receiving OIDARS shall be deemed to be located in taxable territory if any two of the following conditions are satisfied as follows:-
a) Location of address given by the recipient is in taxable territory
b) Credit/debit card or any other cards used for payment has been issue in taxable territory
c) Billing address of recipient is in taxable territory
d) IP address of device is in taxable territory
e) Bank of recipient in which account is used for payment is in taxable territory
f) Country code of SIM is in taxable territory
g) Location of fixed land line through which service is received by recipeint is in taxable territory.
A special provision for taxability of OIDARS has been incorporated in section 12 of the IGST Act wherein supplier of service located in non-taxable territory has been made liable to pay IGST. The provisions are similar to the recent amendments made in the Service Tax Laws. Not only this, meaning of OIDARS has been given as services whose delivery is mediated by information technology over the internet or an electronic network and the nature of which renders their supply essentially automated and involving minimal human intervention, and impossible to ensure in the absence of information technology and includes electronic services such as
(a) advertising on the internet;
(b) providing cloud services;
(c) provision of e-books, movie, music, software and other intangibles via telecommunication networks or internet;
(d) providing data or information, retrievable or otherwise, to any person, in electronic form through a computer network;
(e) online supplies of digital content (movies, television shows, music, etc.);
(f) digital data storage; and
(g) online gaming;
The above meaning is also in line with the meaning revised recently in Service Tax Laws. It appears that the provisions of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 presently in force have been taken as base while framing the Rules for determination of Place of Supply in GST regime. Determination of Place of supply is not an easy task and so incorporating provisions presently in force in Service Tax Laws will be convenient for assessees in the new GST regime.
Visit us at www.capradeepjain.com and also at
https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/
 

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