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 16.12.2016

SECTION 12 PERTAINING TO TIME OF SUPPLY OF GOODS UNDER REVISED GST LAW:-

GST DAILY DOSE OF UPDATION
 
SECTION 12 PERTAINING TO TIME OF SUPPLY OF GOODS UNDER REVISED GST LAW:-
 
The provisions relating to determination of time for supply of goods has been significantly amended and is discussed in detail as follows:-
 
1.     The time of supply of goods shall be earliest of the following:-

·        The date of issue of invoice by the supplier or the last date on which he is required under section 28, to issue invoice with respect to the supply; or
·        The date on which the supplier receives the payment with respect to the supply.

Provided that where the supplier of taxable goods receives an amount upto one thousand rupees in excess of the amount indicated in the tax invoice, the time of supply to the extent of such excess, shall at the option of the said supplier, be the date of issue of invoice.

It is also clarified that ‘the date on which the supplier receives the payment’ shall be the date on which the payment is entered in his books of accounts or the date on which the payment is credited to his bank account, whichever is earlier.

The revised provisions are much better version of the old GST law. Under the earlier GST law, the time of supply of goods was earliest of 4 parameters being- date of removal of goods, date of issuance of invoice by supplier, date of receipt of payment or date on which recipient shows receipt of goods in his books of accounts. It was represented that the date on which recipient shows receipt of goods in his books of accounts is a parameter that is practically impossible to comply with and we are delighted that the said provision has been deleted.  But the tax payment on advance receipt of payment in case of goods has been prescribed which is not applicable in current Excise regime. The Central Excise duty is to be paid on removal of goods only and invoice is to be issued at the time of removal.

2.     The old draft of GST Law also provided specific provision for continuous supply of goods but there is no such provision in the revised GST Law. This means that the general provision given under section 12(2) would apply.  

3.     A new concept of payment of tax under reverse charge for supply of goods has been introduced in the GST regime. According to the revised provision, the time of supply of goods under reverse charge shall be earliest of the following:-

·        The date of receipt of goods; or
·        The date on which payment is made; or
·        The date immediately following thirty days from the date of issue of invoice by the supplier.

If it is not possible to determine time of supply on the basis of above parameters, the time of supply shall be the date of entry in the books of account of the recipient of supply.
 
4.     The provision specifying time of supply in case of goods sent on approval basis has been deleted thereby meaning that the general provisions contained in section 12(2) as discussed in point no. 1 will apply. Earlier, the time of supply in case of sale on approval basis was date of approval or six months from date of removal, whichever is earlier. However, as per revised law, it is date of issue of invoice/last date for issue of invoice or date of receipt of payment, whichever is earlier. The new provision seeks to take away the prolonged period of 6 months for making payment of tax.

5.     A new provision specifying time of supply in case of vouchers has been introduced. The time of supply of voucher shall be the date of issue of voucher, if supply is identifiable at that time or date of redemption of voucher, in all other cases. This provision has been incorporated keeping in mind the increasing trend of vouchers given on online purchasing. If the vouchers are valid for a particular period of time, then the date of redemption of voucher will be the time of supply.

6.     In case it is not possible to determine the time of supply under provisions as stated above, the time of supply shall be ascertained as follows:-
·        In case where periodical return is to be filed, date on which such return is to be filed, or
·        In any other case, be the date on which the CGST/SGST is paid.

The above provision is a residuary provision for specifying time of supply.
 
You may visit us 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