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-19.12.2016

SECTION 15 VALUE OF TAXABLE SUPPLY UNDER REVISED GST LAW:-

GST DAILY DOSE OF UPDATION
 
SECTION 15 VALUE OF TAXABLE SUPPLY UNDER REVISED GST LAW:-
 
There is material departure in the valuation provisions of a taxable supply in the revised GST Law. A comparative analysis of the changes made with respect to present laws is made as follows:-
 
The valuation of taxable supply has been specified to be transaction value provided that supplier and recipient are not related and price is the sole consideration for supply. Apart from this, certain inclusions and exclusions have also been provided in the transaction value which is discussed in the succeeding paragraphs.
 
Firstly, we discuss the deletions made in the inclusive list of transaction value. The amortised value of goods/services supplied free of cost or at reduced price for use in connection with supply of goods/services so valued to the extent not included has been deleted thereby meaning that free supplies are no longer added in the transaction value. At present, under excise laws, amortised value of free supplies is added while under Service Tax Laws, larger bench of Tribunal in case of Bhayana Builders Case has ruled that free supplies are not to be added in the taxable value of service. Therefore, presently the issue as regards inclusion of free supplies in the taxable value of services is under dispute. However, under GST regime, it appears that the free supplies are not includible in the transaction value. However, at the same time, clause (b) of the section states that any amount incurred by recipeint of the supply that was supposed to be paid by supplier and which is not included in the price is to be added in the transaction value. This somehow indicates that free supplies should also be included in the transaction value but specific deletion of the clause leads to interpretation that free supplies are not to be included in transaction value.
Second deletion is regarding royalties and licence fees related to the supply of goods and/or services beingvalued that the recipient of supply must pay, either directly or indirectly, as a conditionof the said supply, to the extent that such royalties and fees are not included in the priceactually paid or payable.
 
Apart from above deletions, a new clause (d) has been inserted in the inclusion list regarding interest or late fee or penalty for delayed payment of any consideration for any supply. This has the effect that interest charged from the receiver which is in the nature of penalty for delayed payment will also be leviable to GST. As per present Excise/Service Tax Laws, there are number of judicial pronouncements holding that interest for delayed payment is not includible in the transaction value. This will definitely lead to enhancement in the transaction value.
 
Thirdly, Old GST Law provided that any reimbursable expenditure or cost incurred by or on behalf of the supplier and charged in relation to the supply of goods and/or services was also to be included in the transaction value. But, this clause has been deleted in the Revised GST Law which is highly appreciated. Presently, as per Service Tax Laws, there is Delhi High Court decision in the case of Inter Continental Techno Crafts quashing the Rule 5 specifying that reimbursable expenditure is includible in the taxable value of service.
 
 
There are also amendments in certain clauses, prominent being that as per old GST Law, value of supply included any taxes, duties, fees and charges levied under any statute other than the SGSTAct or the CGST Act or the IGST Act. However, as per revised GST Law, value of supply will include any taxes, duties, cesses, fees and charges levied under any statute, other than the {SGST Act/the CGST Act} and the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to the States for Loss of Revenue) Act, 2016, if charged separately by the supplier to the recipient. Here, mention of IGST is missing which means that even IGST will be included in transaction value.
 
Furthermore, as per old GST Law, subsidies provided in any form or manner, linked to the supply were included in transaction value but as per revised GST law, subsidies provided by the Central and State Government are not to be included. This is a very appreciable step because presently, under Central Excise Laws, even subsidies provided by Central and State Governments are included in the transaction value in light of Apex Court decision in the case of Maruti Suzuki and Super Synotex.
 
Lastly, in the earlier Draft GST Law, situations were specified wherein transaction value was not applicable but not the said sub-section has been deleted.
 
 
 
 

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