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 25.02.2016

SECTION 17. VALUE OF TAXABLE SUPPLY:-

GST DAILY DOSE OF UPDATION:-
 
SECTION 17. VALUE OF TAXABLE SUPPLY:-
 
(1)  The value of a supply of goods and/or services shall be the transaction value, that is the price actually paid or payable for the said supply of goods and/or services where the supplier and recipient of the supply are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the supply.
 
(2)  The transaction value under sub-section (1) shall include:
 
(a)  Any amount that the supplier is liable to pay but which has been incurred by the recipient of the supply and not included in the price actually paid or payable for the goods and/or services;
 
(b)  The value, apportioned as appropriate, of such goods and/or services as are supplied directly or indirectly by the recipient of the supply free of charge or at reduced cost for use in connection with the supply of goods and/or services being valued, to the extent that such value has not been included in the price actually paid or payable;
 
(c)  Royalties and license fees related to the supply of goods and/or services being valued that the recipient of supply must pay, either directly or indirectly, as a condition of the said supply, to the extent that such royalties and fees are not included in the price actually paid or payable;
 
 
(d)  Any taxes, duties, fees and charges levied under any Statue  other than the SGST Act or the CGST Act or the IGST Act;
 
(e)  Incidental expenses such as commission, packing, charged by the supplier to the recipient of a supply, including any amount charged for anything done by the supplier in respect of the supply of goods and/or services at the time of, or before delivery of the goods or, as the case may be, provision of services;
 
(f)   Subsidies provided in any form or manner, linked to the supply;
 
(g)  Any discount or incentive that may be allowed after the supply has been effected.     
 
It is pertinent to note that the concept of transaction value as prevalent in section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is proposed to be incorporated in the GST regime with certain modifications. As per the transaction value in Central Excise Act, the value of goods is the price actually paid for the goods sold along with money value of additional consideration flowing from buyer to seller but excluding taxes actually paid. In the proposed GST regime, all taxes leviable on goods like CST, VAT, excise duty etc. will be subsumed into single tax. However, inspite of this, the provision as regards value of taxable supply includes taxes, duties, cess etc. levied under other Statues. It is not understandable which taxes are to be included in the value of taxable supply as all taxes will be merged into GST. Moreover, the fundamental principle on which GST regime is designed is to avoid cascading effect and if any other taxes are included in the value of taxable supply, it would tantamount to levy of tax on tax which is totally unjustifiable.
 
 
Furthermore, subsidies provided in any form or manner which is linked to supply will also be included in the taxable value. It is worth observing that this issue is the point of litigation even in the present scenario wherein a class of assessees is permitted to retain certain amount of VAT collected by them from the buyers in lieu of subsidies provided by the State Government. This is being objected by the revenue department and it is being contended that the VAT retained should be includible in the assessable value for the purpose of paying excise duty because as per section 4 of the Central Excise Act, the taxes actually paid are excluded but taxes retained by assessees are to be included in the assessable value. However, it appears absurd that the subsidy granted by way of adjustment in VAT collected should form part of the assessable value because it is not consideration flowing from buyer to seller. But, since there are two Apex Court decisions reported as COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-II VS SUPER SYNOTEX INDIA LIMITED [2014 (301) ELT 273 SC] and COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI III VS MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED [2014 (307) E.L.T. 625 (S.C.)], the issue is under dispute in the present scenario. It appears that the subsidy granted to assessees are specifically included in the value of taxable supply in the proposed GST regime.
 
You may also visit our FB page at the following link
 
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