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 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