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

Update on importance of consignment note in determining tax liability 114/2020-21

Update on importance of consignment note in determining tax liability 114/2020-21

The issue regarding issuance of consignment note by GTA for levying tax has been matter of dispute since erstwhile indirect tax regime as there were contrary decisions rendered by courts. This confusion is continued in GST regime as well as recently, advance ruling was filed by M/s Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation before AAR to seek answer as to whether they are liable to pay GST under reverse charge mechanism on services of transportation availed by unregistered transporters when no consignment note was issued to them. The decision of AAR is the subject matter of discussion in our present update.
 
As per Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017,” goods transport agency” means any person who provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note, by whatever name called. In the present case, the applicant is a Government body constituted under State Assembly of Uttarakhand State and is sole agency for removal and sale of forest produce from the entire forest area in Uttarakhand. The applicant after felling trees gets timber transported to its sale depots. For this purpose, the applicant hires truck transporter from open market accordingly as per availability of vehicles and get transported to its sales depot from road head. Due to unique nature of goods, the applicant itself fills Form 2.1 for transportation of goods which is called “Ravana”. Form 2.1 is printed format of applicant to transport timber from one place to another which carries details of material, vehicle no., name of driver & signature & other details. Thereafter the goods are handed over to transporter with signed Form 2.1. The truck transporter after delivering the goods receives Form 3.3 from depot officer of applicant which proves that he has delivered the goods. Further, transporters do not issue any consignment note.
The AAR found that ‘consignment note’ has not been defined in the Act or in the Notification either. Therefore, they referred Explanation to Rule 4B of Service Tax Rules, 1994 wherein ‘consignment note’ has been defined as a document provided by a goods transport agency against the receipt of goods for the transport of goods by roadways in a goods carriage. The document contains the details like serial number, name of the consigner and consignee, registration number of the goods carriage in which the goods are transported, details of goods being transported, details of the place of origin and destination, and the person who will be liable for payment of freight. AAR noticed that the details required to be mentioned in the consignment note were also mentioned on the so called ‘ravana’ issued in the case. Hence, it was concluded that said ‘ravana’ should be considered as consignment note as if it is interpreted that non-issuance of consignment note by GTA does not require payment of GST, then it would open avenues for tax evasion which is definitely not intended. Therefore, it was held that the services received from the unregistered transporters by the applicant falls under the definition of “GTA’ services in terms of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and the same are covered under ‘RCM’ in terms of Notification No. 13/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
The provisions of GST law are similar to erstwhile indirect taxation law and so the judicial pronouncements of erstwhile regime have reference value in GST era also. It is worth mentioning that there have been decisions rendered by various Tribunals in the erstwhile regime that non-issuance of consignment notes would not attract service tax liability. To illustrate, reference may be made to CHHATTISGARH STATE CO-OPERATIVE MKG. FEDERATION LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF S.T., RAIPUR [2019 (22) G.S.T.L. 265 (TRI. - DEL.)] andNORTHERN COAL FIELD LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., ALLAHABAD [2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 245 (TRI. - ALL.)] wherein it was held that consignment notes are mandatory requirement for levying service tax and non-issuance of consignment will lead to no liability to discharge service tax. However, contrary view was taken in the case of BHARATHI SOAP WORKS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX., GUNTUR [2008 (9) S.T.R. 80 (TRI. – BANG.)]wherein it was held that non-issuance of consignment note cannot be ground for not following statutory provisions and transporters were bound to issue consignment notes and service recipient were liable to pay service tax. Therefore, the tussle regarding importance of consignment note for levying tax will be resolved only by decision of Apex Court or clarification by the Government.
 

This is solely for educational purpose.
You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com , at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/ as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21 and u may also follow us on Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16 
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