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

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