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

Publish Date: 14 Jul, 2014
Print   |    |  Comment

EXTENDING ADVANCE RULING TO RESIDENT PVT. LTD. COMPANIES

EXTENDING ADVANCE RULING TO RESIDENT PVT. LTD. COMPANIES

 

An Article by:-
CA Pradeep Jain
CA Neetu Sukhwani &
Ankit Palgauta
 

The Union Budget 2014-15 was announced by The Hon’ble Finance Minister ‘Arun Jeithly’ on 10.07.2014. In this budget, some amendments have been made in the regime of Indirect Taxation i.e. Central Excise, Service tax, Customs etc. One of the amendments is about eligibility of availing Advance Ruling in Central Excise, Customs and Service tax matters. This is a very beneficial step taken in order to reduce litigations.
 
Glance at the Earlier Provision:-
 
As per provisions relating to Advance Rulings contained in section 23C of the chapter III A of central Excise Act, 1944, and similar provisions contained in Section 96A of the Finance Act, an applicant desirous of obtaining an advance ruling may make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, stating the question on which the advance ruling is sought. For this purpose, followings are allowed to make application to advance ruling authority-
 

  •  a non-resident setting up a joint venture in India in collaboration with a non-resident or  a resident; or
  •  a resident setting up a joint venture in India in collaboration with a non-resident; or
  •  a wholly owned subsidiary Indian company, of which the holding company is a foreign company, or which, as the case may be, proposes to undertake any business activity in India;
  •  a joint venture in India; or
  •  a resident Public limited companies
  •  a resident falling within any such class or category of persons, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, and which or who, as the case may be, makes application for advance ruling under sub-section (1) of section 23C;

 
 
Amended Provision:-
 
The amendment seeks to extend the benefit of Advance Ruling to Resident Private Limited Companies. In pursuant to section 23A (c)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and similar section 96A (b)(iii) of the Finance Act, 1994, the government has exercised its power to specify “Resident Private Limited Companies” as the category of persons who may obtain advance ruling. This amendment is made vide Notification no. 18/2014 CE (NT) DT. 11.07.2014 in Central Excise, vide Notification no. 51/2014 CUS (NT) DT. 11.07.2014 in Custom and vide Notification no. 15/2014- ST DT. 11.07.2014 in Service Tax.
 
Thus, through above mentioned notifications, Central Government has exercised the power and specified the Resident Private limited Companies as class of person eligible to make application for Advance Ruling.
 
For the purposes of this notification,-
 

  1. “private limited company” shall have the same meaning as is assigned to “private company” in clause (68) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013);

 
(b) “resident” shall have the same meaning as is assigned to it in clause (42) of section 2 read with sub-section (3) of section 6 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961).

 
Conclusion:-
 
Presently, only a selected category of persons are eligible for Advance Ruling. The definition of applicant as given consists of mainly Joint venture having non-residents also and Resident Public Limited Companies. Now, the Central Government has made efforts to include ‘Resident Private Limited Companies’ under the meaning of the Applicant eligible for filing application of Advance Ruling in Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax matters.
 
Thus, this is a welcome step by the Government. This facility of Advance Ruling is primarily available only to non-residents who want to carry on business in India with residents and wants to be very clear about tax implications so as to be free from any litigation or dispute. This step of Government will enable the ‘Resident Private Limited Companies’ to obtain Advance Ruling in cases of Central Excise, Customs and Service tax matters. By this step, more exact, consensus or uniform ruling may be obtained by the Resident Private Limited Companies and harmony may be achieved in the tax compliance. Thus, the Government is gradually increasing the scope of Advance Ruling which is a good indication for error- free and litigation free working. In the near future, the same would provide conducive tax environment to work in. 

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