Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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