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

Publish Date: 25 Dec, 2009
Print   |    |  Comment

Inter-state transactions:Far from solutions!

 

Inter-state transactions: Far from Solutions!

By:

CA Pradeep Jain

Siddharth Rutiya

 

THE famous Hindi proverb  (The disease increases as and when the treatment is undertaken) applies to interstate transactions. These interstate transactions has become non curable disease for the Centre. In the present scenario VAT is levied on transactions pertaining to sale of goods within the state wherein the credit of VAT paid by the buyer is allowed to him, which he can utilize for discharging his output VAT liability. But the transactions relating to Inter-State sale of goods are subject to levy of CST (Central Sales Tax). In this situation the credit of CST paid on interstate sale of goods is not allowed which leads to a huge cost burden on the seller or dealer. To overcome this cost burden and to be competitive in the market the dealers establish their branches and/or depots in other states and route their transactions in such a way that the transfer of goods to such branches and/ or depots does not attract CST levy and during the sale from these depots/branches, only VAT is payable, which in turn is allowed as credit to them. Thus, everyone prefers to purchase from intra state rather than interstate. The CST charged will add to the cost and no credit of the same is available.

To overcome this lacuna in the present scenario of indirect tax structure Government has recently initiated its efforts towards introduction of a new tax regime GST. With the introduction of First Discussion Paper on GST by the Empowered Committee of State Finance Ministers on November 10, 2009; Government placed its first stepping stone in bringing this new indirect tax scheme and making it a great success. Under the First Discussion Paper the Government has proposed to setup a dual structure of Central GST (CGST) and State GST (SGST) to be imposed on the manufacture of goods and on provision of services. A continuous chain of set-off would surely eliminate the burden of all cascading effects.

In this article we have made an effort to analyze the situations between GST tax scheme in case of transactions between two states (inter-state), commonly known by the name Inter State GST (IGST) and present situation under CST law. Further, we in this article have structured out the comparison between Inter-state transactions and Intra-state transactions under GST Scheme alongwith the pros and cons under both the scenarios.

Levy of GST on Transactions within the State

Transactions pertaining to manufacture and sale of goods and also including provision of services carried on within a state would attract the levy of CGST and SGST both and the assessee will be required to pay element of both CGST and SGST separately. Further as per the proposed scheme it is the Assessees obligation to maintain separate records for both SGST & CGST and deposit these duties separately in revenue accounts.

Simultaneously, the Assessee is required to avail the Input Tax Credit (ITC) separately for both these duties and more to he will be allowed to utilize the ITC in this respect individually without mixing the credit availed. In other words it can be said that the credit of CGST taken by the assessee will have to be utilised to pay CGST only and credit of SGST taken will be allowed to be utilized to pay SGST only. Cross adjustment of tax credit between CGST and SGST will not be allowed.

Levy of GST on Inter-State Transactions

Government has proposed a different tax structure for inter-state transactions of goods and services to be known as IGST (Inter-State GST). As discussed in First Discussion Paper, the Government has proposed that the said IGST will be levied by the Central Government and it would be a composite tax which would include both CGST and SGST in it.

However, as per the scheme drafted by the Government in regards to such Inter State transactions it is proposed that the inter-state seller will have to pay IGST on value addition after adjusting available credit of IGST, CGST and SGST on his purchases. Further, as far as the credit of SGST is used in payment of IGST is concerned, it will be transferred by the Centre to the Exporting state. Simultaneously, the Importing dealer will claim credit of IGST while discharging his output tax liability in his own State and the Centre will transfer to the importing State the credit of IGST used in payment of SGST.

Pros and Cons of IGST Model: -

The analysis of First Discussion Paper brings out the following pros and cons of IGST Model listed as under: -

Ø      Maintenance of uninterrupted ITC chain on inter-State transactions.

Ø      No upfront payment of tax or substantial blockage of funds for the inter-state seller or buyer.

Ø      No refund claim in exporting State, as ITC is used up while paying the tax.

Ø      Self monitoring model.

Ø      Level of computerization is limited to inter-State dealers and Central and State Governments should be able to computerize their processes expeditiously.

Ø      As all inter-State dealers will be e-registers and correspondence with them will be by e-mail, the compliance level will improve substantially.

Ø      Model can take ‘Business to Business' as well as ‘Business to Consumer' transactions into account.

Thus, in case of inter-state transactions, the credit can be adjusted in both CGST and SGST. The credit of IGST can be used to for payment of either CGST or SGST both.

Threshold Exemption for CGST and SGST

The First Discussion paper also proposes for various threshold exemptions from CGST and SGST levies separately. It proposes for an exemption limit of Rs. 150 Lakhs in CGST, which is at par with exemption limit for small scale manufacturers under the present Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the exemption from SGST is kept at par with the current VAT exemption limits.

Similarly, the discussion paper also proposes to provide for an exemption limit from CGST for the service provider, which are currently enjoying exemption of Rs. 10 Lakhs under Finance Act, 1994.

The discussion paper brings out a strange concept wherein it is proposed that the State Authorities will be empowered under their respective state GST statutes to exempt various goods that are of peculiar nature looking to the specificity existing in that state. These exemptions will be area specific and shall prevail for that state jurisdictions only. We are of the view that if such a power is being granted to the states then the situation will be that certain goods will be exempted by SGST in that state, however, CGST will be levied on those products.

The above peculiarity of exemption schemes as proposed under the First Discussion Paper leads to a situation where it is possible that various units might be availing separate exemptions for CGST and SGST individually. This will lead to a troublesome situation as if the CGST is exempt then the assessee will not be allowed to take the credit of CGST and similarly, if the SGST is exempt then credit of the same will not be allowed to him.

Analyzing the above situation we deduce that, in a case where an assessee is granted exemption from CGST but SGST is applicable, then the credit of CGST will not be available to him but he will be able to take the credit of SGST. From this aspect if we consider transactions from one state to another then IGST will be paid as it will be available as credit since SGST is payable on his final product or output services. Then he will be able to take the credit of IGST which is sum total of CGST and SGST. He will be more benefited as the CGST is not payable but he will be able to take the credit of CGST in garb of IGST. He will adjust the same in payment of SGST.

If this happens then it will lead to a circumstance where an assessee is exempted either from CGST or SGST and the other is payable. In such a situation he will like to procure goods or services from outside state rather than inside the state. This will reverse the position as existing now in the VAT. In current regime, if one purchase from outside state then he has to pay CST and the credit of same is not available. But if an assessee purchases goods inside the state then VAT is payable and credit of the same is available. As such, everyone intends to purchase the goods from inside the state.

Although the Discussion paper does not clear the situation in its entirety as to what will be the exact situation and what will be the law in case of IGST levy. At this present level it is very untimely to say anything with utmost surety as to what will be the exact position but we have prepared this article on our understanding of the said paper.

Conclusion

Thus, from the above discussion and analysis, we are of the view that the initiation by the Government to remove the deficiency under the present CST law has not resulted in a fruitful step. Earlier the dealers used to prefer sale transactions within the state so as to reduce their cost burden by availing the credit of VAT paid but if the GST law is introduced as such with the features as stated above in this article then it will be beneficial for the dealers to prefer Inter-State transactions as this will lead to levy of IGST and under GST tax regime full Credit of IGST is allowed along with cross utilization of same.

In a nut shell we can say that the situation that prevailed prior to introduction of GST will be completely reversed once the GST comes into picture. Under GST law Inter-State transactions will be more advantageous to the assessees/dealers who are providing output service or are manufacturing final product and are simultaneously availing exemption benefits under any threshold exemption.

The views expressed by us in this article are the views as understood by us while analyzing the recommendations of Empowered Committee of State Finance Ministers and in no way signifies the views of the Government. The scenario as analyzed by us above will be clear only after the Government releases a GST code or further clarification on this matter. From Government's side also, the utmost care has to be taken of this point while drafting the rules and regulations for GST.

 

Comments

  • V.S. Datey on 02 January, 2010 wrote:

    I have read your interesting article. In my view, IGST is the best idea evolved and in fact that only will save the GST regime. The present provision of claiming refund by dealer is unworkable and prone to corruption and harassment. In my view, after introductrion of IGST, the area based exemptions will become redundant in majority of the cases. the buyer will not be able to get credit of IGST (since the seller is exempt). Thus, he has to pay full SGST and CGST on entire value. hence, no benefit in opriocuring goods from area based unit (except when these are for direct consmption of the buyer)

Post a Comment



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