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

PJ/Case Law/2020-2021/3556

Rate of tax on the services to be provided and the applicability of entry No.69 or 72 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 on the sub contractor.
 
M/s M V Infra Services Pvt. Ltd KAR ADRG 04/2020 dated 17.02.2020
Brief Facts: -The appellant is engaged in provision of composite works contract services of erection, foundation, electrical works & painting of communication towers and their maintenance. They are expected to get sub contract work, of imparting training of soft skill development to Engineers, ITI students, Building and other construction workers, from the main contractor exclusively engaged in skill development training & are likely to get the main contract work.
Issues: -Rate of tax on the services to be provided and the applicability of entry No.69 or 72 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 on the sub contractor.
Appellant Contention: -The applicant contends that the total expenditure of the said training programme is to be borne by the Government under its flagship Skill Development Mission; they, though under sub-contract, will be providing services to Maharashtra State Skill Development Society, Skill Development & Entrepreneurship Department, Government of Maharashtra in a "bill to-ship to" model; the services of main contractor are exempted under entry No.72 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and the applicant, through the main contractor, will be providing the same services to the Government of Maharashtra and hence the said services, to be provided by the applicant under sub-contract, also should be exempted.
The applicant intends to rely on the order passed by Madhya Pradesh Advance Ruling Authority in the case of M/s. Network For Information & Computer (GST AAR Madhya Pradesh) dated. 10-04-2019, wherein applicant is engaged in Commercial Training 8s Coaching and business auxiliary services provided to Uttar Pradesh Skill development Corporation, through which they train the youth of Uttar Pradesh for gainful employment of the candidates, is being exempted from the payment of taxes vide SI. No. 72 of the Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate), dated 28th June, 2017.
Entry No.72 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 exempts services provided to the State Government under any training programme for which total expenditure is borne by the State Government. In the instant case, the impugned training programme is hosted by the State Government of Maharashtra and hence the services provided under the said programme are exempt and accordingly main contractor is eligible for exemption.
The applicant intend to rely on the Advance Ruling given by this authority in the case of M/s Quatro Rail Tech Solutions Ltd., and also the ruling in the case of M/s NHPC Ltd., issued by the Advance Ruling Authority, State of Uttarakhand.
Reasoning of Judgement: -
Entry No.69 exempts the services, covered under Service Code 9991 or 9992 or 9983, provided by
(a) the National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) set up by Government of India,
(b) a Sector Skill Council (SSC) approved by the NSDC,
(c) an assessment agency approved by the SSC or NSDC,
(d) a training partner approved by NSDC or SSC; in relation to
(i) National Skill Development Programme implemented by NSDC, or
(ii) a vocational skill development course under the National Skill Certification and Monetary Reward Scheme; or
(iii) any other scheme implemented by NSDC.
In the instant case, the tender has been called by Maharashtra State Skill Development Society, Skill Development and Entrepreneurship Department, Government of Maharashtra which is neither NSDC nor a SSC. The tender was meant for empanelment of "Training Providers". The applicant has not furnished any documentary evidence so as to arrive at whether the main contractor qualifies to be a training partner, approved by either NSDC or SSC, or not. Further the training providers are not entitled for exemption under the entry No.69. Therefore the main contractor, in case if they get the said work, would not be entitled for exemption under this entry for the said work.
Entry No. 72, of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, which exempts the services, covered under Service Code 9992, provided to the Central Government, State Government, Union Territory Administration under any training programme for which total expenditure is borne by the Central Government, State Government, Union Territory Administration. In the instant case, the main contractor, if they get the work, would be providing service, of training for Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) to construction workers, to the Government of Maharashtra, for which total expenditure is to be borne by the Government of Maharashtra. Therefore the main contractor would be eligible for exemption under entry No.72 of the said notification, subject to fulfillment of the aforesaid conditions.
The last issue was whether the aforesaid exemption that is applicable to the main contractor is applicable to the applicant or not. The conditions for the entitlement of the said exemption are as under:-
a) The services must be related to/ under any training programme.
b) The services must be provided to the Central Government, State Government and Union Territory Administration.
c) The total expenditure for the said training programme must be borne by Central Government, State Government and Union Territory Administration.
In the instant case though the services to be provided by the applicant would be under training programme for Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) to construction workers, the services would be provided to the Main Contractor i.e. the recipient of the services would be the Main contractor, but not the State Government.
Therefore, the rate of 18% GST is applicable on services to be provided under sub-contract to main contractor, who in turn provides to M/s Maharashtra State Skill Development Society (MSSDS), in respect of training of Building and other construction workers (skill development training) and the SI. No. 69 or SI. No. 72 of the notification 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) New Delhi, dated 28th June, 2017 are not applicable to the applicant.
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