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

PJ\CASELAW\3570

SCV SKY VISION (GST AAR ANDHRA PRADESH)
Issue: -Whether transfer of liabilities mandatory for sale of business as ‘going concern’? Facts: - The issue involved in this appeal is that whether transfer of business except transfer of liabilities can be considered as transfer of business as going concern so as to provide benefit of exemption. The applicant, M/s. SCV Sky Vision, is engaged in cable operation business. The applicant is a Multi-System Operator (‘MSO’) and purchases digital signals from broadcasters like E-TV, Star TV Sun TV etc. These signals are transmitted through satellite to receiving stations owned by MSOs. MSOs further transmit these signals through cables to the Local Cable Operators (‘LCO’) who own their last-mile network to individual homes and customer premises. M/s. ACM Cable Private Limited CACN’/’Company’) is engaged in provision of similar services where it receives broadcasting signals arid transmits them to individual customers through LCOs ACN has entered into a ‘Business Transfer Agreement’ with the applicant (‘Sky Vision’/ Seller’). In terms of the BTA, ACN has agreed to purchase entire cable operation business of seller. All rights, title and interest in and to the business, assets, subscribers/ customers, linked LCOs will get transferred from applicant to ACN as a going concern except the liabilities which have presently arisen or will arise for the past business relationship/ earlier period and the employees. Appellant’s contention: - The learned applicant submits that the impugned business transfer undertaken in pursuance of the BTA qualifies to be ‘Services by way of transfer of a going concern, as a whole or an independent part thereof’ is covered under service exemption Notification No. 12/2017– CT (Rate), granting exemption to services listed therein. Hence, the applicant is not liable to pay any tax in the present instance. Basis the above, it is evident that such supply undertaken by the applicant is a composite supply since a single consideration is being charged for the supply in terms of clause 4.1 of the BTA and the supplies are naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business. The intent of ACN is to take over the business of seller. Transfer of goods is only incidental and undertaken to achieve this objective. Hence, transfer of business (service component) will be the principal supply of such composite supply. Hence, the transaction will be deemed as supply of service in terms of Section 8 of the CGST Act and will be exempted. Reasoning of judgment: The AAR held that the term going concern is not defined in the CGST Act, 2017 so the term is taken in its common parlance as used in trade. The transfer of business as a whole will comprise comprehensive transfer of immovable property, goods and transfer of unexecuted orders, employees, goodwill etc. The meaning of ‘going concern’ was taken on the basis of previous judicial precedents in similar instances; - Delhi High Court held in the land mark judgement of ln Re Indo Rama Textile Limited that a company is said to be transferred as going concern when the assets and liabilities being transferred constitute a business activity when the assets along with the liabilities being transferred are capable of being run independently for a foreseeable future. - The supreme court in Allahabad Bank Vs. ARC Holding concluded that if the company is sold off as a going concern', then along with the assets of the company, if there are any liabilities relevant to the business or under taking, the liabilities too are transferred. It was held that the transaction of transfer of business in the instant case does not fit in the definition of a ‘going concern' as there is no transfer of liabilities. Therefore, the benefit of exemption available for sale of business as a going concern was held to be inadmissible to the applicant. Decision: - Ruling pronounced against the applicant.Comment: - As per the provision of CGST act, the business transferred as a “going concern” is eligible for GST exemption. However, as per various judicial pronouncements, ‘transfer of business as going concern’ is effective only when all assets including the liabilities are transferred. The pleading of the applicant that as far as the business can be run from the assets transferred, it is to be considered as going concern was rejected. Hence, the person taking over the business of another person should, in the normal course as a matter of due diligence, make sure that all the tax liabilities due under GST (CGST & SGST / IGST) laws in relation to transactions made before the date of transfer is fully discharged or are transferred along with assets
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