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/2016-2017/3460

: The applicant is engaged in exclusive supply of wholly exempted goods and services in addition he is liable to pay tax under Reverse Charge mechanism as per Section 9(3) of the GST Act or 5(3) of the IGST Act. Whether the applicant will be liable for re
Case: JOINT PLANT COMMITTEE
Citation: 2018 (13) G.S.T.L. 89 (A.A.R. - GST)
Issue: The applicant is engaged in exclusive supply of wholly exempted goods and services in addition he is liable to pay tax under Reverse Charge mechanism as per Section 9(3) of the GST Act or 5(3) of the IGST Act. Whether the applicant will be liable for registration under any clause of Section 24 of the GST Act even if it is not making any taxable supply.
Brief facts: The issue involved in the appeal is filed by Joint Plant Committee(hereinafter referred to as the assessee). The assessee created under notifications of the Ministry of Steel, Managing and Operating Development Fund and other funds accumulated under Iron & Steel (Control) Order, 1956, and undertaking other allied activities, i.e., study and analysis of and maintenance of a comprehensive database on market situation in Iron & Steel Sector - Main source of income of applicant being interest earned on extending deposits, loans and advances, Sale of Journals and Renting of Guest Houses at rent below Rs.1000 .All these supplies are exempt from GST under various Notifications under Central and State GST laws .The assessee have filed an application, under Section 24 of the GST Act on 21-3-2018 for advance ruling hence the same is admitted.
Appellant contention:The Applicant is a non-profit organization set up by the Central Government under Clause 17 of the Iron & Steel (Control) Order vide SO 1567, dated 7-4-1971. The Applicant declares that it has not been registered under any of the repealed Acts and wants a ruling on whether it is required to be registered under the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 The functions of the Applicant, as specified in the above notifications of the Ministry of Steel, Government of India, include Management and Operation of the Steel Development Fund and other funds accumulated under the Iron & Steel (Control) Order, 1956, study and analysis of and maintenance of a comprehensive database on market situation in the Iron & Steel Sector including fluctuation in market price, production, availability and movement of material etc. It appears from the statement of accounts for the year ending on 31-3-2017, submitted along with the Application, that the main source of the Applicant’s income is interest accrued on the deposits and on the loans provided from the Steel Development Fund. A secondary source of income is the consideration received from sale of journals and periodicals and from renting accommodation in its guest houses. The aggregate turnover from these sources well exceeds the threshold of twenty lakh rupees and makes it liable for registration under Section 22(1) of the GST Act, provided it does not make exclusively supply of goods or services that are not liable to tax or wholly exempt from tax under the GST Act.The Applicant’s supplies of journals and periodicals are wholly exempt under Serial No. 120 of Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate).The Applicant’s case is that its supplies of services are not taxable either. The Applicant declares it makes no other supplies of goods or services.
Reasoning of Judgement:The Authority for Advance Ruling stated that it has considered the submissions made by the applicant in their application for advance ruling. It has also considered the question/issue on which advance ruling is sought by the applicant, relevant facts having bearing on the question/issue raised, the applicant’s understanding/interpretation of law in respect of the issue.The applicant sought advance ruling on the question that whether the applicant will be liable for registration under any clause of Section 24 of the GST Act even if it is not making any taxable supply but is liable to pay tax under Reverse Charge as per Section 9(3) of the GST Act or 5(3) of the IGST Act.
Reverse Charge Mechanism - Applicability to unregistered person - Advance Ruling - Since applicant is unregistered and also not liable to be registered, provisions of reverse charge under Section 9(4) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or Section 5(4) of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 will not apply - Section 9(4) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. [para 11]
Section 24 is not subject to the provisions of Section 23 of the GST Act. If a person, therefore, is not liable to be registered for making exclusively exempt supplies but is liable to pay tax under Reverse Charges under Section 9(3) of the GST Act or 5(3) of the IGST Act, he shall be required to get himself registered under the GST Act, irrespective of the quantum of the aggregate turnover.
Based on information furnished along with the Application and the material presented at the time of Personal Hearing, it is, therefore, held that the Applicant is engaged exclusively in supplying goods and services that are wholly exempt from tax, and, therefore, not liable to be registered in accordance with the provisions under Section 23(1) of the GST Act, subject to the condition that the Applicant is not otherwise liable to pay tax under the Reverse Charge mechanism under Section 9(3) of the GST Act or 5(3) of the IGST Act.
As the applicant is unregistered and not liable to be registered, the provisions of Reverse Charge under Section 9(4) of the GST Act or 5(4) of the IGST Act will not apply.
Decision: The Advance ruling was in favour of assessee.
Comment: The gist of the case is that if the applicant is not required to be registered under the GST act, but is liable to pay Reverse Charge then the provision of reverse charge mechanism under Section 9(4) of the GST Act or 5(4) of the IGST Act will not apply.
Prepared by:Bhavika Kanjani
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