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/2020-2021/3573

Whether exemption prescribed under entry number 13 of notification no. 9/2017- integrated tax (rate) dated. 28th June, 2017 can be sought and the lessors (here Ambrish Vasudeva and 4 others) need not charge GST while issuing the invoice for the lease serv
Sri. Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish (Advance Ruling No. KAR ADRG 17/2020) dated 23.03.2020
Brief Facts: - The applicant along with four others collectively has let out a Residential complex to M/s. D. Twelve Spaces Pvt. Ltd which is engaged in the business of providing affordable residential accommodation to students on a long term basis (starting from 3 to 11 months). Along with such accommodation, the Company is also engaged in providing a host of other services such as maintenance, food, Wi-Fi etc. generally called as a Paying Guest Accommodation.
Issue: - 1. Whether exemption prescribed under entry number 13 of notification no. 9/2017- integrated tax (rate) dated. 28th June, 2017 can be sought and the lessors (here Ambrish Vasudeva and 4 others) need not charge GST while issuing the invoice for the lease service to m/s. Dtwelve Spaces Pvt. ltd.
2. Whether the lease service falls under the Exemption prescribed and can be described as “Services by way of renting of residential swelling for use as residence”? as listed in the aforesaid Notification.
Applicant Contentions: -
  • The applicant contends that “renting of immovable property” is covered under Schedule II of CGST Act 2017 which defines it as the supply of services on which the applicable GST rate is 18%.
  • The applicant further states that Schedule II Entry 2(b) reads as any lease or letting out of the building including a commercial, industrial or residential complex for business or commerce, either wholly or partly, is a supply of services.
  • The applicant further refers to the Notification No. 9/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017 wherein Entry 13 of such Notification provides that: “Services by way of renting of residential dwelling for use as residence” are exempt from GST.
  • Further M/s. DTwelve Spaces Pvt. Ltd. Has entered into sub lease agreement with students for providing residential accommodations with living amenities, security, entertainment facilities for a long stay for a period varying from 3 months to 11 months. Thereby, DTwelve has concluded that the rental accommodation services provided by DTwelve to the students will not attract GST. Consequently, there would be no GST obligation on DTwelve in case of lease arrangement with their lessor too (Here Ambrish Vasudeva and 4 others). Therefore, DTwelve is of the opinion that the lessor should not charge GST to DTwelve when issuing the invoice for the lease service.
  • The applicant states that as they, Ambrish Vasudeva along with four others have let out a residential complex to M/s Dtwelve Spaces Pvt. Ltd. to conduct their business are of the view that GST should be charged for invoices raised towards lease service.
 
Reasoning of Advance Ruling: - The authority contended that right to use the immovable property without transfer of the ownership of the immovable property. This is in the course or furtherance of the business hence,the transaction between the lessor and the Company would constitute a “supply”.
The authority also refer entry no. 2(b) of second schedule to the CGST Act, 2017,
“(b) any lease or letting out of the building including a commercial, industrial or residential complex for business or commerce, either wholly or partly, is a supply of services.”
Here, the applicant is not individually providing service but as a group of persons they are providing the services, after pooling in their assets. Since, the applicant is not the only one who is providing service to the company, so invoice needs to be issued by the group to the company and the transaction between the individuals and the Group are different transactions, as the individuals are distinct from the Group of Individuals.
The exact nature of the group cannot be ascertained and it is not a question and hence it is not answered. It is suffice here only to rule that the question of charging or not charging GST for the transaction between the applicant and the Company does not arise as the applicant himself is not effecting any supply of service to the Company directly.
“Entry 13. Heading 9963 or Heading 9972 – Services by way of renting of residential dwelling for use as residence”
This is related to “renting of residential dwelling “for use as residence”. The contract of the applicant group with the Company is verified and found that what is given is an immovable property consisting of only rooms with attached toilets as per the Layout of the leased premises annexed to the Lease agreement and does not fit into the meaning of a dwelling which means a house. They are like hotel rooms and the entire leased premises have 42 rooms, which can by no imagination be termed as a residential dwelling. Even if the same is given for residential purposes, the services provided are not for use as residence by the lessee.
Services by a hotel, inn, guest house, club site or campsite, by whatever name called, or other commercial places for residential or lodging purposes are covered by different entries in the schedule of this notification or under different notifications and this shows that rooms though given on rent for residential purposes would not amount to residential dwelling and hence the entry is not applicable for the transaction of the lessor with the lessee.
Ruling: -         
1. The exemption prescribed under entry no. 13 of Notification No. 9/2017 -Integrated tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 cannot be sought and the lessors (as an entity) have to charge GST while issuing the invoice for the lease services to M/s DTwelve Spaces Pvt. Ltd, provided they are registered under the GST Act.
2. The lease services does not fall under the exemption “Services by way of renting of residential dwelling for use as residence” as listed in entry 13 of Notification No. 9/2017 – Integrated tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017.
Comment:- The AAR order dated March 23 is likely to trigger a number of litigations. With this ruling, lessors may not have the comfort of presuming GST to be exempt, where end use of the property is residential.
On the basis of the ruling, tax authorities could well begin demanding 18% GST applicable on renting out commercial property from landowners leasing residential hostel-style accommodations to schools, colleges, educational institutions, offices, corporate, or any other establishment,
Prepared by CA Mahesh Parmar
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