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/2020-2021/3568

Whether he is eligible to be in the composition scheme as his aggregate turnover is much less than Rs. 50, 00,000?
M/s Empathic Trading Centre KAR ADRG 28/2020 dated 23/04/2020
Brief Facts:- The Applicant is engaged in the business of supplying goods and is also a supplier of service of renting of immovable property and both the activities of the applicant are taxable. He is currently registered under composition scheme as his turnover is less than Rs.50 Lakhs.
Issue: -1. Whether he is eligible to be in the composition scheme as his aggregate turnover        is much less than Rs. 50, 00,000?
2. Whether the rate of composition tax applicable is 1% for the turnover of goods (sales) and 6% for the turnover of service (rent). The two separate taxes amounts to be totalled and paid or is it 6% as a whole for the aggregate turnover of goods and service turnover that is to be paid?
Applicant Contention: -The contention of the Applicant is that since the turnover is less than Rs.50 lakhs, he is eligible for composition scheme as the scheme is applicable to both sale of goods and service. The applicant further submits that the supply of goods and the supply of service are unrelated and totally unconnected and hence he is liable to pay 1% as composition tax on supply of goods and 6% on the supply of service.
Reasoning of the Judgement: -The Authority states that there is no dispute that both the activities of the applicant are taxable and also supplied by the same person. The authority further discusses the eligibility of composition scheme under section 10.  The applicant admittedly is supplying services and hence the eligibility for composition scheme is dependent on the satisfaction of the condition stipulated in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 10. If the turnover of services of the applicant exceeds ten per cent of turnover in a State or Union territory in the preceding financial year or five lakh rupees, whichever is higher, then he shall not be eligible to composition scheme.
Even if the applicant obtains separate registration, one for the goods and other for the services, he would not be eligible for composition for both the lines of business. Hence the applicant is not eligible for composition under section 10 of the CGST Act if the turnover of services of the applicant exceeds Rs.5 Lakhs or ten percent of turnover is the state, whichever is higher.
Coming to the notification no.2/ 2019 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 07.03.2019, the said notification prescribes the rate of tax for the "first supplies of goods or services or both upto an aggregate turnover of fifty lakh rupees made on or after the 1st day of April in any financial year, by a registered person" and is not issued under section 10 of the CGST Act, 2017. Hence it is not a composition scheme but is an optional scheme.
The conditions for the scheme are as under:"1. Supplies are made by a registered person, -
(i) whose aggregate turnover in the preceding financial year was fifty lakh rupees or below;
(ii) who is not eligible to pay tax under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act
The authority for advance ruling has held that the applicant shall be eligible to pay tax under the said notification, only if the applicant is not eligible to pay tax under section 10(1) of the CGST Act and since the applicant does not satisfy the above condition as he is registered under Section 10 of CGST Act, 2017 , he could not opt for the prescribed notification 2/2019 CTR although he satisfies the other condition of the turnover limit is less than Rs.50 Lakhs and hence he satisfies this condition and other conditions are not applicable to him. Hence the applicant is not eligible to pay tax under the registered as Composition Taxpayer.
If the applicant opts out of the Composition levy and he obtains separate registrations for the two lines of business, as per second condition, he shall be liable to pay tax at 3% CGST and 3% SGST on the each of the turnovers of the registrations. The tax is on the entire aggregate turnover i.e all the "first supplies of goods or services or both upto an aggregate turnover of Rs.50 Lakhs". Hence the applicant is liable to pay tax under CGST Act at 3% and at 3% under KGST Act, if he opts to pay tax under the said Notification after opting out of Composition levy on the entire value of supplies made and he cannot apply different schemes for different types of transactions.
Held:-
1.The authority for advance ruling held that the applicant is eligible to be in the composition scheme under section 10 of the CGST Act, 2017 if the turnover of services of the applicant does not exceed ten per cent of turnover in a State or Union territory in the preceding financial year or five lakh rupees, whichever is higher.
2. The applicant is not eligible to opt to pay tax under the Notification No.2/2019- Central Tax (Rate) dated 07.03.2019 and under the Notification (02/2019) No. FD 48 CSL 2017 dated 07.03.2019 of the Government of Karnataka as the applicant is registered as a Composition Taxpayer.
3. The rate of tax applicable on the entire value is 3% CGST and 3% KGST and he cannot pay tax at 1% on supply of goods and 6% tax on the supply of services.
Comment: - The notification no. 2/2019 has been issued  as Central Tax (Rate) Notification having reference of section 9(1) pertaining to levy and collection, section 11(1) specifying power to grant exemption from tax and section 16(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 stating eligibility and conditions for taking input tax credit. The main portion of the notification specifying the powers under which the notification has been issued itself indicates that the notification no. 2/2019-Central Tax (Rate) is not composition scheme and rather it is kind of exemption notification.
Prepared by- Kartik Singhvi
 
 
 
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