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/2019-2020/3593

Whether liable to pay GST on the portion of the payment received on account of the bonus paid or payable to the persons it deploys as security personnel?
EX-SERVICEMEN RESETTLEMENT SOCIETY(GST AAR West Bengal) Order no. 35/WBAAR/2019-20 dated 29/11/2019
Issue:- Whether liable to pay GST on the portion of the payment received on account of the bonus paid or payable to the persons it deploys as security personnel?
 
Brief Facts: - The Applicant, stated to be a registered society providing security services and scavenging services to various hospitals under the State Government. The Applicant classifies its service under SAC 998525. It includes providing protective services through hired personnel to ensure the safety of people or property by guarding them against fire, theft, vandalism or illegal entry, such as security guard services. It appears from the Agreement that the Applicant provides a specific number of security personnel from among ex-servicemen for round the clock security job.
 
Appellant’s Contention:-In Memo No. 3790-F(Y) dated 21/0712014, the Finance (Audit) Department of the State Government clarifies that the monthly charges payable to the private security agencies deployed in Government establishments has two parts – (i) service charge and (ii) security charge. The service charge is determined based on L1 bid and remains fixed for the period of the service contract. The security charge is the minimum wages for the security personnel, their entitlements to ESI, EPF and Bonus, as applicable. It is variable according to the minimum wages stipulated by the State Government from time to time.
The Applicant accordingly claims the minimum wages, employer’s portion of EPF, ESI etc. on its bill for monthly charges and charges GST on the gross amount, including the security charges. In its Memo No. HF/0/MS/273NV-148/2015 dated 28/10/2016, Health & Family Welfare Department of the State Government directs that the contractual security personnel be paid Bonus @ 8.33% once in a year. The Applicant, therefore, makes separate bill for claiming the Bonus amount. No GST, however, is charged on such Bonus bills.    
 
Reasoning of Advance Ruling:-  The Applicant can recruit, deploy, withdraw or replace any security personnel, provided the recipient is kept informed. It is not a manpower recruitment agency. The State Government is not recruiting any security personnel through the Applicant. The latter is the employer of the security personnel deployed and is responsible for paying all statutory dues, including employer’s contribution to EPF, ESI etc.
Employer’s contribution to EPF, ESI etc. and payment of Bonus at the Government approved rate are, therefore, components of the Applicant’s expenditure. It is entitled to pass this liability to the recipient, who, in terms of the Agreement, is apparently ready to bear that liability. Such an agreement, however, does not create a master and servant relationship between the recipient of the service and the security personnel [Security Agencies Association vs Union of India; (2013) 58 VST 295 (Kerala)]. Payment received from the recipient on account of the bonus paid or payable to the persons deployed as security personnel is not, therefore, guided by Para 1 of Schedule III.
The Applicant is, therefore, liable to pay GST on the portion of the payment received on account of the bonus paid or payable to the persons it deploys as security personnel.
 
Conclusion: - Activities which shall be treated neither as a supply of goods nor a supply of services is not covered when two parties has not servant and master relationship then applicant is liable to pay GST on the payment received for bonus amount which was indirectly paid to security personnel.
 
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