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/Case Law/2020-2021/3587

Whether procurement of advertisements for the Directory is classifiable as selling of space for advertisement in print media?
M/s Infobase Services PVT. LTD.(West Bengal AAR) Advance Ruling No. 2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 570 (A.A.R. - GST - W.B.) dated 24.12.2019.
Brief Facts:  The Tollygunge Club Ltd. has engaged the applicant for supplying the service of printing the ‘Directory of Members 2020’. The applicant entered into an agreement with the Club for marketing of advertisement space for the Directory. The applicant will have to finance the project cost of printing the Directory from the proceeds from sale of space for advertisements. If it exceeds the final project cost for printing, the applicant will gain 75% of the differential amount. If it does not cover the cost of such printing, the applicant will have to bear the losses to that extent. The applicant will raise tax invoice on the Club for the printing service. However, the Club will also raise invoice on the applicant for the amount by which the proceeds from sale of advertisement space falls short of the cost of printing. The applicant, in addition to supplying printing service, is also acting as an intermediary on behalf of the Club for selling space for advertisements.
Issue: Whether procurement of advertisements for the Directory is classifiable as selling of space for advertisement in print media and whether Sl. No. 21(i) of Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 is applicable?
Applicant’s Contention:The applicant contends that the directory is not for commercial purpose and is a book which forms part of the Clause 2(zr) of the notification No. 9/2017-integrated tax rate dated 28.06.2017. The definition of print media is as follows
“includes books, as defined in Section 1(1) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, but does not include business directories, yellow pages and trade catalogues which are primarily meant for commercial purpose”
Reasoning of Judgement:It has been observed by the authority that the applicant is making a bundled supply to the Club of printing service and intermediary service for selling space for advertisement on behalf of the Club and charging a single price for the bundle as the project cost for printing. The two services are not naturally bundled or supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business. It is a specific feature of the agreement between the applicant and the Club. It is, therefore, not a composite supply but a mixed supply and shall attract highest rate of tax.
Selling of space for advertisement, when made as an intermediary, is classifiable under SAC 9983 62, which excludes sale of advertising space in print media and is taxable @ 18% under Sl. No. 21(ii) of the Rate Notification. Service by way of printing of all goods falling under Chapter 48 or 49 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (where the physical inputs are supplied by the printer) is taxable @ 12% under Sl. No. 27(i) of the Rate Notification. The mixed supply of the applicant should, therefore, be treated taxable under Sl. No. 21(ii) of the Rate Notification.
Further the authority has pronounced that Club’s supply of the service of selling space for advertisement is not considered as the Club is not the applicant. And so is not in the scope of AAR as per section 95 of the CGST Act.
 
Comment:-  In case of Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd.(KAR/ADRG 03/2020 Date 09.01.2020), the Applicant for advance ruling is here by  rejected, in terms of Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017 with the reason that AAR cannot be filed by recipient of Services or Goods or Both. The applicant raises the objection for charging GST on the Electricity charges and questions the lessors about the legal authority/ source of law.
In the similar case of Dr. Dathu Rao Memorial Charitable Trust (GST AAR Tamilnadu) Order No. 3/AAR/2018 dated 30.07.2018, the application was rejected without going into the merits of the case, on the issue of lack of jurisdiction.
With so many recipients urging to accept their applications, it is suggested that the government should widen the scope of Advance ruling authorities.
Prepared By- CA Akanksha Anchaliya
 
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