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/2020-2021/3587

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