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/2018-2019/3507

Whether sale of spiritual products by charitable trust is considered as supply and liable to GST?
 
Case: SHRIMAD RAJCHANDRA ADHYATMIK SATSANG SADHANA KENDRA

Citation: Order No. GST-ARA-41/2017-18/B-48-Mumbai, dated 14-6-2018

Issue: Whether sale of spiritual products by charitable trust is considered as supply and liable to GST?
 
Brief Facts: The appellant company Shrimad Rajchandra Adhyatmik Satsang Sadhana Kendra is a religious charitable trust registered under the section 12AA of the income tax act, 1961 working in the field of spreading the knowledge of Jain dharam and publications of books and other religious materials. The Applicant sought clarification primarily as to:
  • Whether the applicant which is a charitable trust with main object of the advancement of religion, spirituality or yoga is liable to registration under GST?
  • Whether sales of spiritual products which is incidental/ancillary to main charitable object of the applicant can be said to be business of the applicant in terms of the definition in Section 2(17)?
  • Whether the sale of spiritual products can be said to be supply under Section 7?
 
Appellant’s contention:The applicant presented that it is settled law that where the public charitable trust carries out activity for advancement of its main object of charitable purpose, the same cannot be said to be business in commercial sense as defined in the taxing Statute.  
The applicants relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sai Publication Fund (2002) 4 SCC 7 (SC), where in the Supreme Court categorically held that where the main activity is not business, then any incidental or ancillary transaction, unless established by the revenue department to be an independent business transaction, will also be considered as charitable only and not business.
 The applicant also contended as since the aggregate of taxable supplies of goods and services does not exceed Twenty Lakh Rupees, the applicant is not liable for registration under Section 22(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Respondent’s Contention  and reason of Judgment:The department referred to the Explanation Note issued to the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28th June, 2017 by Directorate General of Taxpayer Services Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Notes states -
 “There is no exemption for supply of goods by Charitable Trusts. Thus any goods supplied by such Charitable Trusts for consideration shall be liable to GST. For instance sale of goods shall be chargeable to GST”.
In view of the above detailed discussions, court concluded that the applicant is engaged in Trade and Commerce by way of selling of goods and services and are very well covered under the definition of ‘business’ as given under Section 2(17) of the CGST Act and in view of this, their activities are very well covered within the scope of ‘supply’ as given in Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 and are therefore liable to tax as applicable in respect of goods supplied or services rendered.
Under the GST Act, not all services provided by a Trust registered under Section 12AA would be termed as a charitable activity. Only the following activities are termed as charitable activity and are exempt from GST :
•      Services relating to public health
•      Public awareness of preventive health, family planning or prevention of HIV infection;
•      Advancement of religion, spirituality or yoga;
•      Advancement of educational programs or skill development relating to :
○      Abandoned, orphaned or homeless children;
○      Physically or mentally abused and traumatized persons;
○      Prisoners; or
○      Persons over the age of 65 years residing in a rural area;
  • Preservation of environment including watershed, forests and wildlife.
 
As applicant trust generates income from sale of goods, provides for accommodation and foods in various Shibir/Satsang on payment/chargeable basis. Such arranging residential or non-residential Satsang/Shibir/yoga camps by accepting/charging some amount from the participants will not be covered under “charitable activities” within the meaning of definition provided at Definitions at 2(r) of Notification No. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 of the expression charitable activities and in particular advancement of religion, spirituality or yoga.
 
Court came to the conclusion that the activities carried on by the applicant is in the nature of business as defined u/s 2(17) of the GST Act and further considering the GST Regulations that all services provided by the religious trusts and charitable institutions are not exempt from tax.
 
Comment: It was clarified that the GST law is very precise on what activities do fall under the ambit of charitable object and what activities do not qualifies to be covered under its ambit. The crux of the case is  that ancillary activities like sale of spiritual products doesn’t qualify for exemption and are liable to GST.
 
Prepared by: Shubhanshu P. Jain
 
 
 
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