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/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