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/2020-2021/3580

Whether supply of food items at GMUs (General Minor Units) at Railway Platforms which include only counter sale of packed food items, drinks and cooked item shall be treated as “Sale of Goods” or “Sale of Services”?
M/s Rajeev Kumar Garg (Uttar Pradesh AAR) Advance Ruling No. 2020 (32) G. S. T. L. 549 (A. A. R. – GST – U. P.) dated 03.06.2019
Brief Facts:  M/s Rajeev Kumar Garg is engaged in General Minor Units (GMU) at Railway Platforms at which counter sale of packed food items, drink and cooked items is done.
Issue:
(a) Whether supply of food items at GMUs (General Minor Units) at Railway Platforms which include only counter sale of packed food items, drinks and cooked item shall be treated as “Sale of Goods” or “Sale of Services”?
(b)If it is sale of services, whether the whole revenue shall be taxed @ 5% without ITC or can opt to pay tax @ 18% with ITC?
(c)If the taxes are paid @ 5%, whether assessee can claim the Input Tax Credit (ITC) of GST paid on license fees to Indian Railway or IRCTC?
(d)If answer to question (c) is negative, what will be the consequences for wrong availing of ITC?
 
Applicant’s Contention:  The applicant has contended that these GMU’s are takeaway counters and no sitting space is allowed at these places. Customers purchase these food items from these takeaway counters. No services like sitting space, air-conditioning, serving of food or any other facility are made available. And so they intend to state that their supplies are ‘supply of goods’.
 
Reasoning of Judgement:
  1. Answering the first question, AAR held that the supply stated by the applicant evidently falls under Chapter heading 9963with the description of Service mentioned at Sl. No. 7(ia) of the table, “Supply, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink, by the Indian Railways or Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd., or their licensees, whether in trains or at platforms.”in the notification no. 11/2017-Central tax (Rate) as amended by  Notification No. 13/2018-Central Tax(Rate) dated 26.07.2018.
So it has been pronounced by the ruling that the activity carried out by the applicant is ‘Supply of Service’.
  1. Coming to the second issue, AAR has pronounced that there is no option available to the tax payer. He has to pay tax @5% on the whole revenue as it is being clarified by Letter F. No. 354/03/2018-TRU dated 31.03.2018 as follows
“With a view to remove any doubt or uncertainty in the matter and bring uniformity in the rate of GST applicable for all kinds of supply of food and drinks made available in trains, platforms or stations, it is clarified with the approval of GST Implementation Committee, that the GST rate on supply of food and/or drinks by the Indian Railways or Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. or their licensees, whether in trains or at platforms (static units), will be 5% without ITC”.
 
  1. Answering the third question, it has been pronounced that credit of license fees paid to the government is not available as the condition in Notification No. 13/2018-Central Tax (rate) dated 26.07.2018 states as follows
“provided that credit of input tax charged on goods and services used in supplying the service has not been taken [please refer to Explanation No. (iv)]”.
 
  1. The fourth question is being answered in negative stating that commenting on the wrong availment of credit is outside the purview of AAR.
 
Comment:-Government had already issued clarifications with respect to the second and third questions put forth by the applicant. Further the AAR has rejected to comment on the fourth question as it does not fall under their purview. But in our opinion it falls under Section 97(2) of CGST Act, the relevant portion is being reiterated below.
(2) The question on which the advance ruling is sought under this Act, shall be in
respect of,––
……..
…….
(d) admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid;”
 
Prepared by- CA Akanksha Bohra
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