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/2020-2021/3553

Whether the amount collected towards Local Area Development Fund, which is kept separately and used for development of the affected area as per the guidelines of MNRE, can be treated as not a supply as per the provision of CGST Act 2017?
M/s. Karnataka Solar Power Development Corporation Limited-KAR ADGR 10/2020 Dated 18.03.2020
Issue:
  1. Whether the amount collected towards Local Area Development Fund, which is kept separately and used for development of the affected area as per the guidelines of MNRE, can be treated as not a supply as per the provision of CGST Act 2017?
  2. If it is treated as supply, what will be the HSN/SAC code under which it would be levied to tax?
  3. Without prejudice to the above, if it is treated as Supply, will it be exempt as per Sl No.3 or 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-CE as the activities to be carried out are covered under Articles 243G and/or Articles 243 W of the constitution of India?
 
Brief Facts: The applicant claims to be a Government Company in terms of Section 2(45) of Companies Act 2013; acts as Solar Power Park Developer (SPPD) and Involved in creation of infrastructure to facilitate Solar Power Developers (SPDs) to establish solar power generating units 86 to enable supply of solar power generated for general public at reasonable cost; undertakes the said project under the approval of Ministry of New 86 Renewable Energy (MNRE) and functions as per the guidelines of the said MNRE.
The applicant, for the aforesaid project, obtained lands on lease from the farmers of five villages for a period of 28 years and sub-leased the said lands to the SPDs, as per their requirement on the basis of solar power generating capacity, for 28 years to install the solar panels for generation of solar power. The applicant collects rent along with the applicable GST from the said SPDs. The applicant also required to collect an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- per MW capacity, from each SPD after commissioning of solar project, in five yearly installments of Rs 1,00,000/-each, under the guidelines of MNRE, towards Local Area Development Fund, intended to rehabilitation of the affected area.
The LAD fund so collected by the applicant is kept in a separate account by  the applicant and interest, if any, earned on such amounts also added to the said fund. The LAD fund is used for development works of the said villages, under village panchayats, by the Committee formed by the Government of Karnataka
Applicant’s Contention:    There is no supply made by the applicant to the SPDs with reference to the LAD Fund; no benefit is derived by the Applicant in the said transaction; the amount is collected as per the guidelines of MNRE & is used for only village development works; the said amount is not against any supply of goods/services made by the applicant to the SPDs.
 
The transaction does not get covered by the definition of Supply, in terms of Section 7 of the CGST Act 2017; the activity is not in the course or furtherance of business. Therefore the activity can’t be subjected to GST as it is not in the nature of supply.
Respondent’s Contention and reasoning of Judgment:
  1. It is admitted that,  the applicant has given on rental basis to SPDs and collecting the annual lease rent, which amount to ”Supply” in terms of Section 7(1)(a) of CGST Act 2017 and is leviable to GST under section 9(1) of the said Act.
  2. Valuation to be done as per section 15(2)(a) of the CGST Act 2017 that any amount of  any taxes, duties, cesses, fees and charges levied under any law for the time being in force other than the GST related Acts are includible in the value of supply. The amount is collected by applicant from the SPDs under guidelines, issued by Ministry of New & Renewable Energy, Government of India. There is not doubt that amount is collected by applicant for LAD fund are on account of supply made by the applicant and directly linked in the rent /lease payable and thus are includable in the value of rental/lease service, being provided by the applicant.
  3. The amount collected by the applicant towards LAD fund form part of value of the rent/lease service and the said service is covered under SAC 997212.  
  4. The said amount towards LADS fund by applicant is not a separate transaction but linked to the supply of rental/lease service as discussed the above paras. The exemption is available to applicant in case of pure service provided to Central Government, State Government and Local authority under serial no. 3 or 3A of notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax Rate by way of any activity in relation to any function under article 243G or 243W of the Constitution of India. In the above case, the applicant is collecting the LAD Fund from SPDs by way rental/lease service including applicable GST Rate and are not provided to any service directly to Central Government, State Government and local authority.
  5. In the instant case, the applicant has utilized the said fund for Local Area Dvelopment under Panchayats as direction given by Committee of Government, Karnataka. The said transaction is not covered under “Supply” under Section 7 of CGST Act because the government is not collect any considered against the above work and only give to instruction to applicant for utilize the said amount for Development of Local Area under Panchayats. Hence, the said activity is not covered under RCM.
 
Prepared by- VIJAY SINGH
 
 
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