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/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