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/2016-2017/3467

Whether the Hotel Accommodation and Restaurant services provided by the applicant, within the premises of the Hotel, to the employees and guests of SEZ units, be treated as supply of goods and services to SEZ units in Karnataka or not?

Case: GOGTE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
Citation: 2018 (13) G.S.T.L. 114 (A.A.R. - GST)
Issue: Whether the Hotel Accommodation and Restaurant services provided by the applicant, within the premises of the Hotel, to the employees and guests of SEZ units, be treated as supply of goods and services to SEZ units in Karnataka or not?
Brief facts: M/s. Gogte Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, 2nd Floor, NASCO ISHANNYA, 27/1, Khanapur Road, Tilakwadi, Belgaum - 560 006, having GSTIN number 29AAACG9426F1ZI, have filed an application, on 25-11-2017, for advance ruling under Section 97 of CGST Act, 2017, KGST Act, 2017 & IGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of CGST Rules, 2017 & KGST Rules, 2017, in form GST ARA-01.
The applicant is engaged in hotel business, having hotel “Fairfield Marriott” and provides hotel accommodation and restaurant services. They are providing services to the employees and guests of some of the units in SEZ, Belgavi, in addition to the regular customers. They are charging SGST and CGST at the applicable rates. The SEZ units contended that the services are being supplied/rendered to SEZ units only and hence rate of GST is NIL as per provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of IGST Act, 2017. Therefore the applicant filed this instant application seeking advance ruling on the following issue :
“Whether the Hotel Accommodation and Restaurant services provided by them, within the premises of the Hotel, to the employees and guests of SEZ units, be treated as supply of goods and services to SEZ units in Karnataka or not?”
Appellant’s contention: . The applicant submitted Specific authorization, issued by Sri Prabhakar S. Apte, Director, M/s. Gogte Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., authorizing Sri R.L. Barve, Chartered Accountant to represent the applicant in and to produce accounts and documents connected with the proceedings before the authorities in respect of the instant application for Advance Ruling under CGST/SGST Act, 2017.
The authorized representative Sri R.L. Barve, Chartered Accountant during the personal hearing proceedings stated/pleaded that the applicant is a public limited company; that they are into the hotel business providing hotel accommodation and restaurant services in Belgaum; that the hotel is situated outside the SEZ and also independent of SEZ; that the billing is done on SEZ company for employees of SEZ; that they have not entered into any contract with either SEZ or any unit in the SEZ; that they are not giving any concessional rate to the billings of SEZ at present; that SEZ units contended for concession; that SEZ units gave letter to the hotel to provide billing in their name whenever any of their guest/employee uses the services/facilities and hence they filed the instant application.
Reasoning of Judgement: The AAR considered the submissions made by the applicant in their application for advance ruling as well as the submissions made by Sri R.L. Barve, Chartered Accountant during the personal hearing. They also considered the issue/transaction(s) involved on which advance ruling is sought by the applicant, relevant facts of the transaction(s) involved, the applicant’s understanding of rate of tax in respect of the transaction(s).
The applicant, filed this application dated 25-11-2017 for advance ruling, seeking clarification as to “Whether the Hotel Accommodation and Restaurant services provided by them, within the premises of the Hotel, to the employees and guests of SEZ units, be treated as supply of goods and services to SEZ units in Karnataka or not?”
Supply of goods or services or both to a Special Economic Zone developer or a Special Economic Zone unit are treated as ‘Zero-Rated Supply’ in terms of Section 16(1)(b) of IGST Act, 2017. Further Rule 46 of CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that the invoice shall carry an endorsement “Supply meant for export/Supply to SEZ unit or SEZ Developer for authorised operations on payment of Integrated Tax” or “Supply meant for Export/Supply to SEZ unit or SEZ Developer for authorised operations under Bond or Letter of Undertaking without payment of Integrated Tax” as the case may be. Therefore on reading Section 16(1)(b) of IGST Act, 2017 and Rule 46 of CGST Rules, 2017 together it is clearly evident that the supplies of goods or services or both towards the authorised operations only shall be treated as supplies to SEZ Developer/SEZ Unit.
The place of supply of the services by way of lodging accommodation by a hotel, shall be the location at which the immovable property (hotel) is located or intended to be located, as per Section 12(3)(b) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Also the place of supply of restaurant and catering services shall be the location where the services are actually performed, as per Section 12(4) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In the instant case, admittedly, the applicant is located outside the SEZ. Therefore the services rendered by the applicant are neither the part of authorised operations nor consumed inside the SEZ.
Since place of provision of services in case of Hotel has been prescribed under the Act ‘location of the Hotel’ the rendition of services of restaurant, short term accommodation and Banqueting/conferencing cannot be said to have been ‘imported or procured’ into SEZ Unit/Developer. Hence, by no stretch of imagination and therefore, in the instant case, the supply is intra-State supply.
Decision: The Hotel Accommodation and Restaurant services being provided by the applicant, within the premises of the Hotel, to the employees and guests of SEZ units, cannot be treated as supply of goods and services to SEZ units in Karnataka and hence the intra-State supply and are taxable according.
Comment:   The analogy of the case, if an applicant is rendering hotel accommodation and restaurant services to the employees and guests of SEZ units within the hotel premises but outside SEZ then the same shall not be treated as supply to the SEZ unit as these goods and services are neither consumed inside the SEZ unit nor they are under the purview of authorized operations. Consequently, it shall be treated as an Intra State Supply of goods and services and shall be taxable accordingly.  But yet some experts still believe that provision of accommodation services by hotel to SEZ units shall be treated as inter - state supply.

Prepared by:   Prateeksha 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