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/2020-2021/3579

Whether the issue of Own Closed PPIs by the ‘Applicant’ to customers be treated as supply of goods or supply of services as defined under the provisions of the GST?
Kalyan Jewellers India Limited (GST AAR Tamilnadu) Order No. 52/ARA/2019dated 25.11.2019
Brief Facts-The Applicant is carrying on the business of Manufacturing and Trading of Jewellery Products in Tamil Nadu as well as across different states in India. KJIL is a Manufacturer and Trader in Gold and other Jewellery items through their retail outlets and also online portal. KJIL, as part of sales promotion, introduced the facility of issuing different types of Pre-Paid Instruments ((herein after referred as PPI’s) to their customers through their retail outlets as well as engaging third party online portal. These PPIs are generally called as “Gift Vouchers / Gift Cards” in the trade Practice. The PPIs are subject to Payment and Settlement Act 2007.
The taxpayer issued its PPIs (closed-ended PPIs), at face value, to its customers, which can be redeemed at any outlet of the taxpayer, across the country, for purchase of jewellery. Separately, the taxpayer has issued its PPIs to the third party at a discount, and the said third party, in turn, would issue the said PPIs at face value to the end customers (semi-closed PPIs).
Issues-
  1. Whether the issue of Own Closed PPIs by the ‘Applicant’ to customers be treated as supply of goods or supply of services as defined under the provisions of the GST?
  2. If yes, is the time of issue of Own Closed PPIs by the ‘Applicant’ to customers is the time of supply of goods or services warranting tax liability
  3. If yes, what is rate of taxes applicable for such supply of goods or services as the case may be
  4. If yes, whether the issue of PPIs by Third Party PPI Issuers subject to GST at the time of issue in their Hands
  5. Whether the amount received by the ‘Applicant’ from Third party PPI issuers subject to GST
  6. If No, GST collection at the time of sale of goods or services on redemption of PPIs i.e. own and from Third Party will be a sufficient compliance of the Provisions of the CGST Act.
  7. What is the treatment of Discount (the difference between Face value and discounted value) in the hands of issuer of PPI in case of third party PPIs. Whether the ‘Applicant’ will be liable to pay GST on this difference Value
 
Applicant’s Contentions- The applicant contended that PPIs are not goods for the following reasons-
  • PPIs are governed by a Master Direction issued by Reserve Bank of India w.e.f. 11-10-2017 under Section -18 read with Section 10(2) of the Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007.
  • PPI’s are a kind of ‘Actionable Claim’ as defined under Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
  • Equivalent to money
  • As defined under Clause 6 of the Schedule III to the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 the PPIs are excluded from the levy of GST, as it is a kind of actionable claim.
  • As there is no element of manufacturing process involved in the scope for the levy of Central Excise Duty was absent, hence Central Excise not levied on this kind of Vouchers (PPIs).
  • The levy of Octroi or Local Body Tax by Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act (Act No.LIX of 1949) on “Sodexo Meal Vouchers” treating as goods was not sustained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of M/s. Sodexo Sve India Pvt LTd Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, Wherein, the Hon’ble Court has treated `Sodex Meal vouchers’ as expenditure incurred by such employer and amenity in the hands of employee, nothing but salary, as defined under Section 17 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
 
> PPIs are not services for the following reasons-
  • levy of Service Tax was started in 1994 on selected services, where there was no scope for the levy of Service Tax on PPIs issued.
  • In the case of Union of India Vs. Delhi Chit Fund Association (2014) 43 GST 524 (SC), it was held that in a mere transaction of money or actionable claim no service was involved and no service tax leviable.
  • In H.Anraj Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu in AIR 1986 SC 63, 71 the elements of actionable claims are framed as under:-
            i) Any type of debt other than a debt secured by mortgage of immovable or             hypothecation or pledge.
            ii) Any beneficial interest in movable property not in possession.
  • In the case of Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd Vs. Union of India (2008) 14 STI’ 242 (Sikkim), relying on M/s. Sunrise Associates Vs. Union of India (2006) held that Lottery Ticket is an ‘Actionable Claim’.
 
> PPI contains two parts namely:-
(i) In first part, deposit of money for which PPI is being issued which is not service. In Banks no service tax is being levied for such deposit/receipt of money.
(ii) In second part, the money so received is being utilized/ adjusted for sale of Jewellery, for which GST is leviable at the time of supply of Jewellery, as the PPI’s is merged with a supply of goods and the scope for levy of service tax is completely absent.
> The time of supply of goods/services, where vouchers are involved, it is specified under Sub-section (4) of Section 12 85 Section 13 of the GST Act as under;
i) the date of issue of voucher, if the supply is identifiable at that point;or
ii) the date of redemption of vouchers, in all other cases.
> In this case, the supply is not identifiable, as the Jewellery is class of goods comprising of numerous items of gold or diamond jewellery and exact item of goods are not identifiable or ascertainable at the time of issue of voucher (PPI), hence time of supply could not be fixed for the levy at the time of issue of vouchers (PPIs).
> Moreover it is an actionable claim, will not come under the purview of GST as per the Clause 6 to the Schedule III to the GST Act.
Reasoning by Authority and Decision-On the various issues raised before the AAR, the authority observed as under:
  1. PPIs are not an actionable claim - It is not a claim to debt, nor does it give a beneficial interest in any movable property to the bearer of the instrument. If the holder of the gift card/ voucher loses or misplaces it and is unable to produce it before the taxpayer stores before the time limit specified on the card/ voucher, the instrument itself becomes invalid. Then the customer cannot use it to pay for any goods. Thus it is not an actionable claim as defined under the Transfer of Property Act. It is only an instrument accepted as consideration/part consideration while purchasing the goods from the issuer, and the identity of the supplier is established in the PPI.
  2. PPIs are vouchers/goods under the CGST Act - It qualifies as a voucher as defined under Section 2(118) of the CGST Act since it would be accepted as a consideration against the purchase of goods. The voucher has both a value and ownership and is the property of whoever first purchases or redeems it and is movable. It is neither money nor actionable claim, as discussed above. Hence, these gift vouchers/ cards issued by the taxpayer are ‘goods’ as per Section 2(52) of the CGST Act.
  3. Time of supply - As mentioned by the taxpayer, PPIs are redeemable against any jewellery purchase. Accordingly, the time of supply of PPIs is the date of redemption of PPIs.
The authority has held that paper-based Pre-paid Payment Instruments (‘PPIs’) are classifiable under chapter heading 4911 (subject to GST at 12%) and plastic gift cards under chapter heading 8523 (subject to GST at 18%).
Prepared by- CA Preksha 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