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/2018-2019/3496

Whether the works contract service of construction of residential quarters provided to MPPGCL would be taxable at concessional rate of 12% or 18%?
Case:M/s. Shreeji Infrastructure India P. Ltd. (GST AAR Madhya Prdesh)
Citation:Advance Ruling Order No. 15/2018 dated 18.10.2018
Issue:  Whether the works contract service of construction of residential quarters provided to MPPGCL would be taxable at concessional rate of 12% or 18%?
Brief facts:M/s. Shreeji Infrastructure Private Limited (herein after referred to as the ‘applicant company’), is engaged in carrying out the works contract in relation to construction of road, bridges, buildings, civil structures of government, semi government and private undertakings, secured through tenders in the case of government undertakings, and through personal negotiations in case of private undertakings. The applicant company raised Running Bills (RA bills) for the portion of work completed at a point of time to MPPGCL by charging CGST and SGST at the rate of 9% each, in view of Notification no. 11/2017Central Tax (rate) dated 28.06.2017 Chapter 99 Section 5 Heading 9954- entry 3(ii).
 
Whereas the service recipient MPPGCL is of the opinion that the applicable rate of GST should be 12% as per Notification no. 11/2017Central Tax (rate) dated 28.06.2017 Chapter 99 Section 5 Heading 9954- entry 3(vi)(c), by treating itself as a government entity and the work allocated to the service provider is the work which is the work supplied to it by the government.
 
Appellant’s contention: The applicant  is of the view that, work entrusted to the government entity means the work of sovereign nature. For eg. If construction of road is directly allotted to the applicant company by the government, then the applicable rate of GST would be 12%. And in the same line, if the work is allotted through medium of government entity, then also the rate shall be 12%.However in the impugned case, MPPGCL, has allotted the work contract of construction of 599 residential quarters to the applicant company, and by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that this work has been entrusted to MPPGCL by the MP government which thereafter allotted the same to the applicant company.
 
Respondent’s Contention:   MPPGCL claimed that, it has been established by the Madhya Pradesh government, and 100% shareholding and control is being carried out by the MP state government. Further, this company has been exclusively formed to carry out the work of power generation. Therefore, it is an entity unequivocally covered under the purview of “Government Entity”.
MPPGCL further claimed that, the construction of 599 residential quarters for its staff is also covered under the condition prescribed under entry 3(vi)(c) of the notification (supra). The condition prescribes that, the concessional rate of 12 (6+6)% is applicable on fulfilment of the following: “where the services are supplied to a government entity, they should have been procured by the said entity in relation to a work entrusted to it by the CG, SG or the Union Territory or local authority, as the case may be.”.
 
Reasoning of Judgement:  As per Notification No. 31/2017 – Central Tax (Rate), Dated – October 13, 2017 issued under CGST Act, 2017 and corresponding notification under MPGST Act, 2017:
 Government Entity is defined as “Government Entity means an authority or a board or any other body including a society, trust, corporation, i) set up by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature; or ii) established by any Government, with 90per cent, or more participation by way of eguity or control, to carry out a function entrusted by the Central Government, State Government, Union Territory or a local authority.” MPPGCL has been established by the Government of Madhya Pradesh and the Government of Madhya Pradesh has a 100% shareholding in the company. The State Government is also exercising full control over the activities of the said company. Therefore, M/s. Madhya Pradesh Power Generation Company Limited is a Government Entity as defined under Notification No.31/2017-Central tax (Rate) for the purpose of GST law. 
However, the civil construction of residential quarters is neither the primary work entrusted to MPPGCL nor it has any bearing on the work i.e. power generation by any means. Any work having direct involvement in the entrusted work i.e. power generation would merit exemption envisaged under Sr.No.3(vi)(c) of the Notification No.11/2017-CT(Rate) under CGST Act and corresponding notification under MPGST Act 2017.
Decision:  The authority decided that The activity in question definitely does not have any relation to the principal work of power generation entrusted by the state government to MPPGCL, and therefore the works contract service of construction of 599 residential quarters allotted to the applicant by MPPGCL will merit classification under SAC 9954 and would attract GST @ 18% (9% CGST + 9% SGST).
Comment: The decision of the advance ruling is in alignment of conditions to avail exemption mentioned in the Notification no. 11/2017 Central Tax (rate) dated 28.06.2017issued by the government. The intention of the legislature behind the concessional rate to such work is entrusted to a government entity for public interest in general. Any work having direct involvement in the entrusted work would merit exemption envisaged under Sr.No.3(vi)(c) of the Notification No.11/2017-CT(Rate) under CGST Act but extrapolating and extending this concessional rate to any or all activities of government entity will not only be unwarranted but also defeat the very purpose of concessional rate.
 
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