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/2020-2021/3566

Whether work constitutes composite contract or is it separate contract for each work undertaken? What will be the effective rate of tax in the given facts?
M/s Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd- AAR Madhya Pradesh Order Number 16/2019 dated 25.09.2019
Brief Facts: - The Assesses has taken work under e-tender process by MP Power Generating Company Pvt Ltd for General Civil, Electrical and Mechanical Works Package of Shri Singaji Thermal Power Project. The tender though a consolidated work order, has categorical mentions of individual work to be carried out by the applicant with specific remuneration of each such work. Assesses has considered that the contact is a composite contract and chargeable at a concessional rate of GST in terms of notification no. 11/2017-CT (R).
Issue: - Whether work constitutes composite contract or is it separate contract   for each work undertaken? What will be the effective rate of tax in the given facts?
Appellant’s Contention: -Appellant contended that the tender is issued by the government entity. It has been a composite supply which is being supplied to a government entity and accordingly the same would be entitlement of concessional rate of GST in terms of Sr. No. 3 (vi) of Notification no. 11/2017-CT(R) as amended vide notification no. 24/2017-CT(R) & 31/2017-CT(R) .
 
Respondent Contention and reasoning of Advance Ruling: -In the instant case, the applicant have been awarded a consolidated contract for carrying out different specified works at Shri Singaji Thermal Power Project, which includes erection, commissioning, installation etc. – It is also necessary to place on record that there are certain items mentioned in the subject contract including, but not limited to, ‘Fitness Centre cum Gym’, which definitely do not find place in the ambit of essential work entrusted by the State Government to MPPGCL. Needless to mention that such work shall not qualify for exemption as envisaged under Sr.No.3(vi) to the Notification no. 11/2017-CT(Rate), in as much as it does not fall within the scope of work entrusted by Government of Madhya Pradesh to MPPGCL.
 
The work entrusted vide subject tender document/contract awarded to the Applicant by MPPGCL cannot be termed as composite supply and thus entire work under the said contract shall not be entitled to concessional rate in terms of Notification No.11/2017-CT(R) dtd.28.06.2017 – Also, the supply of goods and/or services which squarely fall within the ambit of scope of work entrusted to MPPGCL by the Government of Madhya Pradesh shall be entitled for concessional rate under Sr.No.3(vi) to Notification No.11/2017-CT(R). Accordingly, each and every supply under the subject contract shall be treated separately for determining the rate of tax under the CGST Act 2017 read with the provisions of GST Tariff and respective exemption notifications.
 
Thus, the tender document in question is a not consolidated contract and each supply under the said contract shall be chargeable to tax individually, depending upon the individual classification of such supplies and rate of tax applicable at the time of supply.
 
Authority claimed that issue of MPPGCL being a Government entity has been dealt with at length in the Order passed by this authority in the matter of M/s.Shreeji Infrastructure India P.Ltd. and therefore, they are of the view that MPPGCL 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. Work involved in the contract is work as per object of MPPGCL and/or incidental to it.
 
Ruling:-The tender document in question is a not consolidated contract and each supply under the said contract shall be chargeable to tax individually, depending upon the individual classification of such supplies and rate of tax applicable at the time of supply.
Conclusion: - Mere fact that a number of tasks have been entrusted to the applicant through a single document would not make it entitled to be categorised as 'composite supply' particularly in terms of Section 2(30) of the CGST Act 2017. The above activities performed by the person is nota composite supply as per section 2(30) of CGST Act, 2017 in terms of notification no. 11/2017-CT(R).The relied on the advance ruling M/s. Shreeji Infrastructures P. Ltd.vide order dtd.18.10.2018 where under the issue of construction of residential quarters has been held to be out of purview of exemption under notification no. 11/2017-CT(R).
 
Prepared by CA Mahesh Parmar
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