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

GST Update on Circular 103/22/2019-GST dated 28th June 2019

Clarification regarding determination of Place of Supply in certain cases

GST Update on Circular 103/22/2019-GST dated 28th June 2019
 
The place of supply has been in dispute since its inception. Even the dispute was there in service tax regime also. It has continued in GST era also. The Government intends to clarify the disputes related to place of supply by issuance of circular. This circular intends to discuss about the issues under Place of Supply in case of:-

* Services provided by Ports in respect of arrival of wagons at port.
 
* Services on unpolished diamonds such as cutting and polishing activity, which have been temporarily imported into India and are not put to any use in India.
 
 
1. Services provided by Ports in respect of arrival of wagons at port which includes the services are in respect of arrival of wagons at port, haulage of wagons inside port area up-to place of unloading, siding of wagons inside the port, unloading of wagons, movement of unloaded cargo to plot and staking hereof, movement of unloaded cargo to berth, shipment/loading on vessel. It was argued at some places that it is service related to immovable property, hence the place of supply should be the location of immovable property.

2. Further, two things decide whether a supply is inter-state or intra-state. One is location of supplier and other is place of supply. If location of supplier and place of supply are in the same state then CGST and SGST is to be charged. But if it is in different state then IGST is to be charged. Now, if we take place of supply as port being the immovable property and location of supplier i.e. location of shipping line. If Indian shipping line provides the services then CGST/SGST/IGST will be charged depending on location of supplier and place of supply. But if the foreign shipping lines provides the services then location of Service will be outside India but the place of supply is in India. Hence, it will be treated as import of service and importer has to pay tax under reverse charge method.
 
3. However, it is clarified that the services provided by the Port Authorities are not related to immovable property but are in relation or incidental to the cargo handling services, hence the place of supply will be goverened as per the 12(2) or 13(2) which are the general clauses of section 12 and 13 respectively. Sec 12(2) covers the cases where the Supplier and the Recipient both are in India.

If the Recipient is Registered POS will be the location where the Recipient is registered
If the recepient is not registered but his address exists on record POS will be the location of the address which exists on records
If the recepient is not registered and his address also does not exists POS will be the Location of Supplier

 
Thus, the Indian shipping line provides the services to Indian exporter or importer then tax will be charged accordingly. But in case of foreign shipping line providing service to Registered Indian customers then also the tax will be charged as import of service. If it is provided to unregistered Indian customer then also the place of supply will be usual place of business then it will be import of service. In that case also, the Indian recipient has to take the registration and pay the GST under reverse charge following the recent Advance Ruling in case of Jalaram feeds. Last situation where the usual place of business is not available on record is a very hypothetical as importer/exporter has to give usual place of business while filing Bill of Entry or shipping bill with the custom department. Hence, third situation does not arise. Thus, in every case, the tax is to be paid either under forward charge or reverse charge.
 
 
4. Second issue clarified by this circular is that the Services on unpolished diamonds such as cutting and polishing activity, which have been temporarily imported into India and are not put to any use in India then it has been clarified that the POS shall be governed as per 13(2) shall apply
 
Although it is the case of performance based services yet the circular has not clarified on this line. If performance based service is applicable then generally 13(3)(a) applies here. In that case, the place of supply will be place where performance has taken place. When it is imported into India and repairing is done in India then place of supply will be in India. The provider of service is also the person who has done repairing, hence the location of such service provider is also in India and place of supply is also in India, hence GST will be payable. But it will not qualify for export of service as place of supply is in India only.
 
However, the circular says that where goods which are temporarily imported into India for repairs or for any other treatment or process and are exported after such repairs or treatment or process without being put to any use in India, other than that which is required for such repairs or treatment or process, the place of supply would be determined as per 13(2).
Sec 13(2) covers the cases where any of the Supplier or the Recipient is outside India.
 

If the location of Recipient is known POS will be the location where the Recipient is located
If the location of recipient is not available POS will be the Location of Supplier

 
Now, in this case supply provider is in India and recipient is outside Indian then place of supply in that case will be location of recipient i.e. outside India. Hence, it will be termed as export of service if the payment is received in foreign convertible currency. Hence, it is beneficial to assessee as no tax will be applicable on export of services. The second provision of location of recipient is not available is not in existence in real life. He has to declare his address while sending goods into India. He has to declare normal value of goods also so as to clear the formalities of Customs.

This update is solely for educational purpose

You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com and also at our facebook page at
https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/ and follow us on twitter https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21
 

Post a Comment
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