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

() Posted On: 20 Aug, 2020

We are selling a second hand car which was purchased in VAT period. We have sold the same in June 2020. Whether the GST is to be paid on complete amount or on the margin only? Futher, the abatement will be available on the same. Whether benefit of both notifications will be available to us? Eloborate with an example.

Ans. This query is in reference to our Query No. 3 posted on 19th Aug 2020 as ?GST QUERIES #93/2020-21? regarding sale of used Motor Vehicle. We have received a lot of comments on this query and we are very thankful to our vigilant readers for the feedback of the same. We had mistakenly written that the abatement is @65%. We intend to apologize our vigilant readers for the inconvenience caused due to typo- graphical error. We really appreciate our readers for putting up the concern so that it could be rectified. So, in this note we intend to discuss the applicability of tax on sale of used Vehicle. We shall be discussing two important notifications issued with respect to sale of used vehicles. ? Notification No. 37/2017 ? Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.10.2017 It has been issued to provide for tax at 65% of central tax applicable on motor vehicles falling in tariff heading 87 under Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated, 28th June, 2017. The benefit under the above notification is admissible if the following conditions are satisfied:- 1. The supplier of Motor Vehicle is a registered person. 2. Such supplier had purchased the Motor Vehicle prior to 1st July, 2017 and has not availed input tax credit of central excise duty, Value Added Tax or any other taxes paid on such vehicles Also, the sunset clause of this notification has been kept as 1st July, 2020. In view of above discussion, it is clear that the benefit of paying tax only on 65% shall be available. ? Notification No. 8/2018 ? Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018 This notification intends to exempt and reduce the rate specified in notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) applicable on the sale of used vehicles. We are presenting the rates period wise and vehicle wise below in a tabular form for ease of reference Category of vehicle (Based on notification no.01/2017 & 08/2018) ? CT (R) GST rate up to 25/01/2018 GST rate from 25/01/2018 Petrol Vehicles with more than 1200cc engine capacity & 4000mm length (HSN 8703) 28% 18% Diesel Vehicles with more than 1500cc engine capacity & 4000mm length (HSN 8703) 28% 18% SUVs (including utility vehicles) with more than 1500cc engine capacity (HSN 8703) 28% 18% Vehicles other than those mentioned above, including other vehicles under chapter 87 28%/18%/12%* 12% For the purposes of obtaining the benefit under this notification, the above two conditions specified in 37/2017-Central Tax (Rate) need to be satisfied. Explanation given in this notification determines the taxable value which shall be difference between the consideration received for supply of such goods and depreciated value of goods on the date of supply. If it is positive then it is to be taxed at the rates specified above in the table. If it is Negative then no tax is payable. Now, the moot question that arises here is whether the abatement of 35% shall also continue along with the benefit of margin scheme. Notification 37/2017 is issued under section 9(1) of the Act which explains levy and collection of CGST on intra state supplies. Notification number 8/2018 is issued under Section 11 of CGST Act, 2017 provides power to government for granting exemption from CGST on intra state supplies. Thus, accordingly, both the notifications are issued under different sections of the Act i.e. section 9 which prescribes tariff rates while section 11 grants exemption. Thus, both are not exemption notification. Therefore, benefits of both the notification can be availed. Now, we will explain the above query with the help of an example, Mr. X purchased a vehicle on 01.04.2012 that is pre-GST regime for Rs. 6,00,000/-. He wants to sell his vehicle for Rs. 1,20,000/-. And the WDV on date of supply is Rs. 1,00,000/-. Let us analyse the amount of tax considering two different dates for the supply of Vehicle a. Calculation of tax if supplied on 30th June 2020 Sale price = Rs. 1,20,000/- WDV as on 30.06.2020 = Rs. 1,00,000/- Margin as on 30.06.2020= Rs. 20,000/- Abatement @ 35% = Rs. 7000/- Taxable amount =Rs. 13000/- If the tax rate applicable on this car is 18%, the tax amount shall be derived as = 13,000*18/100 = 2,340/-
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