Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Delhi High Court - Issue of fake ITC - Court declined to entertain the writ petition against the GST demand, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy *  Patna High Court - Availability of an effective statutory remedy is a strong ground for High Court to decline interference in writ proceedings, unless exceptional circumstances are established. *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026. 
Subject News *  Delhi High Court - An Advocate cannot claim client privilege as an absolute bar to a GST investigation where there is prima facie material suggesting his own involvement in the affairs under investigation. *  Madras High Court - SEZ unit is eligible to claim refund of unutilised ITC; such entitlement cannot be restricted merely because Rule 89 specifically refers to a supplier to an SEZ. *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President.  

Comments
() Posted On: 08 Sep, 2020

Hello Sir, I am availing services of CHA (Custom House Agent) for transportation of goods from Jodhpur to USA. My firm and CHA firm is registered in Rajasthan in GST regime. However, CHA is raising three separate bills for ocean freight, handling services, terminal charges, packing charges, transporting goods and similar support services. Since ocean freight is exempted in case of exports, he is issuing bill of supply in this respect. However, tax charged on the 2nd bill raised in respect of other above-mentioned services is CGST while on 3rd bill, he is charging IGST. I am little worried about the eligibility of credit. If the supplier has charged incorrect GST, then the department will ask us to reverse the credit too. Can you please confirm us about the applicability of tax under correct head for the aforesaid transactions?

Section 12 of IGST Act, 2017 provides for determination of place of supply in case both the service provider and service receiver are located in India. As per sub-section (8) of Section 12, place of supply of services by way of transportation of goods shall be the location of recipient, if registered. Integrated Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act, 2018 was made effective from 01.02.2019 by Notification No. 01/2019-IT dated 29.01.2019. Among other amendments, a proviso was inserted in Section 12(8) of the IGST Act. The relevant provision is extracted as under: "Provided that where the transportation of goods is to a place outside India, the place of supply shall be the place of destination of such goods." Before the insertion of the proviso, the place of supply for transportation services was dependent on the location of the service recipient. If the service recipient was in the same state as that of service provider, then the supply was treated as intra-state supply and if the service recipient was in a different state, then the supply was considered as inter-state supply. Due to insertion of the proviso, the place of supply for exports shall always be outside India and thus supply shall always be inter-state supply, irrespective of the location of recipient. Therefore, the CHA is correctly raising its invoices separately for the services provided from Jodhpur to border line of India and from a place outside India to factory situated in India. For the first leg of journey, since the place of supply is location of registered recipient i.e. Jodhpur and location of supplier is in Rajasthan only. Hence, he is correctly charging CGST and SGST in this respect. For another leg of journey which is outside India, the place of supply is outside India, hence IGST is chargeable. Another aspect of this query is that what should be the rate charged for the services provided? In our opinion, all the services fall under the SAC code 9967 with description ?Supporting services in transport?, hence, it will be chargeable at the tax rate of 18%. Cargo handling services, Storage and warehousing services and all the supporting services for transportation of goods are classified under 9967.
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