The Telangana Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) ruled that the GST is payable on e-procurement services provided to the Government.
The applicant, Telangana State Technology Services Limited (TSTSL) Telangana State Public Sector Undertaking and TSTSL is a Service Agency to the Telangana Government and its Departments relating to Information Technology and its related services.
The applicant has sought the advance ruling on the issue of whether the e-Procurement transaction fee collected on behalf of ITE&C Department of Telangana State Government towards online tenders’ results in a supply of goods or services or both, within the meaning of supply as defined. Whether the Tax liability arises on e-procurement transaction fee collected on behalf of the State Government Department i.e., IT E&C department. Whether these services made by the State Government Department falls under Entry No.6 of exemption of Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) Dated 28th June 2017.
It is the opinion of the applicant that such services provided by him fall under Entry 6 of Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28.06.2017 and therefore are exempt from any tax under GST.
The AAR noted that Services by the Central Government, State Government, Union territory or local authority excluding Services by the Department of Posts by way of speed post, express parcel post, life insurance, and agency services provided to a person other than the Central Government, State Government, Union territory; Services in relation to an aircraft or a vessel, inside or outside the precincts of a port or an airport; Transport of goods or passengers; or Any service, other than services covered under entries (a) to (c) above, provided to business entities.
The coram of additional Commissioner (Central Tax), B. Raghu Kiran, and Additional Commissioner (State Tax), S.V. Kasi Visweswar Rao ruled that the applicant is providing services to the Government. Therefore the services provided by the applicant to the Government are not exempt under this Notification. Further, the services provided by the applicant on behalf of the Government to business entities are covered by the exception to the above entry, therefore such services also are not exempt.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi bench has held that the addition made by the department on the basis of sole statement of one dummy director, recorded during the survey action cannot be sustainable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Consequent to a search operation carried out by the income tax department, the Assessing Officer framed an assessment was under section 153A of the Act an addition of Rs.5,50,00,000/- was made on account of unaccounted money introduced into the assessee company by four parties in the form of share capital and share premium. The Assessing Officer held that the aforesaid investor companies were non-existent and paper companies through which the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money in the form of share capital and share premium. During the survey action, the department recorded a statement from the Director wherein he stated that he was only dummy director of the company and that M/s Aachman Vanijya (P) Ltd. was a paper concern and no genuine business activities were carried out by the said company.
The assessee challenged the order before the authorities wherein the first appellate authority accepted their plea and granted relief.
While considering the appeal of the revenue, the Tribunal bench comprising Accountant member Mr. Anil Chathurvedi and Judicial Member Mr. Sanjay Garg held that except the statement of Sh. Kashi Prasad Chotia, no other incriminating material or evidence has been referred in the assessment order, in respect of survey action carried out in the case of M/s Aachman Vanijya (P.) Ltd.
“The statement of said Sh. Kashi Prasad Chotia has not been confronted by the assessee. Since, the words “and such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence” do not find mention under the provisions of section 153A of the Act and further it has been held time and again by the various High Court that addition can be made in case of completed assessment as on the date of the search only on the basis of incriminating material found during the search action, hence, in our view, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.75 lakhs on the basis of sole statement of one dummy director, recorded during the survey action in case of that company, without confronting the same to the assessee, cannot be held to be justified. The impugned addition is, therefore, ordered to be deleted. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed,” the Tribunal said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Government has issued the instruction on an Alternate method for transfer of space by an existing unit under Rule 74 of the SEZ.
As per existing provisions, an SEZ unit can exit from an SEZ either under the provisions of rule 74 or 74A of SEZ Rules, 2006.
The Government has received representations from stakeholders including SGJMA expressing difficulties in following the extant procedures as the existing units are not able to recover the value of their financial assets.
The SEZ Authority shall engage an independent valuer to assess the current value of the physical assets as well as financial assets, in the nature of an unutilized portion of any upfront lump sum payment, if any, in the nature of premium, advance lease rentals, etc. made by the exiting unit paid at the time of issuance of LoA.
When the existing unit identifies a potential buyer, such potential buyers shall be required to indicate the periodic lease rent for the space that they are prepared to pay to the Authority for the space being vacated by the existing unit.
The lease rent so indicated by the identified buyer shall be disclosed to all bidders as part of the e-auction process.
It is noteworthy that the e-auction terms & conditions shall also include a condition to the effect that the successful bidder in addition to other customary fixed and recurring charges, will have to separately pay to the authority, a predetermined amount based on depreciated cost/value of usable physical assets existing at the site as well as unutilized portions of financial assets, if any, as assessed by the independent valuer, which would be transferable to the previous occupant as the fair current value of assets being left off the exiting unit.
If the highest bid in the e-auction process is less than the amount indicated initially by the potential buyer identified by the existing unit, such identified buyer shall emerge successful in the e-auction process and the lease rent shall be the amount indicated initially by the potential buyer. Such an entity shall be issued an LoA by following due process. The e-auction terms and conditions shall clearly indicate the aforesaid position for the benefit of all potential bidders.
It shall be mandatory to complete the entire transfer process, including the E-auction process in a time-bound manner and in any case, within 100 days from the date of receipt of complete application from a unit expressing its intent to exit the SEZ
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Kerala High Court issued the notice to the government on a plea by the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association (KHCAA) challenging the Goods and Services Tax (GST) levied on the goods and services provided by Association to its own members.
The Members of the Petitioner Association are Advocates enrolled on the rolls maintained by the Bar Council of India ordinarily practicing in the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. The petitioner Association had been acting as an agent for its members in the matter of distribution of various essential items to its own members and for providing various essential facilities to its own members.
The petitioner Association constructed a multi-storied building for the chamber complex of lawyers’ and the chambers therein have been occupied by members of the first petitioner Association only, long before the coming into force of the CGST as well as KSGST Acts. The building was named as KHCAA Golden Jubilee Chamber Complex. A portion of the complex is used as a canteen for members, organic shop for members, etc given on a licensed basis. Banks run by outside agencies (Dhanlaxmi Bank, Canara Bank) for the convenience and service of the Members of the Association also occupy a small portion of the Complex on a license basis. A small hall is also given on a daily licensed basis. The income derived from the licensed premises is also used for the benefit of the members only. Hence the said income is not liable to be taxed under the Acts as the proceeds therefrom are used for the benefits of the welfare of the members.
Advocate Firoz K.M appeared for the petitioners in the matter. The primary contention of KHCAA was that such a levy of GST would attract the ‘doctrine of mutuality’ as there could be no supply of goods from it to its members.
There is no iota of reason to saddle the voluntary association of the lawyers to put under the yoke of taxation without any authority of law. The Petitioners may submit that from the legal and factual perspective the first petitioner is a lawyers’ combination for assisting themselves in exclusively conducting cases before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. It cannot be termed as a taxable entity under the KSGST Act or the CGST Act. The authorities under the said Act have no authority or jurisdiction to proceed against the first petitioner in any manner whatsoever. It is therefore only just and proper to stay all further proceedings against the first petitioner by issuing an appropriate stay of all proceedings against the petitioner under the CGST Act and KSGST Act.
The single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said, “I am satisfied that the petitioners have made out a prima facie case, which merits admission.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune bench, while granting relief to the assessee, held that deduction shall be allowable for revenue loss due to technical snags and bad weather conditions.
The assessee is an export house dealing in Mango Pulp etc. during the relevant assessment year, the assessee claimed a business loss of Rs.1,43,94,062/-. It was explained before the authorities that the assessee decided to run Alliance Agro, Nagpur (hitherto a sick company) along with two more companies for processing Mango pulp and pumped in funds to kick-start the factory. Certain expenses were incurred for the operations of Alliance Agro. Unfortunately, due to severe heatwave in Nagpur, fruits were overripe and the plant could not start in time. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation and disallowed the expenses treating the same as a capital loss.
ITAT Vice-President R S Syal and Judicial Member Partha Sarathi Chaudhary noted that in order to accelerate its business, the assessee entered into an understanding with the company for pumping in funds so that the Mango pulp produced there could be used in its business.
“Due to weather conditions and other factors beyond control, the assessee’s effort could not fructify and the amount invested in the company for purchases and meeting other expenses became irrecoverable which the assessee wrote off. A director of Alliance Agro furnished a letter dated 15-11-2016 addressed to the assessee in which the genuineness of the transactions has been admitted in an elaborate manner. Alliance Agro also confirmed in that letter that it jointly decided with the assessee to process Mango pulp at its factory premises and in the absence of working capital finance, the assessee agreed to finance the entire operations and functioning of the factory. Due to technical snags developing in the factory, the production could not be commenced in time and further due to unprecedented heatwave, the Mango purchased by the Alliance Agro got overripe and most of that was rendered useless for production,” the Tribunal said.
“The further fact that the business of Alliance Agro could not take off properly due to technical snags and the bad weather conditions reinforces the assessee’s claim of having genuinely incurred loss of Rs.1.43 core for its business purpose which became an irrecoverable loss. As the loss is only in the revenue field, we are satisfied that the ld. CIT(A) took an unexceptionable view on this issue by allowing the deduction. We, therefore, affirm the impugned order,” the Tribunal added.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) ruled that the supply of cooking gas through pipelines from gas banks is a Composite Supply.
The applicant, Masterly Kolkata Facility Maintenance Pvt Ltd is a service provider engaged in rendering maintenance services to the owner of the apartments of “Emami City”, a residential cum commercial area. The said project has been developed with a facility of supply of cooking gas through pipeline from gas banks installed at different places in the project premises.
The applicant has sought the advance ruling on the issue of whether the supply of cooking gas as provided by the applicant should be classified as a supply of goods or a supply of services in the given circumstances.
The coram of members Brajesh Kumar Singh and Joyjit Banik observed that the applicant is providing facility and property management services to each and every apartment owner of the project. This service includes maintenance and repair services related to the supply of cooking gas through the pipeline and is also applicable to the apartment owner who is not availing of the pipeline gas supply. So, when an apartment owner intends to get a supply of cooking gas through a pipeline, she/he will be provided the same along with the services for which she/he has already been paying to the applicant. So, the supply of cooking gas through the pipeline is inextricably linked with facility and property management services as provided by the applicant.
“In spite of issuance of separate invoices as “GAS CHARGES BILL” for consumption of gas, supply of gas through the pipeline is found to be naturally bundled with facility and property management services and are supplied in conjunction with each other. The instant supply, therefore, shall be treated as „composite supply‟ as defined under clause (30) of section 2 of the GST Act where the principal supply is facility and management services,” the AAR said.
The AAR ruled that the supply of cooking gas as provided by the applicant shall be classified as a supply of services.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) ruled that GST payable on Supply of unconnected goods at a nominal price against the purchase of hosiery goods.
The applicant, Kanahiya Realty Private Limited intends to manufacture and supply hosiery goods such as Vests, Briefs, etc. The applicant further proposes to implement a scheme with the objective of incentivizing its sale of hosiery goods amongst the retailers whereby it would offer unconnected goods for sale at a discounted price to such retailers who have bought a certain unit of hosiery product from it as would be prescribed in its retail scheme circular. However, the retailers will be at liberty not to purchase the goods offered under the said promotional schemes.
The applicant has sought the advance ruling on the issue of Whether the supply of goods such as gold coins, refrigerator, mixer grinder, cooler, split air conditioner, etc. at a nominal price to retailers against the purchase of specified units of hosiery goods pursuant to a promotional scheme would qualify as individual supplies taxable at the rates applicable to each of such goods as per section 9 of the CGST Act or mixed supply taxable at the highest GST rate as per Section 2(74) read with section 8 (b) of the CGST Act, 2017, in light of the fact that the hosiery goods and good being sold at the nominal price is sold under separate invoices with separate prices.
Yet another issue raised was whether credit of the input tax paid on the items being sold at nominal prices (as indicated above) would be available to the applicant.
The coram of members Brajesh Kumar Singh and Joyjit Banik ruled that supply of goods at a nominal price to retailers against the purchase of specified units of hosiery goods pursuant to a promotional scheme would qualify as individual supplies taxable at the rates applicable to each of such goods as per section 9 of the GST Act.
“Credit of the input tax paid on the items being sold at nominal prices would be available to the applicant,” the AAR said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) ruled that GST is payable on complete billing amount including employer portion of Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees’ State Insurance (ESl) amount.
The applicant, Ex-servicemen Resettlement Society is a registered society providing security services and scavenging services (Karma Bandhus) to different Medical Colleges & Hospitals, District Hospitals, and other hospitals of the Government of West Bengal.
As per labor laws of the Government of West Bengal, the applicant claims Minimum Wage + Employer Portion of 13% EPF plus 3.25% ESI and charges tax at the rate of 18% leviable under the GST Act on gross bill amount in every month for providing security & Karma Bandhus (Scavenging) services to the Government Hospitals.
However, the Audit Authority (Indian Audit and Accounts Department, West Bengal) in course of audit of Bankura Sammilani Medical College &. Hospital has raised the objection of excess payment of GST upon the observation that `GST’ to be payable only on Management Fees/Services Charges.
The applicant has sought the advance ruling on the issues of whether GST to be payable on Management Fee/Administrative charges only or otherwise complete billing amount and whether employer portion of EPF and ESl amount of the bill are exempted for paying GST.
The coram of members Brajesh Kumar Singh and Joyjit Banik ruled that the provisions of the GST Act leave no room to deduct any amount like management fee, employer portion of EPF, and ESI for the purpose of determination of the value of supply under section 15 of the GST Act meaning thereby in the instant case, tax is leviable under section 9 of the Act on the entire billing amount.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT), Hyderabad bench has held that the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot invoke revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely for the reason that the Assessing Officer has allowed expenses under a different head.
As per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only if two conditions are fulfilled, ie., the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
In the instance case, the Principal Commissioner was of the view that the assessee’s administrative expenses are in the nature of compulsorily office expenditure which has been held eligible for intra-head set-off against income from other sources than under section 57(iii) by the Assessing Officer. The factual position is hardly different qua its latter two heads of financial costs; including that directly paid to the bank of Rs.2,8,53/- pertains to the very account only as well as the fact that the impugned depreciation/amortization has been a continuing relief granted very well from the preceding assessment years, whose facts and figures are nowhere in dispute.
The Tribunal bench comprising Accountant Member Laxmi Prasad Sahu and Judicial Member SS Godara quoted the landmark decision of the Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Vs. CIT wherein it was held that an assessment has to be both erroneous as well as causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue.
“Simultaneously, before it is sought to be subjected to exercise of revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. Their lordships further make it clear that it is not each and every assessment that attracts Section 263 revision but only wherein the Assessing Officer has not taken one of the two possible views; as the case may be. We draw strong support therefrom and reverse the learned PCIT’s action exercising Section 263 revision jurisdiction. The impugned Section 143(3) regular assessment dt.16-03-2015 stands revived as the necessary corollary, therefore,” the Tribunal said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the fact that the assessee entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) to develop the property shall be treated as proof that the assessee started the business.
The assessee company engaged in the business of purchasing, acquiring, taking on lease or exchanging, developing, selling, giving on a lease, or otherwise disposing of lands, buildings, flats for residential and other purposes.
During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO disallowed an amount of Rs. 69,19,950/- to the profit & loss account towards legal, professional, and consultancy charges under the head “Administrative Expenses” by treating the same as capital expenditure.
Judicial Member Mr. S S Godara and Accountant Member Mr. L P Sahu observed that from the expenditures debited to P&L Account cited supra, the AO allowed some of the expenditures by treating the same as revenue expenditure whereas only legal, professional, and consultancy charges of Rs. 69,19,950/- was not allowed by treating the same as capital expenditure.
“Whereas the CIT(A) observed that this expenditure may be allowed u/s 35D, but not u/s 37(1) of the Act. We observe that the assessee has entered a joint development agreement on 18/01/2008 for the development of the land, which means, the commencement of the business was started in the case of real estate business, which the assessee is doing. Therefore, there is no confusion in this regard that the assessee has not started its business. JDA was entered for the development of the property which is to be treated as an assessee who started its business in the line of real estate business. The case law relied upon by the ld. AR support the assessee’s case. Therefore, the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards legal, professional, and consultancy charges of Rs. 69,19,950/- is hereby allowed as revenue expenditure,” the bench ruled.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Right To Information (RTI) application revealed that the Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) has blocked Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth Rs.6.14 Lakhs Crore.
The GSTN while replying to the RTI application said that the amount of Input Tax Credit blocked from all such taxpayers is Rs. 6,14,010.81 Cr. The amount of Input Tax Credit pertaining to Rules period exceeding 1 year from the date of ertains to blocking of such input tax credit blocked under date of rule 86A of CGST Rules, 2017 is Rs 296311.45 Cr.
Further, the details of as many as 2228 GSTNs for whom Input Tax Credit has been unblocked after 1 year have elapsed from the date of blocking of such Input Tax credit to the tune of Rs. 1370.71 Crores.
“In case you are dissatisfied with the information, you may file an appeal to First Appellate Authority Shri Dheeraj Rastogi Executive Vice President (Support), Goods and Services Tax Network, East Wing, 4th Floor, World Mark – 1, Aerocity, New Delhi – 110037,” the GSTN CPIO while replying to the RTI said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
.
The Supreme Court quashed the recommendation to De-Register CA as the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) did not assign any reason.
The appellant, D.K. Agrawal is a chartered accountant having his Office as M/s, Dinesh K. Agrawal & Co., Chartered Accountants. Information was received by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India from the Office of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of the Income Tax alleging that the appellant had deposited in local treasury unit of Incometax Department at Agra a total sum of Rs.2514 being the last digit of amount, outstanding against the assessees. The Office of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of the Income Tax further alleged that the appellant had interpolated assessees’ copies of challans to show higher figures and claimed the higher amount from them. The said information was conveyed to the appellant vide Institute’s letter dated 14.02.1980 and he was requested to send his written statement in response. The appellant submitted his duly verified written statement. At its 96th meeting, the Council of the Institute was of the prima facie opinion that the appellant was guilty of professional and/or other misconduct and accordingly referred the case to the Disciplinary Committee constituted under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
The appellant urged that the opinion formed by the Council was not guided by the doctrine of benefit of the doubt. The Council was under an obligation to record a finding that the guilt of the appellant was beyond reasonable doubt which, it was argued, is not so in the instant case. It was further argued that the High Court ought to have accepted the submissions of the appellant and set aside the recommendations, considering the fact that the recommendation of the Council was violative of the principles of natural justice. He has also attacked the report of the Disciplinary Committee which, according to him, was made with a pre-determined mind and that is perverse and contrary to the materials placed on record.
On the other hand, the respondent-Institute has submitted that taking into consideration the materials on record and also the written statements and submissions of the appellant, the Council had come to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of misconduct. The High Court has very rightly confirmed the recommendations of the Council and has allowed the references accordingly. There is no error in the report of the Disciplinary Committee or in the order of the Council. Therefore, the appellant cannot find fault with the judgment of the High Court.
The division bench of Justice S.Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari noted that where the Council has found any member of the Institute to be guilty of misconduct, it is required under the Act to forward the matter to the High Court with its recommendations and the High Court has to pass final order either dismissing the complaint or penalizing the member of the Institute. The order of the Council, imposing a penalty upon the member, is also appealable by the members aggrieved before the High Court. In the circumstances, it is all the more necessary that the recommendation/order of the Council should contain reasons for the conclusion.
“We are of the view that the High Court has equally erred in accepting the recommendations of the Council without applying its own logic to this aspect of the matter. We are also of the view that the Council has to reconsider the matter afresh after granting the appellant an opportunity of being heard. Having regard to the above, we do not propose to consider the other contentions of the parties,” the court said.
“Resultantly, the recommendations/order(s) passed by the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India which were the subject matter of the aforesaid two reference cases, are set aside. Consequently, the orders of the High Court impugned herein are also set aside. The appeals are accordingly allowed. These matters are remitted back to the Council for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The Council is directed to consider and dispose of the matter(s) as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All the contentions of the parties are left open. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases, both the parties are directed to bear their respective costs,” the Apex Court added.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Patna High Court quashed the summary revised GST demand as no opportunity of hearing was afforded.
The petitioner, Manoj Kuma sought to quash the communication in form GST APL-04 issued by the respondent whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the respondent under section 74 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has been rejected and a summary revised demand has been forwarded to the petitioner.
The Revenue has stated that he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the Assessing Authority for deciding the case afresh. Also, the case shall be decided on merits. Also, during the pendency of the case, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar while quashing the impugned order noted that there was a violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences.
We accept the statement of the petitioner that ten percent of the total amount, being a prerequisite for hearing of the appeal, already stands deposited. If that were so, well and good. However, if the amount is not deposited for whatever reason(s), the same shall be done before the next date. Further, the petitioner undertakes to additionally deposit ten percent of the amount of the demand raised before the Assessing Officer. This shall be done within four weeks,” the court said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Rajasthan High Court while quashing the Provisional attachment held that the Commercial complex leased out to the company by the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) cannot be treated as a Benami transaction.
The petitioner, Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd assailed the provisional attachment orders passed by the Initiating Officer under Section 24(4) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 and the confirmation orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 26(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the company purchased the land in its name while the Directors of the company at that time were Madan Mohan Gupta and Shashikala Gupta, who obtained a loan from one Rajendra Kumar Jain for the purpose of purchase of the agricultural land in 2006. The shares of the company were transferred to the petitioner, who purchased their shares in 2008.
The petitioners submit that the impugned orders holding the petitioner-company is ‘benamidar’ and the other petitioners as ‘beneficial owners, on the ground that they are shareholders of petitioner company, are wholly erroneous. It is submitted that the company has its own separate identification in law as a juristic person and the relation between the shareholders and the company cannot be said to be benamidar and beneficial owners as shareholders. It is stated that the company has throughout owned the property and mere change of shareholding would not make the property of the company as ‘Benami’s.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma held that once the land has been surrendered and the order has been passed by the JDA under Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the land has been converted from agriculture to commercial and registered lease deed has been executed by the JDA in favour of the company, the transaction is not a Benami transaction.
“The provisional attachment orders passed by the Initiating Officer under Section 24(4) of the Benami Act, 1988 and the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the orders under Section 26(3) of the Benami Act, 1988 are set aside with all consequential benefits. The property shall be handed over to the company,” the court said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a person accused of wrongfully availing Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The Petitioner, Shailesh Chandra was a director of a company that has purchased metal rods for its business and it was alleged that the Company has wrongfully availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 5.95 Crores under GST. In pursuance of the same, a search was conducted at the premises of the Company and also at the premises of the alleged suppliers. Thereafter, it was alleged that there is no manufacturing facility available at the place of suppliers and the Petitioner was arrested on 30.08.2021 by DGGI, Jaipur Zonal Unit.
Advocate Rahul Lakhwani, the Counsel for the Petitioner contended that for invoking section 132(1)(c) it is pertinent that the condition mentioned under Section 132(1)(b) gets fulfilled. However, in the present case, Section 132(1)(b) has not been satisfied by the Respondent at any place, and without it, they have directly jumped to invoking Section 132(1)(c) which is illegal. Further, the Petitioner’s Company has complied with all the conditions mentioned under Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act and is in possession of all the documents such as invoices, transportability, Dharam Kanta receipt, e-way bill, bank statements reflecting payment in respect of purchases made and FORM GSTR-2A/2B reflecting ITC from the alleged suppliers.
Mr. Lakhwani T argued that the Petitioner has already deposited a number of Rs. 1 Crore out of the total alleged tax of Rs. 5.95 Crores. Further, the Counsel relied upon the order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case C. Pradeep Vs The Commissioner of GST, wherein the Apex Court granted relief that no coercive action to be taken on deposit of 10% of the alleged evasion. The Counsel further argued that the Petitioner is ex-Indian Air Force personnel and has no criminal antecedents and the offense is of compoundable nature. Thus, the Petitioner deserves to be enlarged on Bail.
The single-judge bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhatti held that the proceedings is likely to take some time this Court deems it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on the condition that the Petitioner executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Kochi Bench allowed the Capital Reduction to the tune of Rs.1.95 Crores to Skolte Solutions.
The Petitioner Company, Skolte Solutions was first established as Skolte Capital Private limited in 2019 for the purposes of establishing a Non-Banking Financial Company. As mandated by Section 45-I (A) of RBI Act 1934, a capital of two crores was raised by the company prior to applying for Non-Banking Financial Company- Non-Deposit Taking Systemically Important (NBFC-ND-SI) license. However, the Reserve Bank of India denied the license to the company.
The company subsequently changed its name to Skolte Solutions Private Limited and amended it to the main object from lending money to corporate management services. To enable the company to have an ideal capital structure commensurate with the current business and assets, the capital reduction Petition was filed before NCLT Kochi Bench under Section 66 of Companies Act, 2013.
The Petitioner Company stated that the proposed reduction of capital in the manner proposed would enable the Company to have an ideal capital structure commensurate with the current business and assets. It is certified that the proposed reduction of capital will not adversely affect the company and its shareholders, creditors, employees, and other stakeholders as a whole. It is also stated that the Company has not accepted any deposits from the public and has no secured creditors as on date of this petition and that the Petitioner Company is not having any foreign investments and, therefore, was not required to comply with the provisions of FEMA and RBI guidelines in respect of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). It is also stated that the proposed reduction of share capital has no adverse impact on the employees as there are no employees working on the rolls of the Company as of 31.03.2021 and the tax implication arising out of such reduction of share capital is subject to the final decision of the Income Tax Authorities. Certificate from Auditor and declaration from Directors of the Company along with the audited financial statements as of 31.03.2021 have been produced before this Tribunal.
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Nebil Nizar and instructed by JKM Associates, Kochi.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has notified the re-Opening of Online filling up of Examination Application Forms for ICAI Chartered Accountants Examinations December 2021 for Two Days from 11th October 2021to 12th October 2021.
“Considering the prevailing COVID-19 situation and in the interest of welfare & well-being of the students, to mitigate their hardship, it has been decided to reopen the online filling up of examination application form for Chartered Accountants December 2021 Final, Intermediate (IPC), Intermediate, Foundation, Post Qualification Course viz.: Insurance and Risk Management (IR) Technical. Examination, International Taxation Assessment Test (INTT-AT) and International Trade Laws and World Trade Organisation (ITL & WTO), Part I Examination for Two Days from 11th October 2021 12.01 A.M. (Mid Night between 10th & 11th) to 12th October 2021 (11.59 P.M. IST) with late fees (Rs.600/- or US$10),” the ICAI notified.
The students may note that this is the last opportunity to apply for the December 2021 examination application form online and there will be no such extension in time to come.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
In a major relief to the Bharat Coking Coal, the Kolkata Bench Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the cenvat credit cannot be denied for setting up of Coal Handling Plant (CHP) used for evacuation of coal by rapid loading process.
The appellant, Bharat Coking Coal is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, a PSU, engaged in the business of mining and selling of coal at its mines located in the State of Jharkhand. In order to modernize the coal loading process so as to facilitate coal loading within the shortest possible time with the most advanced automated system, the appellant awarded a contract to one, M/s. S K Samanta & Co. (the Contractor), for the work of “Planning, Designing, Engineering, Construction, Fabrication, Supply, Erection, Trial Run, Commissioning and Testing of CHP of 5.0 Mtpa capacity with loading arrangements through ”SILO‟ consisting of all Civil, Structural, Electrical, and Mechanical works and all other accessories and facilities required to make it complete in all respect along with approach road on Turn-Key basis”.
The Contractor in his invoices charged service tax on 40% of the total value of contract inclusive of goods and services in compliance with Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 for discharging his service tax liability, of which the appellant availed Cenvat credit under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order has disputed the said valuation to deny the credit to the appellant. He has observed in para no. 5.6 to para 5.8 of the impugned order that the subject contract is predominantly for construction of structural works in order to bring into existence the Coal Handling Plant including SILO which falls under the exclusion clause of input service. He has also observed that the service tax reimbursed by the appellant against the exclusive supply of goods for the construction of SILO cannot be defined as “input service‟.
The appellant submitted that the Commissioner has disputed the payment of service tax by the service provider on 40% of the total contract value including goods and services. He submitted that the Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the appellant has no control over the value to be adopted by the Contractor, i.e. service provider, for payment of service tax.
The coram of Judicial Member, P. K. Choudhary and Technical Member Raju Cenvat availed by the appellant for setting up of CHP, which is used for evacuation of coal by rapid loading process, cannot be legally denied.
“The said CHP has been set up with the view to „modernize the coal loading process in the mines‟ also satisfies the definition of input service. Moreover, since the credit has been allowed by the Department on certain invoices raised by the Contractor, the Department has in principle found the service to be eligible for credit. We also agree with the submission made by the appellant that the mode of valuation adopted by the Contractor to discharge service tax on 40% of the contract value is in accordance with law contained in Service Tax Valuation Rules and cannot be disputed while deciding credit eligibility at the appellant‟send. When service tax has been levied only on 40% of the total value, it essentially means that service tax has been paid only on the service portion,” the tribunal said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has notified two days i.e. 3rd and 4th December 2021 polling for Members from Meerut in respect of CA Election for Regional Councils.
“In partial modification of Notification No. 54-EL(1)/9/2021 dated 1st September 2021 notifying the dates for recording of votes for election to the Twenty Fifty Council and Twenty Fourth Regional Councils of the Institute, it is notified for the general information of all candidates and voters belonging to Central India Regional Constituency and Central India Regional Council that 3rd and 4th December 2021 have also been appointed as the dates for recording of votes in Meerut also as the Meerut city (including Baghpat and Mawana) has more than 1000 voters. Pursuant to the aforesaid modification, Serial No. 4(i) of Notification No. 54-EL(1)/2/2021 dated 1st September 2021 containing the important dates relating to the elections of members to the Council and Regional Councils of the Institute shall be deemed to have been modified accordingly,” the notification said.
In other words, the ICAI has modified the Notification No. 54-EL(1)/9/2021 dated 1st September 2021 wherein the dates for recording of votes for election to the Twenty Fifty Council and Twenty Fourth Regional Councils of the Institute.
Generally, there will be only one day for polling at other regions but in the city of Meerut which has more than 1000 voters there will be 2 polling days namely
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Maharashtra Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) ruled that the 18% GST payable on Aluminium Composite Panel or Sheet.
The applicant, M/s. Aludecor Lamination Private Limited is engaged in the manufacturing of Aluminium Composite Panels/sheets, (ACP Sheets) in Haridwar, Uttarakhand, India. The applicant has a place of business in Maharashtra at the address declared in the application for Advance Ruling under Rule 98 of Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. In common parlance the product of the applicant is called as “Aluminium Composite Panel”, often it is called as “Sandwich Panel ” or “ACP Sheet”. The same is manufactured in 4″ width (Fixed) and length of 89, 10* or 12′ as required by the purchases. In fact, the product is “Plastic sheet laminated with Aluminium Sheets”. If re-cycled plastic is used in manufacturing, it can be said to be “Re-cycled Plastic Aluminium Composite Panel Sheet”. Aluminium composite panels are sandwiched type panels consisting of Nontoxic polythene core firmly laminated with a thin Aluminium sheet on top and bottom (One Side affixed with adhesive polythene film for protection) and is being used as Industrial Product. The dealer has a manufacturing unit at Haridwar.
The applicant has sought the advance ruling on the issue of whether the Aluminium Composite Panel/sheet is covered under: HSN Code 3920 or HSN Code 7606 or HSN Code 7610 and what is the rate of tax on the same under SGST Act and CGST Act respectively.
The coram of Rajiv Magoo and T.R. Ramnani ruled that the Aluminium Composite Panel/Sheet is covered under HSN Code 7606. The rate of tax on Aluminium Composite Panel/Sheet is 18% (9% each under CGST and SGST).
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) is going to enhance the system performance and further ease the operationality for taxpayers and departments by way of auto-computation of interest, enabling EVC option even for companies/LLPs, advance ruling Search facility, etc.
In respect of returns the Auto-Interest Computation in R-3B/CMP-8/R-5, Negative Liability in GSTR-3B, and Changes in Comparison Report to be soon available on the GST Portal.
Further Converting IGST Refund withheld cases at ICEGATE into RFD-01, Refund of Advances paid but supplies not made under development, and Refund to be Med by the Unregistered person under development will be available in respect of refund.
In case of registration Mandating Aadhaar Authentication at BO for the taxpayers applying for Refund and Revocation application, Additional document upload functionality for the taxpayer in GST REG 05/REG19/REG20 and to show uploaded document to BO, Temp ID search functionality, enhancements like reset password, change email /mobile number and link it with the new registration process, enabling EVC option even for Companies/ LLP in registration module, and Geo-Spatial data Integration for taxpayers to help to declare correct address.
Outward Supply Statement (GSTR-1) Code optimization for performance improvement. Single Onetime Authentication Key (STAK) to make the OTP authentication in return filing more reliable and faster. Geo-Coding for facilitating taxpayers and tax administrations, Advance cyber security analytics and proactive threat hunting, and the Capability to build unplanned BCP-DR drills to improve redundancy in the IT system.
The GSTN will also be developing Advance Ruling Search Functionality, Appeal, Rectification of Mistakes and Appeal Effect related Functionalities, Recon and on-demand call APIs for Bills of Entry data of Customs, Front Office Revamp to improve taxpayers experience, AATO, and validations in return, registration, etc., and Removal of Contact Details — Mobile No. and e-mail from Search Taxpayers.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
