The Gujarat High Court held that the permanent account number (PAN) cannot be declared inoperative due to non-linking of Aadhaar or Aadhaar number.
The applicant seeks a declaration that he would not be in default in any proceedings only for the reason that the permanent account number is not linked with Aadhaar or Aadhaar number is not quoted; and that pending the petition, the petitioner may not be subjected to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act states that every person who has PAN as on July 1, 2017 is required to link his/her PAN with his/her Aadhaar number. If the PAN is not linked by Aadhaar by a date to be notified by the government then PAN would become invalid. This date has now been notified as September 30, 2019.
Recently, the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutional Validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which mandated quoting of Aadhaar or enrolment ID of Aadhaar application form for filing of income tax returns and making an application for allotment of PAN.
The Majority Judgment observed that, “On the independent examination of the matter, the aforesaid exercise undertaken in the Binoy Viswam is hereby affirmed as we are in agreement therewith. We, thus, hold that the provisions of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 meet the triple test of right to privacy, contained in K.S. Puttaswamy”.
The division bench of Gujarat High Court comprising of Justice Harsha Devani and Justice Sangeetha K Vishen delivered the order on the basis of an application filed by Bandish Saurabh Soparkar.
The Court Ordered that only for the reason that the permanent account number is not linked with Aadhaar or Aadhaar number is not quoted and the applicant shall not be subjected to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 139AA of the Act till the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. and others.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
The Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) ruled that Distributors are liable to pay GST and also eligible to avail Input Tax Credit ( ITC ).
The applicant is an authorized distributor of Castrol India Ltd, Mumbai (Principal Company) for the supply of Castrol brand industrial and automotive lubricants. There is a written agreement between the Principal and the applicant about the distributorship. The Principal Company is controlling and managing the entire marketing activities of their products. The Principal Company’s software is mandatory to all and the company has its sole control over the billing software, the distributors or dealers can supply any goods of the company only through this software.
The Principal Company is issuing invoices at a price to its distributors and the distributors supplying the goods to the dealer’s issue invoice based on the various rate scheme pre-fixed by the Principal Company. While the distributor generates an invoice to dealers through the software designed by the Principal company, the invoice value of products will be displayed only with the value after deducting discount as per the pre-fixed rate scheme. The distributor is bound to supply the products to the respective dealers as per the value shown in the invoice. Such a discount 1 rebate will be subsequently reimbursed by the Principal.
The AAR bench is comprising of B.C. Krishnan and B. S. Thyagara jababu has given order on an application filed by M/s Santhosh Distributors.
In these circumstances the tribunal had given an advance ruling on the following:
1) On the tax liability of the applicant for the transactions mentioned herein and explained as above. The petitioner is paying the tax due as per the invoice value issued by the applicant and availing the input credit of pay GST shown in the inward invoice received by the applicant from the Principal Company or their stocklist. The applicant/distributor is eligible to avail ITC shown in the inward invoice received by him from the supplier of goods /principal company.
2) The discount provided by the Principal Company to their dealer, through the applicant as shown in Annexure D attracts any tax under the GST laws and this additional discount reimbursed by the principal company to the distributor is liable to be awed to the consideration payable by the customer to the distributor to arrive at the value of supply under Section 15 of the CGST / SGST Act at the hands of the distributor
3) The amount shown in the Commercial Credit note issued to the distributer by the Principal Company is not eligible to reduce his original tax liability and hence distributors will not be liable to reverse the ITC attributable to commercial credit notes received from suppliers.
4) ) GST is applicable on the amount received as reimbursement of the discount rebate from the principal company.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Turkey Government has enacted it’s Digital Service Tax (DST) of 7.5% on gross revenue from the sales. The new DTS system was introduced as a part of the “Expenditure Taxes Law” under the Turkish tax legislation. The new regime is applicable to companies generating revenue of € 750 million globally and 20 million Turkish Lira within Turkey.
The services subject to DST include:
The tax due is computed at 7.5% on the taxable amount and no tax deduction is allowed in this procedure. DST paid is allowed as a deductible expense from the tax base to calculate income tax and corporate tax. The president is authorized to reduce the DST rate to 1% and increase it to 15%, either separately or jointly as per the service type.
The tax period may vary according to the service type which could be a quarterly or one-month taxation period.
Companies earning less than 20 million Turkish Lira within Turkey and € 750 million globally are exempt from DST. The revenue generated from the following are not considered for determining the threshold:
Non-compliance of submitting tax return and payment of tax are subject to monetary penalties and also the taxpayers may be blocked until the necessary legal commitments are complied with.
The impact of the new regime is significant to the corporates as the tax is computed on revenue and not profit. Companies may have to suffer double taxation due to the withholding tax of 15% on digital advertising payments.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has enhanced the Security of Card Transactions. Over the years, the volume and value of transactions made through cards have increased manifold.
In a Communication issued by RBI said that, At the time of issue / re-issue, all cards (physical and virtual) shall be enabled for use only at contact-based points of usage [viz. ATMs and Point of Sale (PoS) devices] within India. Issuers shall provide cardholders a facility for enabling card, not present (domestic and international) transactions, card-present (international) transactions and contactless transactions, as per the process outlined in para 1 (c).
For existing cards, issuers may take a decision, based on their risk perception, whether to disable the card, not present (domestic and international) transactions, card-present (international) transactions and contactless transaction rights. Existing cards that have never been used for online (cards not present) / international/contactless transactions shall be mandatorily disabled for this purpose.
Additionally, the issuers shall provide to all cardholders:
The Italian Government has confirmed the introduction of the tax on single-use plastic (also called MACSI). The Budget Law for fiscal year (FY) 2020 was voted by the Senate towards the end of December 2019. The government aims at helping the environment by reducing the production and consumption of plastic.
The tax is fixed at €0.45/kg which is half of the planned tariff. The items subject to the new regime include single-use plastic products such as bottles, bags and one-time-use food containers. Compostable MACSI, syringes, medical devices, and items included in MACSI that are produced by recycling, plastic materials for exporting purposes are exempted from the application of the tax.
Under the new provision, the taxable persons would be:
The tax return will have to be submitted at the end of the month following each quarter on which the tax due will be determined. Any refund should be claimed within two years from the payment of undue tax.
A tax credit of 10% of the expenses suffered from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020 is granted for the companies to get adapted to the production of compostable and biodegradable products. Industries producing MACSI for protection and delivery of food items will also get the provision.
The audit will be performed by the Italian Customs and Tax Police and a failure to pay tax will be subject to a penalty ranging from 2 to 10 times of the unpaid tax.
The new provision will be effective from 1 July 2020.
The taxpayers asserted that this would only harm the economy rather than bringing in benefits to the environment.
A Petition has been started in change.org to abolish the 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on Higher Education.
The Petition was started by Ananya Krishna, who said that People struggle to meet even their basic needs of food, shelter, and clothes. There are a few people in our society who can easily afford to live a luxurious life. Is education considered a luxury or a basic need for the common man? With the growing international competition for professional courses, higher education is no longer a luxury but a necessity. Unfortunately, higher education falls under the 18% GST bracket with the rollout of the Goods and Services in India. 18% GST on higher education, putting it under the “luxury category”?
She also said that Slapping an 18% GST on higher education only creates more hurdles for young Indians seeking access to quality education, thus affecting India’s ability to reap its demographic dividend.
The four categories of services known as Auxiliary Education services, which educational institutions ordinarily carry out themselves but may obtain as outsourced services from any other person, have been exempted (as per Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate)). Auxiliary education services other than what is specified above would not be entitled to any exemption. The exemption also comes with a rider. Such services are exempt only for educational institutions providing services by way of education up to higher secondary or equivalent. (from pre-school to HSC). Thus if such auxiliary education services are provided to educational institutions providing degrees or education, the same would not be exempt.
To Sign the Change.org Petition Click here.
The Madras High Court has held that the “Bitumen Emulsion” is to be classified as “Bitumen” falling under c and is liable to be taxed at the rate of five percentage prescribed therein for “Bitumen” under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, 2006.
The ruling was made by the single bench comprising of Justice C.Saravanan in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (CT-I) LTU. The point in consideration in this writ petition is whether the “Bitumen Emulsion” traded by the Petitioner was classifiable as a product under S.No. 18 of Part (B) of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, 2006 or under the residuary heading at S.No. 69 of Part (C) of the First Schedule under the TNVAT Act attracting 14% of Value Added Tax (VAT).
The Petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Level Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling under 48 (A) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The Advance Ruling Authority, by the impugned order, clarified that “Bitumen Emulsion” was to be classified under S.No.16 of Part (C) of the First Schedule under the TNVAT Act attracting 14.5% VAT.
The trigger for approaching the Advance Ruling Authority appears to be pre-assessment notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Chennai. The pre-revision notice sought to be classified Bitumen Emulsion traded by the Petitioner under Entry Tax S.No.50, Part (C) of the First Schedule to the TNVAT Act, attracting 12.5% VAT.
The court held that both “Bitumen” and “Bitumen Emulsion” are one and same and the “Bitumen Emulsion” matches the entry as it is only one of the varieties of “Bitumen”. “Bitumen Emulsion” is processed “Bitumen”, but the process does not change its composition, commercial identity or its use. The Court further held that the “Bitumen Emulsion” is regarded and performs the same function as “Bitumen” and as a result of the processing; neither the primary character nor the composition is lost. Thus “Bitumen Emulsion” is to be classified as “Bitumen” falling under Serial 18 of Part B of the First Schedule to the TNVAT Act, 2006 and is liable to be taxed at the rate prescribed therein for “Bitumen”. The Writ Petition stands allowed with consequential relief.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Jharkhand High Court has held that Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) cannot be denied for the petitioner who had discharged all the tax liabilities and not petitioners fault if selling dealer had made defaults in depositing tax in treasury.
The petitioner firm has been rejected and interest has been imposed upon the petitioner firm, as provided under Section 30 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax (VAT) Act, 2005. In reply to the notice, the petitioner produced all the necessary documents, including tax invoices supplied to it by the selling dealer, in order to satisfy the Assessing Authority.
While making the purchases, the petitioner had discharged all the tax liabilities, and it was the selling dealer, who had not deposited the tax in the Government Treasury, for which the petitioner firm was not at all at fault
The Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes came to the conclusion that the petitioner firm had made the purchases from M/s Sanatan Enterprises for the amount showed in this return and had also paid the amount of VAT to the selling dealer, and it was in fact the selling dealer, who had not filed its return and deposited the amount in the Government Treasury. As such, the Assessing Authority disallowed the claim of ITC of Rs. 11,89,744.13, made by the petitioner firm, and interest was imposed upon the petitioner.
Judgement was rendered by division bench constituting of Justices H.C Roshan and Deepak Roshan.
While quashing the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, the Court observed that, “denying ITC to the petitioner and imposing the interest, and also the demand notice, as contained in Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ application, and further direct that the total amount of Rs.20,21,801/- realized from the petitioner by way of garnishee order, be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production/communication of this order”.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentUpcoming Budget 2020, ASSOCHAM President Dr. Niranjan Hiranandani today said that concerted efforts by the Hon’ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi himself in his outreach to wider sections of the industry and other key stakeholders, fiscal incentives and sustained public investment on infrastructure will lead to a spur in demand and will be big catalyst for reviving the growth momentum in the economy.
However, he said, that the industry has certain expectations and hopes on various fronts from the upcoming budget 2020 for it to be able to play a galvanising role in the economy and the nation’s development at its full potential and also help achieve the larger target of a $5 trillion economy in the next few years.
As per Dr. Hiranandani, Industry Inc. was looking forward to some bold measures in key areas of concerns as follows:
These are broadly some of the requests from Industry Inc. and we are very hopeful that an empathetic Govt. of India will take heed of our burgeoning concerns. We look forward to bold fiscal measures and quick implementation which are key to success in economic development and nation-building.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) directed Director General (DG) to investigate the Anti-Trust probe against Amazon and Flipkart and submit the report within a period of 60 days.
The Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh (informant) states that there are instances of several vertical agreements between (i) Flipkart with their preferred sellers on the platform and (ii) Amazon with their preferred sellers, respectively which have led to the foreclosure of other non-preferred traders or sellers from these online marketplaces. It has been alleged that most of these preferred sellers are affiliated with or controlled by Flipkart or Amazon, either directly or indirectly.
The ruling was made by Coram comprising of Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Ms. Sangeeta Verma and Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi on an information filed by Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh.
The Informant has alleged that the OPs are involved in following practices that are anti-competitive in view of Section 3(1) read with Section 3(4) of the Act.
Deep discounting: Flipkart provides deep discounts to a select few preferred sellers on its platform which adversely impacts non-preferred sellers and Moreover, Amazon has its own private label brands which are sold only through these preferred sellers.
Preferential Listing: Flipkart lends the word “Assured Seller” and Amazon lends the word “Fulfilled” to the products sold by its preferred sellers such as Vision Star, Flashstar Commerce, and Flashtech Retail and allegedly creates a bias in favor of preferred sellers to the detriment of other sellers.
Market Power: Amazon and Flipkart are able to cross-subsidize because of the huge amount of funding received from their investors.
Both Flipkart and Amazon are alleged to be jointly dominant in the relevant market and are stated to be abusing their dominance and they have extremely high market shares in the relevant market, Due to deep pockets, OPs are able to facilitate their sellers’ predatory pricing on their respective platforms and the ability to unilaterally terminate agreements with their sellers without any reason and treat them arbitrarily.
The CCI directed the DG to cause an investigation to be made into the matter under the provisions of Section 26(1) of the Act. The Commission also directs the DG to complete the investigation and submit the investigation report within a period of 60 days from the receipt of this order.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe United Kingdom Value Added Tax (VAT) Tribunal ruled that Kickboxing is not exempted from VAT liability.
The appellant Premier Family Martial Arts LLP, a kickboxing company lost its VAT dispute argued that kickboxing should be made VAT exempt as it is a part of school education.
The case started on 7 April 2017 when Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) started an inquiry on Premier Martial Arts LLP. HMRC claimed that the supplies for the kickboxing classes were not exempt; they were to be taxed at a standard rate of 20% which made the company liable for a VAT bill of £411,497 for output tax.
The company argued that as per the Value Added Tax (VAT) Act 1994, the supplies of private tuition, ordinarily taught in a school or university by an individual teacher acting independently of an employer are VAT exempt.
The First-Tier Tribunal judge Tony Beare observed that ‘Kickboxing is not an activity which is commonly taught at schools or universities in the European Union’.
Earlier, the parties had entered into the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process as the revision of HMRC’s decision did not come in favour of the appellant. With the result of ADR, the company had got the original VAT output tax assessment cancelled and the registration date for VAT purposes amended and extended.
On conclusion, the judge added ‘kickboxing has no single governing body and correspondingly, that there is no extremely set syllabus and no extremely moderated grading system. The subjective nature of the grading system in certain martial arts was a factor in the Department of Education’s decision to exclude those martial arts from the UK’s national curriculum’.
The Hyderabad Bench of the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in the case of Oren Hydrocarbons Pvt Ltd v Commissioner of Customs held that where the conditions for availing a refund of service tax on GTA services were not met, the benefit on the said service cannot be obtained.
The appellant is a manufacturer of barite powder wherein they receive the raw material, crush it into powder and transport it to their Chennai unit from where it is exported. The officers in an investigation found that the appellants were not discharging service tax on GTA services which they have availed for transporting the goods.
The issue before the Tribunal was whether the GTA services received by the appellant were exempted from service tax liability
The Coram constituting of P.V.S. Rao and Rachna Gupta as Technical and Judicial members held that no evidence to corroborate the fact that the threshold limit for the application of the exemption has been met was placed on record, disentitling the appellant of such exemption.
Further, the exemption is available by way of refund of tax paid on specified services used for export of goods. The aforementioned condition does not infer that the service tax shall not be paid. In the present case, GTA services were availed for transporting goods from their Kodir unit to Chennai. Thereafter, the Chennai unit, in turn, exported the goods. While transportation may be in relation to the export of goods, there is no sufficient evidence to show that this transportation is actually for the export of goods.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe CESTAT Mumbai held that the company was providing cleaning services through the Manpower engaged by it, who were under the administrative and supervisory control of the company and the same cannot be treated as Manpower, recruitment or Supply Services.
The ruling was made by a division bench comprising of Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati and Technical Member C J Mathew in the case of Mankeshwar Enterprises. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise.
The appellant was engaged in activities of providing services to various educational Institutions belonging to the D.Y. Patil group. The respondent department indicated that the appellant was engaged in providing manpower supply services which were become taxable w.e.f. 16-6-2005. The appellant was put to notice for non-payment of Service Tax the financial year 2005-2008. Through adjudication process duty demand, along with interest and penalties were confirmed.
The appellant submitted in the light of judicial decision reported in 2017 (3) G.S.T.L 515 (Tri. Mum.) in the case of Bhagyashree Enterprises v. C.C. Pune that the terms of agreement clearly provides that there was no whisper of supply of manpower by the appellant and the work is in the nature of cleaning services provided by appellant to D.Y. Patil Hospital and Research Institute, which, as per Section 65 and Section 105 of the F.A. 1994, is not a taxable service since provided to educational Institution which is neither a commercial or industrial establishment.
The department submitted that contract between the appellant and institution is loud and clear that the activities were manpower supply services covering a bundle of services including maintenance, gardening, housekeeping, etc.
The tribunal held that it is a well-settled principle that contract executed between the parties would determine the nature of work and there is no whisper of supply of manpower in the said contract. It is apparently clear that the appellant was providing cleaning service through manpower engaged under its control and supervision and not supplied manpower to the service receiver to undertake cleaning service under the control and supervision of the service receiver.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ( ICAI ) has decided to create a Fund of 30 Crores for Skill Development / Capacity Building initiatives for CA Professionals.
The ICAI also introduced the various Capacity Building Initiatives for Members and Firms.
The ICAI President said that, the institute will reduce the fee of Certificate Courses and Diploma Courses. Skills and knowledge are the driving forces of any profession. Continuing education and professional development are the hallmark of the accountancy profession, and to meet the increased expectations of all stakeholders it is imperative to provide more impetus on skill capacity building.
IFAC also requires, “professional accountants, regardless of sector or size of the organization in which they operate, undertake relevant CPD to develop and maintain professional competence to perform their role as a professional accountant.”.
The ICAI President also said that to enable more members to take benefit of Certificate Courses and Diploma Courses, we have recently decided to reduce the registration fee by 30%. This is a bold initiative taken by the ICAI to get the membership to skill itself in specialized areas and I hope more and more members will utilize this opportunity.
Further, it has been decided to create a fund of 30 crores for Skill Development/ Capacity Building initiatives for CA professionals to primarily focus on the development of audit tools, software, arrangements, etc. and to equip them with the latest technology and develop the Skill Set for their Professional Enhancement.
To enable our accounting firms to gauge their relative maturity level as regards their digital competency pertaining to Audit and Accounting related functions being rendered by them, the Digital Accounting and Assurance Board of ICAI is releasing ‘Digital Competency Maturity Model (DCMM) for Professional Accounting Firms – Version 2.0 and Implementation Guide”. This newer version has taken into account discipline-specific categorization of accounting firms and related technology adoption for achieving efficiency and productivity gains. It also includes a new section on emerging technologies and also provides guidance on the implementation of each of the sections. The Board is setting up a strategy for encouraging members to adopt DCMM Version 2.0. With this evaluation accounting profession will embrace emerging technologies that will not only enable them to harness the power of technology but will also play an effective role as digital transformation catalysts, He also added.
The Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, ruled that clearances made by the appellant without payment of duty, to SEZ Developers are considered as export, hence not required to reverse 10% of the value of such clearances to SEZ Developers.
The Ruling was made in the case of M/s. Ravin Cables Ltd. Vs.Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III by a bench consisting of Hon’ble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) and Hon’ble Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical).
According to the fact, during the relevant period, the appellant had manufactured and cleared insulated wires and cables to SEZ Developers without payment of duty. The Revenue argued that the clearances are hit by Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. As being exempted goods, the appellant was required to reverse 10% of the value of such clearances.
The Appellants argued that during the relevant period, the clearance is covered under Rule 6(6) (v) the Cenvat Credit Rules(CCR) 2004 and are considered as export. Consequently, the Appellant argued that they are not required to reverse 10% of the value of such clearances to SEZ Developers.
The Appellant cited various cases including Sujana Metal Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad later upheld by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court; S.P. Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Belapur; Blue Star Ltd. vs. CCE, Thane; and CCE, Bangalore-III vs. Lotus Power Gears (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal, however, considered the Sujana Metal Products Ltd. Case and summarised that for the period up to 9-2-2005, the supplies made to SEZ units are to be treated as export both for extending export benefits and for levy of duty in terms of SEZ provisions contained in Chapter XA of the Customs Act. The Tribunal further observed that supplies made to SEZ from DTA units shall be treated as export. Consequently, the Tribunal elaborated that, the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules for recovery of amounts on goods supplied to SEZ units is not applicable.
The Tribunal also added that “exception provided under Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 shall be applicable to supply of exempted goods both to SEZ units and SEZ developers/promoters”.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Gujarat high court held that the probability or improbability of realization has to be considered in a realistic manner and there was no real accrual of income to the assessee in respect of the disputed enhanced charges for supply of electricity.
The petitioner was neither sold/transferred carbon receipts during the year under consideration and therefore, the same cannot be included in the income of the assessee in the year under consideration and by a detailed reasoned judgment and order the learned CIT(A) directed to delete the aforesaid addition of Rs.5,78,28,058/by observing that as there was no transfer/sale of the carbon receipts during the year under consideration and therefore, the same cannot be included in the year consideration.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice J.B. Paridwala and Bhargav D.Karia rendered the judgment on an appeal filed by Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd.
The Court then considered the facts of the case and came to the conclusion in Godhra Electricity that no real income had accrued to the assessee in respect of the enhanced charges for a variety of reasons.
The three tests laid down by various decisions of this Court, namely,
The court observed that in instant case it is evident that in fact no real income but only hypothetical income had accrued to the assessee and Section 28(iv) of the Act would be inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentA Petition has been admitted in the Kerala High Court challenging the power of GST Officers to detain Goods and imposing Penalty at an exorbitant rate of 100% Tax.
The Petitioner Carl Zeiss India has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 and Section 129 (1) of the Kerala State Goods and Service Tax (SGST) Act, 2017 being violative of Article 14 & Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Sec 129 (1) gives power to the proper officer to detain the goods if the goods are transported in contravention of the provisions of the CGST / Kerala SGST Act 2017, and authorizes the levy of tax and also penalty at an exorbitant rate of 100% of the tax, even for a transaction which is otherwise non-taxable.
The Petition reads that, Sec 129 (1) do not make any distinction between taxable transaction and non-taxable transaction or minor contravention and major contravention or whether a bonafide mistake or intentional evasion and further provides for a uniform penalty of 100% across all situations. It leaves no discretion with the proper GST officers to judiciously examine the facts of each case to determine whether the levy of tax and penalty is warranted or not. It hits the constitutional principle that unequal cannot be treated as equals and violates the test of reasonableness and equity as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Petition also said that Levy of Penalty at 100% of the tax even for minor and bonafide mistakes is exorbitant and disproportionate and has no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. The power to levy penalty is only ancillary to the power to levy tax under Sec 9 and by authorizing such an exorbitant penalty at the rate of 100%, in fact partakes the character of a levy in the nature of tax which is not permitted.
In a Copy of the Petition with Taxscan, the Petitioner also submitted that Section 129(1) of the CGST Act/ Kerala SGST Act, is one such ancillary provision which entitles, the concerned officer to detain the goods in case the goods are transported in contravention of the provisions. The contravention can be minor or major, however, section 129 does not make a distinction between various types of contravention as far as the penal consequences are concerned. Section 129 provides that, in the case of contravention, the goods can be detained and the officer concerned can release the goods only on the payment of tax and a penalty which is equivalent to 100% of the tax applicable on the goods.
Advocates Shameem Ahamed and Cyriac Tom appeared for the petitioner.
The Accenture has invited applications from qualified Chartered Accountants, Cost Accountants for the post of Client Financial Management Analyst.
Accenture is a leading global professional services company, providing a broad range of services and solutions in strategy, consulting, digital, technology and operations. Combining unmatched experience and specialized skills across more than 40 industries and all business functions underpinned by the world’s largest delivery network- Accenture works at the intersection of business and technology to help clients improve their performance and create sustainable value for their stakeholders. With approximately 477,000 people serving clients in more than 120 countries, which drives innovation to improve the way the world works and lives.
OVERVIEW
CFM analysts perform work plan reconciliation and reporting process financial transactions and track time and expenses. They also assist with the preparation of engagement project and program reporting. Analysts perform and monitor Accenture internal financial accounting processes and perform special assignments for engagement executives .e.g. ad hoc reporting trend analysis costing and forecasting.
Key Responsibilities:
Assist engagement reporting processes. Establish reconciliation processes. Execute or establish an Accenture time reporting process Track and report time report expenses and Accenture as well as Non-Accenture expenses: review and follow-up on questionable or invalid expenses and monitor non-Accenture expenses. Track use of and compliance with the engagement s expense policy.
Monitor job balance and reconcile expenses and fees – match expenses paid to expenses incurred chargeable expenses to client billings and fees collected to client billings. Monitor engagement capital assets and technology rental equipment. Assist or prepare Accenture .and subcontractor. bill to the client based upon contractual requirements and engagement status. Process bill in Accenture financial systems. Prepare accounts payable payment requests and submit them to the Accounting Center. ASC ESC.. Assist with engagement shutdown activities .prepare final bill to client close job numbers etc… Ensure compliance to Accenture financial policies and procedures. Ensure compliance with U.S. GAAP Interaction with client teams understanding their requirements and prepare reports accordingly Prepare client financial management materials for financial reviews.
REQUIRED SKILLS or EXPERIENCE
2 years for MBA CA or CWA fresher – Thorough knowledge of business finance and accounting fundamentals including the U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.GAAP.; Good organizational analytical and multi-tasking skills; excellent oral and written communication skills; ability to deal with client and engagement executive.- Excellent working knowledge of MS Office Programs.Excel and Access.; restricted travel depending on the client s requirement
EDUCATION or QUALIFICATIONS
Qualified CAs CWA s or CMAs experienced MBA
For Further Information Click here.
The President of Nigeria Muhammadu Buhari has signed the financial bill 2019 on 13/01/2020 Monday, which attempts to increase the Value-Added Tax (VAT) rate from 5% to 7.5% into the law in Abuja.
The bill aims to reform Nigeria’s tax regimes in line with the best global practices prevailing. Other objectives would include:
With the introduction of the new financial bill, individuals will have to provide their Tax Identification Number (TIN) to open a bank account or to operate the existing ones.
As per the bill, corporates with annual turnover less than N25 million are exempted from paying company income tax and the threshold for stamp duty has been raised from N1,000 to N10,000. So, stamp duty charged for online transactions will apply to amounts from N10,000 and above. Transfers between the same person’s accounts in the same bank will be exempted.
Medium-sized companies can have a deduction of 2% and large companies 1% on early payment of Company Income Tax.
Medium-sized companies with a turnover between N25 million and N100 million have a CIT rate of 20% which aims to promote the SMEs.
Dividends distributed from petroleum profits and non-residence providers of imported technical and management services in Nigeria will be charged a withholding tax at 10%.
E-mail is allowed as a communication medium with tax institutions, namely, Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) and state revenue agencies.
The new bill amends Petroleum Profit Tax Act, Customs and Excise Tariff Act, Company Income Tax Act, Personal Income Tax Act, VAT, Stamp Duties Act, and Capital Gains Tax.
Implications and Concerns over the new financial bill:
The financial bill was submitted along with the budget but was signed after 27 days the 2020 budget was signed, on 17 December 2019.
The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai ruled that the Chartered Accountant’s Certificate that categorically certifying that the tax burden has not been passed on to another can be considered as evidence to establish the fact.
The ruling was made by the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Modfurn Systems India Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner of GST & CE by a bench consisting of Hon’ble Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Member (Judicial).
The appellant was traders in furniture items and was engaged in providing a Modular Kitchen on the premises of customers. The department argued that such activity would fall under the category of ‘Competition of Finishing Services’. Upon the issue of Show-cause notice and its adjudication, the Appellant remitted the demands, interest, and penalties. However, the Tribunal set aside the demand observing that the said activity does not attract levy of service tax. However, the Authorities denied the refund claim alleging that the appellant has not produced evidence to show that the tax burden has not been passed on to another.
The Appellant submitted that they were only traders and that service tax was not collected from customers. They also produced a Chartered Accountant’s Certificate showing that they have not passed on the service tax to the customers and have paid it from their pocket.
On contrary the Authorities brought in the decision in the case of M/s. Shopper’s Stop Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai reported in 2018(8) G.S.T.L.47 (Mad.,) to argue that Chartered Accountant’s Certificate cannot be the sole evidence to conclude that the incidence of tax has not been passed on to another.
While considering the decision of M/s. Shopper’s Stop, the Tribunal concluded that in that particular certificate the Chartered Accountant certified that the amount has been shown as Receivables in the balance sheet. The certificate did not state that the burden of tax has not been passed on to customers. Hence the precedent cannot be applied here.
The Tribunal observed that the appellants are traders and hence not possible for them to collect service tax by the issue of invoices. The Tribunal hence concluded that the appellant has passed the test of unjust enrichment and the Authorities are to refund the amount remitted by the Appellant.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Madras High Court has held that the replacement of the machineries as a whole cannot be held to be current repairs or allowable revenue expenditure.
The ruling was made by a division bench comprising of Members Justice Vineet Kothari and Justice R.Suresh Kumar in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Salem Vs. M/s.Jawahar Mills Ltd. The appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT (Appeals) and relate to the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The question in consideration is whether the cost of replacement of machinery could be claimed as revenue expenditure. The replaced machineries are an assemble of Motor Rollers, Spindles, gears, etc. The Assessing Officer observed that the machineries under consideration are indigenous products made in India and are nothing but a modernized system of automatic controllers installed to replace manual labor. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of the assessee. The CIT (Appeals), however, allowed the claim of the assessee. The revenue department filed an appeal against the order of CIT (Appeals). The Tribunal relying on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Salem Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. (148 ITR 176) (Mad) upheld the order of the CIT (Appeals).
The Revenue submitted that the said issue was settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Vs. Sarangpur Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd., [2017] 80 taxmann.com 260 (SC), and held that each item for which deduction under the head “current repairs” was sought is a machine by itself and therefore deduction cannot be allowed. If the current repairs related to the independent machine itself instead of repairs of a part of that machine, a deduction cannot be granted under Section 31(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Court held that the total replacement cost of three machineries in question purchased by the Assessee amounting to Rs.54,59,149/- came to be allowed by the Tribunal as ‘repairs maintenance expenditure’ or ‘revenue expenditure’. The said findings of the learned Tribunal are clearly contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, the view of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the replacement of the machinery as a whole by the Assessee cannot be held to be current repairs or allowable revenue expenditure. Therefore, respectfully following the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat V. Sarangpur Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd., the present Appeals filed by the Revenue deserves to be allowed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment