The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that Substantive Input Tax credits cannot be denied on procedural grounds and the court directs to allow the petitioner to file TRAN-1 electronically or manually.
The division bench comprising of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia on a writ petition filed by M/s Jay Bee Industries observed that the GST system has been judicially recognized but it is still in a “trial and error phase” dealers facing genuine difficulties in filing returns, claiming input tax credits through the GST portal, Thus assessee can file TRAN-1 either electronically or manually statutory form(s).
The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale/supply of Electrical Transformers/parts thereof etc. subjected to appropriate levies of goods and service tax on the supplies made by it. The petitioner is also entitled to the credit of input tax on the inputs as well as capital goods and input services. The input credit is also admissible in respect of the duty/tax paid on the inputs lying as such and those contained in the semi-finished goods and finished goods lying in stocks as on 30.06.2017 for being carried forward and utilized under the GST Act.
The petitioner tried to submit the aforesaid TRAN-1 Form, but due to system problem/glitches, could not file it. The petitioner thereafter approached its jurisdictional authorities and also submitted a letter requesting for the solution to the problem. Again, when the petitioner tried to submit the aforesaid TRAN-1 Form, there was a message appearing on the portal reflecting that the filing of declaration in TRAN-1 is not available now as the due date is over.
While allowing the writ petition the Court observed that a majority of the High Courts in the Country like Kerala, Madras, Bombay, Gujarat, Karnataka, Telangana, Delhi, Chhatisgarh, Rajasthan, and Gauhati, have taken an identical view and held that either to open the portal so as enable the petitioner to file the TRAN-1 electronically for claiming the transitional credit or accept the manually filed TRAN-1 and to allow the input credit claimed after processing the same.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe American Express has invited applications from M.Com/ MBA / CA (inter) for the post of Financial Analyst.
American Express is a global service company, providing customers with exceptional access to products and experiences that enrich lives and build business success.
Function Description
For American Express Banking Corp., the AEBC Controllership team manages period close process both for US GAAP and India GAAP / IND AS and related filings and submissions.
Support treasury back-office function and business initiatives.
Manage/support internal and external reviews on Financial close and reporting processes.
Purpose Of The Role
American Express Banking Corp. (“AEBC”) India Branch is a banking entity regulated by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) which deals in Card products. This is a key position in American Express Banking Corp., India Branch Controllership team and assists with responsibilities as defined below.
Responsibilities
Critical Factors To Success
Qualifications
Past Experience
1-3 years of experience in regulatory/financial reporting or financial
Academic Background
Commerce Graduate
M.Com/ MBA / CA (inter) would be a plus
Functional Skills/Capabilities
Proficient in MS Office – Word, Excel, PPT
Familiar with banking industry and regulatory environment
Well versed with basic accounting practices
Technical Skills/Capabilities
Accounting Rules and practices
Awareness of financial statements and disclosures of Banks
Ability to assess and reconcile general ledger with sub-ledger
Knowledge Of Platforms
Knowledge of Oracle, OBIEE
Usage of various functions in Excel
Behavioral Skills/Capabilities
Enterprise Leadership Behaviors
For Further Information Click here.
Italy has proposed the adoption of Digital Service Tax in late 2017, but it was yet to be implemented. The Italian Budget Law for 2020 confirms to impose DST on “qualifying digital services”.
The revenues of certain digital services will be taxed at 3% under the new bill. The qualifying digital services include:
The Digital Service Tax will apply to the entities- Italian or foreign, standalone or group, meeting both the following criteria:
The new regime is expected to be effective from 1 January 2020. This would raise Italy’s revenue received from corporate taxes by 1.6% compared to the corporate taxes collected in 2017.
The poor design and complexity of the tax regime turn out to be great limitations to implement it. This looks to work as a trade restriction as businesses are mainly headquartered outside of Italy.
Annual DST return for revenue generated in 2020 should be filed by March 31, 2021, and the DST should be paid by February 16, 2021.
The West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (WBAAAR), Kolkata has held that printing trade advertisement content provided by the customer and supplying such printing materials will not amount to the supply of goods hence it will come under the purview of Service.
The ruling was rendered by the bench comprising of Sri. A.P.S Suri and Sri. Devi Prasad Karanam on an application filed by M/s Macro Media Digital Imaging Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal was considering the question, Whether the job of printing of content provided by the customer on polyvinyl chloride banners and supplying such printed trade advertisement material amount to the supply of goods or not.
The Appellant prints the content provided by the recipient on the base of PVC (polyvinyl Chloride), paper, etc., where it provides both the printing trade advertisement ink and the base material.
The authority found that there cannot be any doubt that the content that is printed on the base material is owned by the customers of the Appellant only and the Appellant has no right of usage on the content.
While dismissing the petition WB AAAR concluded that the service of printing is the predominant element of the composite supplies and the purchase order no as mentioned description as service— “Digital Printing — Outdoor”.
While disposing of the matter, the authority observed, “it is clear beyond doubt that what the Appellant supplies are nothing but service. Hence, we find no basis in the argument of the Appellant that it supplies goods only.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
The Authority of Advance Ruling ( AAR ) in Tamil Nadu held that the mixed supply of services that are billed at a single price is liable for a highest GST rate of the services supplied ie. 18%.
The ruling was made by bench comprising of members Ms. Manasa Gangotri Kata, IRS Member, CGST and Thiru KurinjiSelvaan V.S Member. TNGS in the case of M/s. R.B. Shah Enterprises India Pvt Ltd, who has sought Advance Ruling on the question of what is the applicable rate of GST for the service provided for a whole sum price.
The applicant supplies consultancy services to the clients relating to the Customs/DGFT/other statutory requirements for the import of goods. by advising, updating on the incentives available, facilitating for the same, documents preparation related to duty payments, tracking of the goods, etc. they provide along with Contract of duty credit scrips facilitation & its accountability, documents preparation related to duty payments like Bill of Entry, etc., Document Management system(DMS i.e., Storage of Hard copies, Soft Copies and Data Entries), Goods transport track, redemption of scrips and refund of additional duties from Customs if any. The service order is to support the compliance of Customs and DGFT up to the clearance including credit scrips facilitation. This involves procuring the duty credit scrip from an exporter and supplying it to the client of the applicant.
The court found that the stated services are supplied along with supplying of the duty credit scrip as seen in the invoice and service order. The applicant is billing the client for a single lumpsum payment. It is seen that the duty credit scrip is purchased by the applicant by means of transfer, which means that the scrip belongs to the applicant and he can import goods against the scrip if he chooses so. The applicant further retransfers the scrip to his client. Both these activities are to be done through the systems put in place by DGFT. These activities are independent of the activities of data management or consultancy services that the applicant offers. The applicant can very well supply only the duty credit scrip by buying it and reselling it or only act as a consultant for the transaction by identifying the seller of the scrip and getting it transferred in the name of their client. Data management activities assisting the client in the clearance of goods from customs can also be performed without a supply of duty credit scrip.
The supplies made by the applicant as enumerated in the service order of M/s. Sitaraman Shipping Service is ‘Mixed supply ‘and the rate of tax is the highest rate applicable to the various services supplied by the applicant which is 9% CGST as per Notification No. II/2OI7- C.T.(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended and 9%o SGST vide Notification No. II (2)/CTR/532(d- 14)/2017 vide G.O. (Ms) No.72 dated 29.06.2017 as amended. Therefore, as per Section 8 of the ACT, the rate of tax of this mixed supply which is billed at a single price is the rate of the highest rate of the services supplied which is 18%.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentNotification No. 01/2020-CT notified the amendments to CGST Acts introduced by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 with effect from January 1st, 2020. It has notified amendments to Sections 10, 22, 25, 31A, 44, 49, 52, 53A, 168 and 17a of the CGST Act, 2017.
Provisions have been inserted to prescribe further rules for determination of the value of turnover of State/UT for the purpose of application of the scheme of composition levy. The registered persons not eligible to opt for Composition Levy under 10(1) and 10(2) now have an option to pay an amount of tax at a rate of 3% of the turnover for on fulfilment of certain conditions.
The process of authentication or furnishing of proof of possession of Aadhaar Number for every registered person has been introduced.
A registered person can now transfer any amount of tax, interest, penalty, fee or any other amount available in the electronic cash ledger under the CGST Acts, to the electronic cash ledger for integrated tax, central tax, State tax, Union territory tax or cess in the manner to be prescribed. Further, the amount so transferred shall be transferred to the State tax account or UT account by the Government.
A penalty equal to 10% of the amount so profiteered has been prescribed where profiteering is detected by the Anti-Profiteering Authority (APA). In addition to the above penalty, the meaning of term ‘profiteered’ has also been inserted to mean “the amount determined on account of not passing the benefit of reduction in rate of tax on supply of goods or services or both or the benefit of input tax credit to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the goods or services or both.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has extended the deadline of the Compounding of Offences under Direct Taxes till January 31, 2020.
According to the Circular, taxpayers to avail of a “one-time” facility to apply for compounding of income tax offences. The earlier deadline was December 31, 2019.
The CBDT has received references from the field formations, including requests made by the ICAI chapters, wherein, it has been brought to the notice of CBDT that the taxpayers could not avail the benefit of the one-time relaxation window due to genuine hardships.
Applications, as per the procedure of the scheme, are to be filed before the appropriate competent authority that is either a principal chief commissioner or a chief commissioner or a principal director general or director-general of the Income-Tax Department “on or before” January 31, 2020.
Earlier, CBDT had issued guidelines of exclusion provisions, under which, offences have done under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Act, 2015, the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 cannot be compounded in normal cases. This includes money laundering cases. Compounding means that the authorities agree to not prosecute offenders in return for a consideration.
The guidelines classify offences into three categories. The first category of offences open to compounding includes defaults under tax deducted or collected at source, failure to file the return. The second category of offences, for which compounding will not be allowed, deal with willful evasion of tax, removal or concealment or transfer or delivery of property to thwart tax recovery in a search operation.
The guidelines specifically stated that the compounding of direct taxes offences is not a matter of right and can be invoked on the satisfaction of certain conditions prescribed in it.
The application can be filed in all such cases where-
a) prosecution proceedings are pending before any court of law for more than 12 months, or
b) any compounding application for an offence filed previously was withdrawn by the applicant solely for the reason that such application was filed beyond 12 months, or
c) any compounding application for an offence had been rejected previously solely for technical reasons.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( CBIC ) has issued a clarification on the subject of the application of Reverse Charge Mechanism ( RCM ) on renting of motor vehicles.
The GST Council in its 37th meeting dated 20.09.2019 examined the request to place the supply of renting of motor vehicles under RCM and recommended that the said supply when provided by suppliers paying GST @ 5% to corporate entities, may be placed under RCM. Post introduction of the concept of RCM and the use of words “any person other than a body corporate, paying central tax at the rate of 2.5%” in the entry introduced created a greater ambiguity in the interpretation of the same.
The possible interpretation of the previous entry was:
A case falling under (ii) above i.e. where a supplier providing the service to a body corporate under the application of RCM may still be paying GST @ 5% on the services supplied to other non-body corporate clients relying upon the interpretation of “any person other than a body corporate” on whom the entry was initially made applicable.
In order to provide clarification to the above entry, the following have been introduced, the fulfilment of which shall make the RCM applicable. It shall be applicable where service by way of renting of any motor vehicle designed to carry passengers where the cost of fuel is included in the consideration charged from the service recipient only if the supplier shall fulfil all the following conditions:–
2020 will witness a further reduction in VAT on e-books and audio books aligned with physical books. The European Council agreed to allow the member countries to impose a reduced VAT on electronic publications, following the legislation change in EU in October, 2018. Many countries were quick to apply this in 2019 which included Finland, Sweden, Poland, Czech Republic, Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta and Portugal.
Countries planning to apply reduced VAT in 2020:
| Country | 2019 | 2020(New rates) |
| Austria | 20% | 10% |
| Czech Republic | 21% | 10% |
| Germany | 19% | 7% |
| Netherlands | 21% | 9% |
| Spain | 21% | 4% |
Countries not committed to change their VAT rate on e-books include Latvia and the UK.
The upper tribunal gave its appeal decision favoring News Corp UK and Ireland Limited, a representative member of a VAT group that publishes well-known E-newspapers such as The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun and The Sun on Sunday. It was ruled that newspapers should be zero-rated for VAT, whether digital or printed.
The case was first brought before the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) by News Corp UK and Ireland Limited with an argument that the digital edition of newspaper should be interpreted as ‘newspaper’ under the Value Added Tax Act (VATA) 1994 and should be zero-rated for VAT. But FTT found and concluded that the zero-rated VAT for E-Newspapers only covered goods and not services under the relevant Schedule.
The Upper Tribunal concluded that the FTT was wrong in its decision, pointing that both goods and services were allowed for zero-rated VAT under Section 30 of VATA.
The single bench of the Kerala High Court has held that for Non -Filing of GST returns of GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 can’t be a reason for detaining vehicles.
Judgement was rendered by Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar on a writ petition filed by Relcon Foundations (p) Ltd.
The writ petitioner challenged in the petition against the order for physical verification and confiscation of goods for convenience notice for proposing confiscation of the goods belonging to the petitioner that was detained while in transit. A perusal of Ex.P1 order would indicate that the detention of the vehicle carrying the goods was on the ground that the GSTR 3B returns have not been filed from June 2018 and GSTR 1 had not been filed from March 2019. Court pointed out that the said grounds cannot be justified for the detention of vehicles under section 129 of the KGST Act.
GSTR-3B is a monthly summary return filed by a taxpayer by the 20th of the next month. GSTR-3B discloses supplies made during the month along with GST returns to be paid, input tax credit claimed, purchases on which reverse charge is applicable, etc., and also makes a provision for the payment of taxes, if any, for the relevant month.
GSTR-1 is a monthly or quarterly return filed by taxpayers to disclose details of their outward supplies for the month – along with their tax liability. Here, invoice-wise details are to be uploaded so that the Government can keep a check on every transaction; this forms the basis for the recipient of supplies to accept the same and take the eligible input tax credit.
Further elaboration of section 129 of the KGST Act, which begins with a non obstante clause empowers the officers to detain seize the goods documents and the conveyance, if the goods are transported or stored during the transit in contravention of the provisions of this Act or rules made but in the instant case section 129 is not applicable just or a reason stated in order and notice.
Justice A.K. Jayasakaran Nambiar observed that in the instant case contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the reasons stated in order cannot be a justification of detaining goods in terms of section 129 of KGST Act. Similarly, the said ground cannot form the basis of notice proposing confiscation of the goods detained in as much as the ingredients of the offence covered by Section 130 are not satisfied.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Madurai Bench of Madras High Court held that registered person making zero rated supply shall be eligible to claim IGST refunds, irrespective of the circular on clarifications on exports related refund issues (Circular No.37/2018-Customs, dated 09.10.2018).
The ruling was made by a single bench consisting of Justice M.Govindaraj, in the case of M/s.Precot Meridian Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs and Anr.
The petitioner exported cotton by way of seven shipping bills and paid Rs. 4, 80,355/- towards IGST. The petitioner wrongly availed the higher duty drawback initially. Thereafter, he rectified the mistake by repaying it along with interest and sought a refund of IGST paid by him.
The petitioner claimed that he exported after paying the tax and he is entitled to refund of the input tax credit as per Section 16(3) of the IGST Act.
The respondents, however, relied on the circular issued by the Government vide Circular No.37/2018-Customs, dated 09.10.2018, and contended that a person, who makes a conscious request for refund of duty drawback, is not entitled to IGST/ITC claims. In such circumstances it is treated as an exporter has consciously relinquished the same and is not entitled to refund. The Revenue also contended that the petitioner has wrongly claimed higher duty drawback and on his own volition, without any sanction from the department, has paid it back. The Revenue also pointed out that since the entire refund is system managed, once the exporter draws a higher duty drawback, the system automatically scrolls out IGST refund.
While Analysis the case, the Court pointed out that the only condition the statute provides for IGST refunds on the export of materials is that the export is made after payment of tax.
The Court cited the judgment of Division Bench of Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in M/s. Amit Cotton Industries Through Partner, Veljibhai Virjibhai Ranipa vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, in R/Special Civil Application No.20126 of 2018, dated 27.06.2019, Wherein it was held that the Circular has nothing to do with the IGST refund and it is incumbent on the respondents to refund the IGST as claimed by the petitioner.
The Court further cited a Supreme Court Judgement of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries [2008(12) S.T.R. 416 (S.C.)], and held that “circulars cannot prevail over the statute. Circulars are issued only to clarify the statutory provision and it cannot alter or prevail over the statutory provision”.
The Revenue was hence directed to refund the amount of IGST paid by the petitioner for the goods exported from India which are zero-rated supplies, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Oman’s Ministry of Finance has affirmed the exclude of Value Added Tax (VAT) as revenue from the 2020 budget. It was also stated that the VAT regime will not be introduced until 2021.
Oman was fifth to join the “sin tax” regime with other GCC countries and was also looking to implement VAT at a standard rate of 5%. 100% sin tax was imposed on tobacco, pork, alcohol and energy drinks and later the tax on alcohol was reduced to 50%. A tax rate of is applicable on carbonated drinks.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench held that the loss arising from forfeiture of the advance paid on convertible warrants is a business loss.
The ruling was made by a bench of ITAT consisting of Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member and Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member, in the case of Lustre Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT.
The assessee was a non-banking finance company engaged in the business of dealing in shares and securities. It applied for 750000 convertible warrants. On a later date, the assessee company opted for the conversion of 1 lakh share warrants into equity shares. However, the assessee failed to remit the balance amount before the due date. Consequently, the listed company forfeited application money.
The dispute in the instant appeal was regarding the treatment of the loss on account of forfeiture of share application money as a business loss or a capital loss. The assessee argued that the loss is business loss whereas according to the Revenue it is a capital loss.
The Assessing Officer argued that if the assessee had remitted the amount it would have incurred a loss and by not making the payment it incurred a loss and, therefore, it is not a commercial decision but is a colorable device to avoid its tax. The AO also argued that the transaction would attract the provision of section 2(47) of the Act and the extinguishment of any right therein is a capital loss and cannot be held as a business loss.
The Tribunal observed that , “the CBDT, vide Circular No.6/2016 dated 29th February, 2016 had categorically held that ‘where the assessee itself, irrespective of the period of holding the listed shares and securities, opts to treat them as stock-in-trade, the income arising from transfer of such shares/securities would be treated as its business income”. The Tribunal also held that the Circular is clarificatory in nature and is retrospective.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe CESTAT Chennai held that the spare parts etc, which have been used in the course of maintenance service, are definitely considered to be sold and when sales tax has been paid on the value of such goods, simultaneously, one cannot charge them to service tax.
The ruling was made by the division bench comprising of members Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Member (Judicial) Shri P. Anjani Kumar, Member (Technical) in the case of M/s. Novotron Broadband (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & ST. The appellants are engaged in providing service of annual maintenance of set-top boxes “Sun Direct”, on the basis of the agreement entered by them. As per the agreement, Annual Maintenance Fees, per box, per year was fixed as Rs.40/- out of which, Rs.22/- was towards service charges and Rs.18/- towards materials cost. They discharged the service tax on the service portion and paid sales tax on material components.
However, the department was of the view that the being composite contract the entire value including the material component has to be taken for the purpose of determining the taxable value of services and that service tax has to be paid on such value up to 30th June 2012. that with effect from 01.07.2012, the activity has to be treated as Works Contract Service and 70% of the composite value has to be considered for payment of service tax. A show-cause notice was issued demanding differential service tax of Rs.56,88,580/- for the period from Dec.’09 to Mar.’14. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed an equal penalty.
Appellant submitted they have discharged VAT on the value of materials and during the relevant period, the rate of tax under VAT was much higher than service tax. The present demand has been raised alleging that the appellants have discharged service tax not on the actual value of materials but only on notional value. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. WIPRO GE Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore reported in 2009 (14) S.T.R.43 (Tri.- Bang.) to argue that when sales tax had been paid on materials representing 70% of the value, service tax is not leviable simultaneously on the same amount.
While allowing the appeal, the Tribunal pointed out that in any annual maintenance contract, the spare parts etc., which have been used in the course of maintenance service, are definitely considered to be sold and when sales tax has been paid on the value of such goods, simultaneously, one cannot charge them to service tax. The court cited the judgment in the case of M/s. Safety Retreading Co. (P) Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem reported in 2017 (48) S.T.R.97 (S.C.), wherein the said issue has been decided, that the spare parts/materials used for repairs and maintenance cannot be said to have been not sold to the customers. Following the settled position, in this case, the demand cannot sustain. The impugned order is set aside.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Authority on Advance Rulings in Karnataka ruled that registered persons are not eligible to claim the tax credits on input invoices of goods or services procured or availed by a registered person before its effective date of registration under GST.
The ruling was made by a bench of the Authority consisting of Sri. Harish Dharnia, Addl. Commissioner of Central Tax, Member (Central Tax) and Dr Ravi Prasad M.P Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on an application made by M/s Knowlarity Communications Pvt. Ltd.
The Applicant received certain input invoices of goods or services procured by its office located in the State of Karnataka. These invoices were issued from July 1st, 2017 to March 31st, 2018, i.e., before the effective date of registration. The effective date of registration under the GST Law in the State of Karnataka was on 01.04.2018.
The question that the applicant sought a ruling on was whether a registered person under GST Act can claim eligible input tax credits paid on input invoices of goods or services procured or availed before the effective date of registration under GST.
The applicant argued that whether or not a person is registered under GST Act, 2017, the person is eligible to claim input tax credit issued provided the inputs are eligible and received in the course or furtherance of business and the time period under section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 has not lapsed. The applicant further bought in Sec 16, 16(2), 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 to point out that the section does not restrict a registered person from taking input tax credit of invoices that were issued by the suppliers before the effective date of registration. The applicant also argued that the date of issue of the invoice of supply should not bear any relevance until the date-time period given under section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 has lapsed.
The Authority while analysis of the issue observed that all the provisions quoted by the applicant are applicable to a registered person whose registration is effective and not to a registered person for the period of non-registration.
The Authority further ruled that in case of goods lying in stock on the day previous to the effective date of registration, which is intended to be used in the course or furtherance of business, the applicant is eligible to claim an input tax credit. This shall be subject to other conditions and restrictions prescribed in the GST Act and in Rule 40 of the CGST Rules, provided the application for registration has been filed within thirty days from the date on which the applicant became liable for registration under the Act.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Authority for Advanced Ruling (AAR), TamilNadu ruled that Goods and Services Tax (GST) is not applicable for the supply of inpatient health care services rendered by the hospital.
The applicant has a multi-speciality tertiary care hospital providing health care services to both outpatients and in-patients. The in-patients are provided with stay facilities, medicines, consumables, surgical and implants, dietary food and other surgeries/procedures required for the treatment. From the In-patient final bill and related bills furnished by the applicant, it is seen that in case of In-patients the final bill charged includes Hospital Services Room charges, Consultation charges], Pharmacy services Investigation charges, food and Beverages, OT charges, Pharmacy charges(lP and OT)].
From the Medication Order for In-Patients (Credit Payment) note enclosed with the final bill, it is evident that the medicines, consumables, etc are procured from IP pharmacy for administering the same to the in-patient. It is seen that inpatients are provided a comprehensive treatment which includes room rent, nursing care, medicines, consumables, implants etc. The doctors who treat the in patients themselves prescribe the medicines and consumables and implants are used in their treatment and diagnostics. The inpatients are charged for all of these when they are admitted to the hospital which provides services to the inpatients.
The ruling was made by Ms Manasa Gangotri Kata and Thiru Kurinji Selvaa V.S. on an application filed by M/s. CMC Vellore Association.
The AAR observed that from a joint reading of the ‘Explanation of service ‘pertaining to ‘Inpatient services’ and the exemption above, it is evident that the exemption is applicable to a “Clinical Establishment” when services by way of diagnosis or treatment or care for illness, etc. are undertaken by such establishment under the directions of a medical doctor. The applicant hospital is a Clinical Establishment and for the health care services, as defined in the Notification above provided including the supply of medicines, implants and consumables, they are exempted from CGST and SGST.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR), Tamil Nadu ruled that Input Tax Credit (ITC) is not available on against any goods or services received by the applicant for construction of the Marriage Hall on his own account even if used in course or furtherance of his business of renting the place Goods and services tax act 2017.
The ruling was made by Ms Manasa GangotriKata and Thiru KurinjiSelvaan V.S. Joint Commissioner (ST) / Member on an application filed by M/S. Sree Varalakshmi Mahaal LLP.
The applicant has stated that they have spent several crores of the amount as the investment in the construction of Marriage hall and other all auxiliary amenity buildings. In this aspect, huge quantities of materials and other inputs in the form of steel, cement, sand, aluminium, wires, cables, plywood, paints, lifts, escalators, air-condition plant, electrical equipment’s, DG sets, other decorative items and also services in the form of consultancy service, architectural service, legal & professional service, engineering service and other all related services were utilized for construction purpose. All these goods and services which are purchased /received for such construction are taxable under the CGST, SGST & IGST Acts and as such the applicant has paid about Rs. 2 crores approximately towards payment of CGST, SGST & IGST levies. It is an undisputed fact that the activity of letting out the building (i.e. marriage hall) attracts CGST & SGST levy of 18% as output tax. It is stated by the applicant, that they are prevented from taking the credit of input tax paid as per section 17(5) (d) of the CGST Act 2017 as well as TNGST Act 2017. in the blocked credit condition, input tax credit shall not be available in respect of the goods & services or both received by a taxable person for construction of an immovable property (other than plant machinery) on his own account including when such goods or services or both are used in the course or furtherance of business.
The AAR observed that in the instant case the applicant has himself built the marriage hall for which he has received various input services. He is using the hall to rent out to customers for occasions i.e. for the furtherance of his business. Therefore, as per section 17(5) (d), no ITC is available on any goods or services received by him for such construction and the same cannot be claimed by him.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Calcutta High Court has rejected the bail application by a Chartered Accountant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the petitioner who has prayed for his enlargement on bail on any conditions in consideration of the gravity of Economic Offence under Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST).
The order was pronounced by Justice Shivakant Prasad on a bail application filed by CA Arvind Kumar Munka.
The petitioner case is that he is a Chartered Accountant (CA) and is no way connected with the instant case and has been falsely arraigned as an accused on the allegation that the petitioner in connivance with the other accused persons, namely, Sanjay Kumar Pandit, Nagendra Kumar Dubey alias Sandip Dubey, and Mr Vijay Rajpuriya along with other persons had allegedly issued GST invoices without any supply of the goods to the buyers on commission basis causing loss of more than 98 crores approximately.
The Court came into conclusion in the light of judgment in case of P.V.Ramanna Reddy (supra), the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail, however, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the authority for compounding of the offence under Section 138 of CGST Act also the petitioner, who was the main accused was not entitled to regular bail. In the present case loss caused to Government Exchequer amounts to Rs.141,76,46,639/-. Therefore in such a huge economic offence, he should not be enlarged on bail.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe division bench of the Bombay High Court has held that the petitioner disclosed all material facts fully and truly and assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act is made by the AO for the relevant assessment year. The jurisdictional requirements for reopening assessment after four years are absent. So notice issued under section 148 of the I.T. Act, is liable to be set aside.
The Petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing and exports of diamonds. The Petitioner filed the return of income for the assessment year 2012-13. The AO sought details from the Petitioner and reopening assessment order was passed under section 143(3) of the Act without making any disallowances of the purchases.
AO then issued the notice under section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13. Reasons observed that all the purchases made by the assessee were bogus and not actually purchased by the assessee, and then all the expenditure belongs to the bogus purchase would have been disallowed. It has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped, so the case needs to be reopened and the assessment should be finalized u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act.
The petitioner submitted that assessment under section 143(3) is made by the AO for the relevant assessment year, then no action shall be taken after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year for the assessee’s failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for that assessment year.
The court observed that all the material was placed before the AO by the Petitioner. Acting upon this material, the AO had, in fact, made certain additions. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a failure by the Petitioner to disclose all material facts fully and truly. In the circumstances, the jurisdictional requirement to reopen the assessment proceeding after four years is not present.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued the Cyber Security Controls Guidelines for Third-party ATM Switch Application Service Providers.
The RBI observed that a number of RBI Regulated Entities (RREs) manage their ATM Switch ecosystem through shared services of third party ATM Switch Application Service Providers (ASPs). Since these service providers also have exposure to the payment system landscape, it is felt that some cybersecurity controls are required to be put in place by them.
In view of this, the RREs shall ensure that the contract agreement signed between them and the third party ATM Switch ASP shall necessarily mandate the third party ATM Switch ASP to comply with the cyber security controls given in the Annex on an ongoing basis and to provide access to the RBI for on-site/off-site supervision. To this effect, the contract agreements shall be amended at the earliest or at the time of renewal, in any case not later than March 31, 2020.
The list of prescribed controls is indicative but not exhaustive. It may be mentioned that these controls are applicable to the ASPs limited to the IT ecosystem (such as physical infrastructure, hardware, software, reconciliation system, network interfaces, security solutions, hardware security module, middleware, associated people, processes, systems, data, information, etc.,) providing ATM switch services as well as any other type of payment system-related services to the RREs.
The RBI also said that the regulatory instructions will be issued from time to time in terms of circulars/advisories/alerts, as applicable to the ATM switch ecosystem shall be shared with the ASPs for necessary compliance.
