The Central warehousing corporation has invited application for the post of Deputy General Manager (Finance & Accounts) and Manager (Accounts).
A premier Warehousing Agency in India, established during 1957 providing logistics support to the agricultural sector, is one of the biggest public warehouse operators in the country offering logistics services to a diverse group of clients.
Deputy General Manager (Finance & Accounts)
Educational Qualification: A fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants or Institute of Costs & Works Accountants
Experience: 3 years experience in Govt or 3 years experience in a Public Institutions/ Commercial Organization at middle management level.
Manager (Accounts)
Educational Qualification: A Member of the Institute of the Chartered Accountants or of the Institute of Costs & Works Accountant with two years experience or a degree in second class in Commerce or Business Administration, with specialisation in finance or accounts from reputed institution with 4 years experience.
For more details please click here.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ( ICAI ) has last day clarified that the person arrested by the Economic Offences Wing of Mumbai Police for cheating clients is not a Chartered Accountant.
Earlier, a leading newspaper has published a news item titled “EOW books Ghatkopar CA for cheating 50 clients of Rs. 7.40cr”. The article stated that “Acting on a complaint filed by Mahendra Moger, Superintendent of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) department and Central Excise department, Economic Offences Wing of Mumbai Police booked Chartered Accountant Kalpesh Shamji Shah…”
The content of the news item mentions about the Chartered Accountant who allegedly cheated his clients on the pretext of depositing service tax and pocketed Rs. 7.40cr by issuing fake challans.
After verifying the details, the ICAI found that Kalpesh Shamji Shah is not a Chartered Accountant as his name does not appear in the Register of members maintained by the ICAI.
“In such sensitive cases, the concerned correspondent ought to have verified the facts with the Institute before issuing any statement wherein the involvement of a Chartered Accountant is suspected. The contents of the story published thus are incorrect in so far as the reference to Chartered Accountant is concerned,” ICAI said.
The Institute further requested that in future, if any such news item appears wherein there is an alleged involvement of Chartered Accountant, the matter may be referred to ICAI for cross verifying the credentials from its records, before going to the Press.
A two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court has held that the complete sealing of the business premises is illegal under the GST laws.
The petitioners’ premises were visited by the Revenue authorities on 29.08.2018 when the DGST officials directed production of books of accounts and other documents. Since the petitioner was not in possession of those, it sought 24 hours time for the same. Apparently a temporary sealing of the premises was ordered. On the next date i.e. 30.08.2018, the premises were completely sealed. It is contended that the DGST lacks statutory power and authorization to indefinitely seal the premises in a manner it has proceeded to do so.
For the department, it was argued that submitted that till date the petitioner has not cooperated as it has neither produced the books of accounts nor other materials. It is further submitted that according to the instructions available to them, the premises can be immediately de-sealed provided the petitioner cooperates.
The petitioner claimed that the authorization does not name the assessee; it only lists the two premises i.e. the business premises at Netaji Subhash Place and the DSIDC Unit at Narela.
Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt and A K Chawla held that “Given the plain text of the statute i.e. especially Section 69(4), which merely authorizes the concerned officials to search the premises and if resistance is offered, break-open the lock or any other almirah, electrical device, box, etc. containing books and documents, the complete sealing of the premises, in the opinion of the court is per se illegal. Even if it were assumed that the respondents temporarily restrained the petitioner from using its premises, for a few hours, till the books of accounts are made available in order to secure the evidence available in the premises that could not have assumed the life on “its own”, at least indefinitely. In these given circumstances, this petition has to succeed. Since the premises have been in the possession of the respondents for over a month, a direction is issued to remove the seal forthwith – within the next 12 hours and hand over the premises to the petitioner.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentA two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court has allowed the petitioners to file GSTR-3B manually.
Grievance Redressal Forum of the GST Council which has noted in its minutes of meeting dated 21.08.2018 that the petitioners have a grievance which needs to be addressed. It is highlighted that the reflection of Tran-I credit in GSTR-3 is essential as it would ultimately impact the availability of credit for the entire duration — both transitional credit and input credit for the period 01.07.2017 onwards.
The petitioners contended that unless appropriate directions are given to the respondents, it is likely to face severe adverse financial crisis because, in the absence of credit, it would have to pay cash throughout the country to the tune of Rs.37 crores. The GSTR-3B form in the relevant table dealing with eligible ITC, talks of total ITC available. ITC reversed and the net ITC available.
Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt and Justice A K Chawla held that “As the deadline for completing this form and availing the credit is 20.10.2018, the respondents are hereby directed to permit the petitioners to fill the GSTR-3 form manually in a manner, as to permit it to claim a credit, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings. It is clarified that in the GSTR-3B form, the petitioner can claim transitional as well as the post 01.07.2017 input tax credit.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Finance Ministry has clarified that, Composition Dealers need not furnish data in serial number 4A of Table 4 of FORM GSTR-4.
It has been brought to notice that doubts regarding the manner of filing the quarterly return by Composition Dealers in FORM GSTR-4 in the absence of auto-population of the details of inward supplies (other than supplies attracting reverse charge) received from registered suppliers exist amongst taxpayers.
In this regard, it is to clarify that the taxpayers who have opted to pay tax under the composition levy shall not furnish the data in serial number 4A of Table 4 of FORM GSTR-4. The required changes in the CGST Rules, 2017 would be notified shortly.
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of ACIT v. M/s. Goldmohur Design and Apparel Park Ltd. held that where the assessee duly furnished relevant material and no new material came to light, reassessment u/s 147 of the Act was unjustified.
The assessee in the present case is a joint venture vehicle formed between the Government of India through National Textile Corporation (NTC) and Pantaloon Retail India Ltd. (PRIL) as a part of textile mills in Mumbai in pursuance of the scheme for revival and rehabilitation of sick textile companies. PRIL was to introduce fresh capital in the assessee in terms of the minimum investment plan for modernization by acquiring share capital of the assessee at a premium. Three agreements were entered into, one of which was undertaking transfer agreement for the transfer of the entire undertaking on ‘as is where is’ basis to the assessee.
The present appeal was filed by the revenue being aggrieved from the setting aside of the reopening of the assessment holding that the information was already available with the Assessing Officer (AO) while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
The prime contention of the revenue was that the reassessment was set aside irrespective of taking note of Explanation I to Section 147, according to which production of books of accounts or other evidences in itself by the assessee would not necessarily amount to disclosure where escapement arises out of the failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.
The Tribunal bench comprising of Judicial Member Joginder Singh and Accountant Member G. Manjunatha answering the first issue-in-hand was of the opinion that the assessee duly furnished the details of shareholding, share capital, share premium, the copy of the agreement. Thus, no new material came to the light/ possession of the AO, hence, the reassessment u/s 147 of the Act was bad in law.
Answering the second issue pertaining to deletion of the addition made on account of alleged investment of shareholders as income from disclosed sources, the Hon’ble Tribunal relying upon the law laid down by the Apex Court held that “where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholder and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the revenue to add the same to the assessee’s income as the unexplained cash credit.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Gujarat High Court has issued the notice to Centre and GSTN on a petition challenging the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, seeking interest for delayed IGST Refunds.
The petitioner M/s Saraf Natural Stone has filed the writ petition before the Gujarat High Court seeking directions against GST department for providing the interest on the delayed refund that is beyond 60 days and compensation in for the delay of provisional refund.
Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Vinay Shraff, Mr. Vishal J Dave , Mr. Prateek Gattani and Mr. Nipun Singhvi submitted before the Court that the petitioner is entitled to interest on refund at the rate of 6% wherein the provisions allow the same but the GST portal did not provide for such utility.
Further, they submitted that Section 16(3) of the IGST Act, provides that refund should be claimed in accordance with the provisions of section 54 of the CGST Act or the rules made thereunder. Section 20 of the IGST Act further provides that provisions of CGST Act relating to refunds shall, mutatis mutandis, apply, so far as may be, in relation to integrated tax as they apply in relation to central tax as if they are enacted under this Act.
Rule 91 of CGST Rules, 2017 inter-alia provide that the provisional refund is to be granted within 7 days from the date of acknowledgement of the refund claim. Section 56 of the CGST Act further provides that if any tax ordered to be refunded under sub-section (5) of section 54 to any applicant is not refunded within 60 days from the date of receipt of application under subsection (1) of that section, interest at such rate not exceeding 6% p.a as may be specified in the notification issued by the Government on the recommendations of the GST Council shall be payable in respect of such refund from the date immediately after the expiry of 60 days from the date of receipt of application under the said sub-section till the date of refund of such tax.
The next date of the matter is 23.11.2018.
While speaking to Taxscan, CA Abhishek Chopra said that, “The claim made by petitioner appears to be legally correct and the same shall be good news for exporters as they have been getting the delayed refund which blocks their working capital cycle and the cost of capital has posed serious threats to the business.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentIn a petition filed by the Sales Tax Bar Association, a two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court asked several details from the government regarding the issue of processing the refund claims of taxpayers.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Chander Sekhar admitted the petition and asked the department to file counter-affidavit within eight weeks enclosing data regarding (i) refund applications filed and claimed (ii) refund applications pending with amount claimed (iii) refunds which have been issued and (iv) refunds paid by the Central Government and the State Government.
“The steps taken to remove the alleged grievances, as pointed out in the writ petition, would be indicated. The rejoinder, if any, may be filed within six weeks after the counter affidavit is served. We hope and trust that the respondents would adhere to the timeline fixed,” the bench said.
Advocates Mr Puneet Agrawal, Mr. Vineet Bhatia, Mr. Chetan Shukla, Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Mr. Kumarjee Bhat and Mr. Suresh Agrawal, appeared for the petitioners.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Revenue department has initiated proceedings against more than 10,000 people under the Benami Law for the suspicious transactions after demonetisation. The notice sends to 10,000 people sought for the details related to the source of income from those individuals.
Currently, the department is analyzing the data on deposits of cancelled notes which were deposited in banks post demonetisation move. People who have proper knowledge about the ongoings said that many others are likely to get similar notices in the coming days. “While the money may have come into the banking system, the money has come with a name,” a senior official who is close to the development stated. “Not just income tax but several government departments can now use the data for future investigations,” he said.
The Income Tax Department in India is using advanced technology and techniques to detect the tax evasion and it includes the PAN details, credit card, tax returns, phone records, data available on social media platforms and so on.
Post demonetisation, several suspicious financial transactions are bought under the tax department’s scrutiny after cross-referencing with previous data on cash deposits. The government is utilizing advanced tools for both structured as well as unstructured data and can easily analyze and establish relationships among different firms or people and this can go up to 16 levels deep, and based on the various information sets such as phone calls, IT returns, addresses, social media interaction, travel trends.
The members of the Gujarat Sales Tax Bar Association ( GSTBA ) has requested the Government to extend the due dates for filing GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B after the Diwali celebrations.
the last date of filing the Return GSTR-1 of October 2018 is 10th of November and filling of Form 3B and payment of tax is 20/11/2018.
The letter pointed out that on November 7th, 8th and 9th, the nation is celebrating Diwali, New Year and Bhai Duj. November 10th is Second Saturday and the next day is Sunday.
The letter said that “As your good self must be Aware that during this period Diwali is celebrated throughout the country and mostly all the offices and shops will remain closed during this period starting from 05th November till 11th November 2018.”
“In India, during Diwali festival almost all offices and shops are closed, it is not possible for dealers and tax professionals to make compliance of filing tax returns and payment of tax during this period,” the letter said.
“Therefore, your good self is requested to kindly consider the difficulties faced by the dealers and the professionals and to extend the said date to 30th November 2018 for both GSTR-1 as well as 3B,” it said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Universal Precision Screws Vs. JCIT wherein held that the amount of sale of scrap is not includible in the total turnover or local turn over as the Assessee is not in the scrap business.
In instant case by considering the Assessee’s own case in the tribunal which was assured by High court, the Assessing Officer and First Appellate Authority viewed that the scrap sale is not includible in turn over as well as total turn over while computing the deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act.
According to the aforesaid case, bench pressed the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Punjab Stainless steel industries wherein held that sale of scrap is not includible since the main business of Assessee is not scrapped business.
The New Delhi ITAT bench comprising President G.D Agrawal and Judicial Member Kuldip Singh accordingly held that since Assessee is not engaged in the business of Scrap then the sale of scrap is not includible in the total turnover or local turnover.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) decided that since the transaction carried between two group companies were carried as inter-banking accounts transaction then the amount cannot be treated as deemed dividend.
The bench including Judicial Member Amarjith Singh and Accountant Member R.C Sharma was considering the case of Neha Homes Pvt Ltd versus DCIT wherein bench held so.
In instant case, Assessee is a company engaged in the business of real estate construction who received a loan from equator investment Pvt Ltd and the loan amount repaid during the year. Both the Assessee and the lender company called EIPL ae part of Gundecha group of business.
Assessing Officer by observing the aforesaid facts made addition under section 2(22)e up to the amount of reserve and surplus earned by the Assessee-company. CIT (A) confirmed the decision of AO against which Assessee is in appeal before this tribunal.
The bench heard the rival contentions and cited some judicial pronouncement which is identical to the fact and also reproduced the provision of section 2(22)e of the Income Tax Act.
The counsel for Assessee raised a contention that the main business of EIPL is giving loans and advances and also an investment company which extended its service of financial assistance. so their activities did not fall into the definition of dividend and the aforesaid provision is not maintainable.
The bench relied on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Schutz Dishman Biotech (P) Ltd where it has been held that any transaction happened as current accommodation entries then they cannot be termed as loans and advances for the purpose of deemed income.
While observing the shareholding pattern of EIPL ITAT understood that the said Assessee-NHBPL doesn’t hold the share of EIPL. Accordingly, the bench observed as “both receipts and payments is taking place in inter-banking accounts the same cannot be regarded as Loans and Advances as contemplated u/s 2(22)(e) and thus no addition could be made as Deemed Dividend.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Karamana police on Sunday arrested a 30-year-old man for allegedly forging the signature and seal of a chartered accountant, reported the Hindu.
The police identified the accused as Suresh of Karamana, who operated a private financing company. He has been accused of defrauding a trading company by masquerading as a chartered accountant in order to prepare their financial statements.
Reportedly, he allegedly forged the signature and seal of a chartered accountant who is based in Attingal. The accused has been booked under various provisions pertaining to forgery and cheating. He was remanded to the judicial custody after being produced at a court.
The ICAI has, recently launched a new system to system to generate a new unique identification Number keep the records of attestations by the Chartered Accountants. This will help the Institute to track all the certifications and also make fake certifications / third part certifications harder to get.
The Institute has asked its members to register with the new venture, ie., Unique Document Identification Number to trace out the fake Chartered Accountants.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court has directed the income tax department to bring some order and discipline to the aspect of granting refunds.
The bench comprising Justices B. P. Colabawalla and S. C. Dharmadhikari clarified that it is the duty of the Revenue to grant refunds generated on account of orders of higher forums and disburse the amount expeditiously, on failure of which, the Courts may impose interest on the quantum of refund at such rates determined by the Court.
The bench also directed that all pending refund applications should be processed in the order in which they are received.
Before the High Court, the petitioners submitted that the Petitioner would accept the amounts as disbursed under protest and without prejudice to their legal rights and contentions, particularly to claim interest on delayed refund.
The bench said that “We hope and trust that all pending refund applications are processed in the order in which they are received by the Respondents. If refunds are generated on account of orders of Higher Forums, Authorities and Courts, then, it is the bounden duty of the Revenue to grant such refund and disburse the amount expeditiously.”
“Needless to clarify that in the absence of a clear policy, the Courts may then impose interest on the quantum of refund generated either by virtue of Court orders or by virtue of substantive proceedings arising out of refund applications. Eitherway, it is the Revenue who would have to pay interest on the delayed refund and as such rates determined by the Court,” the bench added.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentA two-judge bench of the Supreme Court last week upheld the constitutionality of section 19(5)(c) of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act and Rule 10(9)(a) of the VAT Rules. The appellant was aggrieved by the order of the department proposing to deny the ITC credit availed against the transactions for which Form C were not…
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Friday held that Urban Improvement Trusts constituted under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 would not be entitled to tax benefit under section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act as the same would not constitute a local authority within the meaning of Explanation to the said section.
The bench comprising Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan was hearing a bunch of appeals by the Revenue against the Rajasthan High Court order wherein the Trust was granted exemption by accepting the claim of the assessee that it is the local authority which is entitled to exemption under Section 10(20) of the Act.
The reasoning in this judgment is similar to the recent judgment in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax wherein it was held that the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) cannot be a treated as a ‘municipality’ to exempt it from payment of income tax.
The bench held: “The High Court based its decision on the fact that functions carried out by the assessee are statutory functions and it is carrying on the functions for the benefit of the State Government for urban development. The said reasoning cannot lead to the conclusion that it is a Municipal Committee within the meaning of Section 10(20) Explanation.
“The provisions of Sections 47 and 48 are to permit certain powers of the municipal boards to be performed by the Trust which does not transform the Trust into a Municipal Committee. The power entrusted under Sections 47 and 48 are for the limited purpose, for purposes of carrying out the improvement by the Improvement Trusts,” the bench said.
Quashing the High Court, the bench observed that “The High Court based its decision on the fact that functions carried out by the assessee are statutory functions and it is carrying on the functions for the benefit of the State Government for urban development. The said reasoning cannot lead to the conclusion that it is a Municipal Committee within the meaning of Section 10(20) Explanation Clause (iii). The High Court has not adverted to the relevant facts and circumstances and without considering the relevant aspects has arrived at erroneous conclusions. Judgments of the High Court are unsustainable.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Gujarat High Court, last week dismissed a petition seeking re-opening of TRAN-1 by holding that no such direction can be given to the department for the omission to include certain transactions by the assessee.
The petitioner filed TRAN-1 within the time originally permitted. After the time limit was over, the petitioner noticed that three transactions which were in pipeline when the GST was brought into force, due to oversight, were not included in such declaration. After noticing the error, the petitioner approached the authority to correct the declaration, however, the request was not approved.
Before the High Court, the petitioners submitted that the statutory provisions concerning the filing of the returns envisage scope for correction of the returns, for which, time is granted up to the due date for filing the returns. He submitted that during the transitory period, the number of changes took place. It was legitimate that some of the transactions may have been overlooked by the assessees. Not granting opportunity to correct the declaration would result in the substantial financial loss to the petitioner and other similarly situated dealers.
Dismissing the petition, Justices Akil Kureshi and B.N Karia held that “we do not see any scope for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to correct the TRAN1 declaration already made. We may recall, such time limit initially provided in the rules was extended from time to time and lastly upto 27.12.2017. Further, the limited extension has been granted to cover cases where genuine hardships were felt in uploading said declarations due to technical glitches.”
The bench further refused to follow the Bombay High Court order in O/E/N India Ltd. & Anr. And said that “The case of Bombay High Court in case of O/E/N India Ltd. & Anr. (supra) was very different. The petitioner had pointed out a typographical error in filling up figure of unused CENVAT credit available, the Court was of the opinion that said mere typographical error should not be the governing factor for deciding substantive rights. The Court primafacie felt that section 172 of the Act which enables the Government to take the necessary decision to avoid hardships could be utilized. The present situation is entirely different.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentA two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has held that the statutory scheme delineated by Section 19(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act can neither be said to be arbitrary or can be said to violate the right guaranteed to the dealer under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution.
As per Section 19(11), In case any registered dealer fails to claim input tax credit in respect of any transaction of taxable purchase in any month, he shall make the claim before the end of the financial year or before ninety days from the date of purchase, whichever is later.
The appellant Company is engaged in the business of leasing and fleet management of the motor vehicles and resale of used motor vehicles, having the head office of the Company is at Mumbai. The head office of the appellant negotiates the purchase price with the local registered dealers in Tamil Nadu and issues the purchase order to the dealer along with the payment including the tax payable under the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006. The registered dealer raises the tax invoice as and when the motor vehicle is ready for delivery to the appellant. The date of purchase for the vehicle in the books of the appellant is same as the date of delivery. The tax invoices of such purchases are received after a considerable delay as the original documents are sent to the Regional Transport Authority for registration of motor vehicles. The appellant enters the details of the tax invoice containing the payment of tax in its books of accounts. The appellant had outsourced the job of collection of original tax invoices to one M/s. MID Controls Private Limited, an Agency specialized for collecting documents.
The appellant’s claim for revising returns for claiming Input Tax Credit on the receipt of the tax invoices from the dealer was rejected by the department by invoking Section 19(11) of the VAT Act. The appellant also filed its monthly returns for the period from April 2007 to February 2008. The appellant had filed a monthly return for the month of March 2008 on 06.10.2008. There was a delay in filing return. Due to the late receipt of original purchase invoices, the appellant revised its returns for the period from March 2008 to January 2009 in the month of March 2009.
When the orders were challenged through the writ petition, the High Court set aside the order confirming the proposal to disallow the Input Tax Credit and directed the Commercial Tax Officer to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
The bench comprising Justice A K Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan held that the input credit is in nature of benefit/ concession extended to the dealer under the statutory scheme. The concession can be received by the beneficiary only as per the scheme of the Statute.
“The Statutory scheme delineated by Section 19(11) neither can be said to be arbitrary nor can be said to violate the right guaranteed to the dealer under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. We thus do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the High Court upholding the validity of Section 19(11) of the Act. Both the issues are answered accordingly,” the bench said.
The bench further held that “In the scheme of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, there is no power conferred on any authority under the Act to dilute the mandatory requirement under Section 19(11). The taxing statute has to be strictly construed. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied and language used in taxing statute had to be looked into fairly. The benefits envisaged in the taxing statute had to be extended as per the restrictions and conditions envisaged therein. The statute has not given any indication for extension of time which is a condition for claiming Input Tax Credit, the submission that period could have been extended by assessing authority is unfounded and cannot be accepted.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Authority for Advance Ruling ( AAR ), Odisha has granted a ruling on entitlement to take credit of tax paid on various goods and services used for maintenance of township, guest house, hospital, horticulture maintained by a Company, in its ordinary course of business.
The applicants provide townships and colonies near its factories and offices for its employees. It also operates guest houses for a temporary stay of employees and guests. It runs hospitals for its employees.
They receive various services of repair and maintenance in the townships, guest houses, hospitals and horticulture which are received as part of its business operations. Such suppliers are also charging GST in their invoices.
The applicants submitted that the management, maintenance, and repair service obtained from the service providers for the running of these establishments has the direct benefit to the business operations of the applicant. Since the services are used in the course of and, also, in furtherance of its business, it is entitled to utilize credit of input tax paid by the service providers for paying output tax on the supplies made by the applicant in terms of section 16 of CGST Act.
That the supplies, on which the applicant seeks to take input tax credit, are not blocked in section 17(5) of CGST Act. It was also stated that it would be entitled to take credit of tax paid on works contract service only for activities, for which the expenditure is claimed as revenue expenditure and not capitalized. It would not claim any credit with respect to services for which the expenditure is capitalized.
After hearing contentions from both sides, the authority noted that the establishment of hospitals and maintenance thereof may be for discharging the statutory obligation under the ESI Act by the employer, but dispensing medical service to the employees and others is a supply of service by the employer. Such service being nil rated will fall under exempt supplies. Consequently, the inputs and input services received by the applicant for dispensing the exempt service will not qualify for input tax credit in terms of Section 17 (2) of the OGST/CGST Act.
“In the provisions of law, as it stands today, there is no such provision providing for input tax credit in respect of goods and/or services procured by an employer for supply to the employees for discharging any statutory obligation. In the absence of such provisions, input tax credit shall not be available to the applicant in respect of the services and goods procured for maintenance of hospital and pharmacy outlet as per the current provisions in the OGST/CGST Act,” the authority pointed out.
It was further held that establishing, maintaining and furnishing guest houses including landscaping by way of gardening or otherwise is neither a perquisite nor a statutory obligation.
“It is purely for providing accommodation service to guests including employees on tour. This is, in fact, a business requirement to maintain such facilities and accordingly, the applicant is entitled to input tax credit of the tax paid on inward supply of input and input services for maintenance of the guest house, transit house, and training hostels, but excluding the food and beverages provided in such establishments.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), Punjab has ruled that GST is payable on providing complimentary/ free tickets as the said activity would constitute a ‘service’ as defined by the Central GST Act and is subject to tax.
The applicant, Mohali-based KPH Dream Cricket Pvt Ltd, which runs Kings XI Punjab sought for a clarification regarding the tax liability on free-tickets. The tax is binding in Punjab but can influence Other SWIMS as well.
The authority observed that when the application issues a complimentary ticket to any person, he is certainly agreeing to the obligation of refraining from the act of stopping the complimentary ticket holder from enjoying his services, while he would certainly stop a person not holding any complementary ticket and who has not paid any money from receiving services provided by the applicant. The applicant is also agreeing to the obligation of tolerating the act of the recipient to enjoy the services provided by the applicant free of charge and the applicant is also agreeing to the obligation of doing the act of allowing entry to the complimentary ticket holder to enjoy services being provided by the applicant when he issues such complimentary ticket.
“Thus, it is seen that the activity of the applicant in issuing complimentary tickets to persons is covered under each limb of para 5(e) of Schedule II of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, by this measure too, the activity of the applicant of providing complimentary tickets free of charge to some persons for enjoying cricket matches would also be covered under the scope of supply as per section 7(1)(d) 9 In view of the above discussion and findings, it would be clear that the activity of the applicant of providing complimentary tickets free of charge to some persons would be considered supply of service as per provisions of both Section 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(d) and would therefore be leviable to tax as per provisions of Section 9 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the parallel Section 9 in the Punjab GST Act, 2017,” the authority said.
With regard to the question that whether he is eligible to claim Input Tax credit in respect of complimentary tickets, the authority held that “since the activity of providing the complimentary tickets would amount to supply under provisions of CGST Act and parallel provisions of Punjab GST Act, 2017 and would be leviable to tax under section 9 of the said Acts, the question of whether Input Tax Credit would be available on inputs going into such complementary.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentThe Finance department of Jammu and Kashmir on Saturday granted a one-month extension to the traders for settlement of unresolved issues under the old VAT regime.
According to an order by the department, the new date of clearing all dues is November 14 from the earlier October 14.
“It is hereby ordered that the due date of depositing first instalment as per the provisions of the scheme prescribed vide Government Order No. 39-FD of 2018 dated February 5, 2018, read with Government order numbers 169 FD of 2018 dated March 28, , 247 FD of 2018 dated May 17, 304-FD of 2018 dated July 12, , 358-FD of 2018 Dated, August 14, and No. 392-FD of 2018 Dated September 14, is granted final extension by a period of 30 days,” the order reads.
The due and final date of depositing the first installment shall now be November 14. The terms and conditions as prescribed in Government Order No. 39-FD of 2018 dated February 5, however, remain same for the filing of remaining installments.
