GST Daily
Dear Reader,
Today’s newsletter analytically summarizes the top GST stories reported at?taxmann.com.
The appellant was a registered dealer under GST and its registration was cancelled on the ground that the appellant was a non-existing dealer. It filed an appeal and its registration was revoked but the demand for late fees of Rs. 5000 per return was raised when it tried to file GST returns. It challenged the demand by filing a writ petition and contended that registration was cancelled on a factually incorrect premise by the department. The learned Single Judge declined to grant interim order and the appellant filed an appeal. ? ? ?
The Honorable High Court noted that demand of late fees under Section 47 of CGST Act, 2017 can be raised for non-filing of return by the due date but this provision can be invoked only when a person fails to file a return. In the instant case, the non-filing of the return was on account of the cancellation of GST registration. However, later on, the order of cancellation of registration was quashed and the registration was restored. Therefore, it was held that the imposition of a late fee by invoking provisions of Section 47 was not sustainable. The Court also directed the department to render the appellant necessary assistance in filing returns electronically and not to demand any late fees. ? ? ?
The applicant was developing a residential housing project and supplying construction services to recipients for possession of dwelling units. In addition to construction services, the applicant would also provide services towards the right to use of car parking space to prospective buyers for which they would be additionally charged by the applicant. It filed an application for an advance ruling to determine whether the amount charged for the right to use of car/two-wheeler vehicle parking space along with the sale of under-constructed apartments to its prospective buyers would be treated as a composite supply of construction of residential apartment services or not.
The Authority for Advance Ruling noted that prospective buyers of a flat in the residential project would be offered to avail right to use of car parking space for which separate consideration shall be payable by the buyers. It would be the choice of the buyers whether they would avail the facility or not. Furthermore, if there shall remain any unallotted car parking space after allocation among the intending buyers, it would be offered to allottees desiring additional car parking space. This fact clearly delineated that such supply would be altogether a separate service and it can’t be treated as naturally bundled with construction services.
Hence, it was held that the supply of services for the right to use of car parking space would be a separate supply and not be construed as a composite supply of construction of residential apartment services. It was also held that the supply of services for the right to use of car parking space would be taxable at 18%.
That’s it from us for today! Stay Tuned for more updates from?Taxmann.com.
Taxmann Academy presents the First Batch of Level 2 | Advanced of the Tax and Accounts Professional (TAP) Course!
Enroll in the Advanced Level of TAP course to upskill your knowledge of finance functions and learn advanced concepts of Income-tax, GST, and much more.
???????? ?????? ?????????????? ?????????????? ??????!?https://taxmann.social/AeLQ2
Don’t feel Trapped; Enroll in TAP!?
Batch Begins 7th February 2023