GST Daily
Dear Reader,
Welcome to Taxmann.com | Newsletter – Reporting the Facts with Taxmann's Analysis. Today's Edition Brings to You Comprehensive Coverage of GST Case Laws | Statutory Updates | Analysis.
Order to be set aside since factual and legal contentions had not been addressed correctly: HC
Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited v. State of Karnataka - [2024] 167 taxmann.com 142 (Karnataka)
The petitioner filed multiple refund claim applications under GST. These claims were rejected by the Appellate Authority, and the petitioner filed a writ petition. The petitioner argued that the services it provided to Xiaomi Hong Kong under a Reward Agreement qualified as 'export of services' under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017. They contended that the monetary rewards they received were for promoting Xiaomi products in India, which increased Xiaomi's market share and sales, thus fulfilling the requirements for the export of services. They also claimed a refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner’s appeals, stating that the monetary rewards were incidental to achieving sales targets and did not constitute consideration for the export of services. The services rendered were considered to be provided in India, and thus, the place of supply was determined to be within India, not outside, under Section 13(3)(a) of the IGST Act, 2017.
The High Court noted that the various factual and legal contentions raised by the petitioner and the Department were not properly addressed by the Appellate Authority.
Therefore, the Court set aside the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter back for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with the law, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the rival contentions. It directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeals within a stipulated time frame and provide both parties a reasonable opportunity to present additional pleadings, documents, and circulars.
SCN can be issued by GST Authority even with regard to dealings of company in other States: HC
Ethos Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST Audit - [2024] 167 taxmann.com 122 (Punjab & Haryana)
The Petitioner challenged the SCN issued by the GST authorities under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST’), contending that the notice was issued by the State GST officer of Punjab, while the supply had taken place not only in Chandigarh but also in other states. The petitioner argued that there was a jurisdictional error in issuing the notice, as the supply occurred in multiple states, including Assam, New Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal.
The petitioner claimed that the notice had been issued erroneously by the Punjab GST officer, who assumed jurisdiction over supplies made in other states, and that they had already paid tax in these other states. Therefore, they contended that the Punjab GST officer did not have the authority to demand tax or initiate proceedings in this matter.
The High Court rejected the petitioner’s claims, stating that the SCN was based on an audit report for the periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20, conducted under Section 65 of the CGST Act. According to Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the CGST Act, the powers of State GST officers and Central GST officers are the same. Once a notice is issued by a State GST officer, no other officer from another state can initiate proceedings on the same subject matter. The court also noted that the petitioner had not submitted any reply to the SCN and had instead directly approached the court.
Therefore, the court held that there was no jurisdictional error in the issuance of the SCN by the Punjab GST officer, and it allowed the petitioner to present its objections and arguments in response to the SCN before the authority, who would then consider and pass appropriate orders.
That's it from us for today!
We're keen on enhancing Your Taxmann.com | Newsletter Experience and would greatly value your input. Your feedback is pivotal in guiding our improvements. Could you spare a few moments to share your thoughts in the comments on how we might better serve your needs?
Register Now for Taxmann's [Virtual] Workshop | GST & Income-tax Implications in the Real Estate Industry
2 Speakers | 2 Sessions | 240 Minutes
?? 18th and 19th October 2024 | ?? 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM (IST)
Fees: ? 1699/- (Taxes Extra)
?? Register Now! (Limited Slots Available): https://taxmann.social/qpwba
Faculty:
? Aanchal Kapoor – Chartered Accountant
? Adv Rohit Kapoor – Chartered Accountant
Key Learnings:
?? In-depth analysis of GST & income-tax Regulations Specific to the Real Estate Industry
?? Tax & Legal Implications for Collaboration Agreements
?? Impact Assessments for Joint Development Agreements
?? Regulatory Considerations for Long-Term Leases
?? Financial Treatment of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs)
?? Accounting for Incidental Expenses in Real Estate Transactions
?? Overview of the Reverse Charge Mechanism Applicable to Real Estate
?? Integration with Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) Requirements
?? Recommended Accounting Practices for Maintaining Compliance
?? Refund Processes for Unregistered Buyers in Real Estate Transactions
?? Tax Exemptions Available Under Sections 54, 54F, or 54EC
?? Guidelines on the Applicability of TDS Provisions
?? Insights Derived from the Guidance Note Issued by ICAI
Benefits to Participants:
?? Get Replies to your Queries
?? Complimentary Access to the GST & Income-tax Module of Taxmann.com | Practice for 30 Days
?? Complimentary Virtual Access to Taxmann's RERA Case Law Digest by Mahadev Birla et al. for 15 Days [Virtual/e-Book]
?? Certificate of Participation
?? Relevant For:
? Chartered Accountants
? Company Secretaries
? CMAs
? Tax Professionals
? Corporates
? Finance Executives
? Revenue Officers
? Consultants
? Accountants
? Real Estate Dealers & Consultants