News Update

WIPO data shows Chinese inventors filing highest number of AI patentsManish Sisodia’s judicial custody further extendedCus - Export of non-basmati rice - Notification 20/2023 insofar as it denies the benefit of the transitional arrangement as contained in para-1.05 of the FTP 2023, is bad in law: HCCus - Refund of SAD - 102/2007-Cus - Areca Nut and Supari are one and the same - Objections with regard to name, nature and status of importer or buyers or the end use of goods purchased by them etc. are extraneous: HCCX - Interest on Refund - Since wrong order annexed by petitioner in paper book, Bench is unable to proceed further - Petition is dismissed with liberty to file a fresh one: HCGST - No E-way bill - When petitioner imports machinery and after Customs clearance, transports same to his own factory, it cannot be said that such a transportation would fall within the definition of term 'supply' - Penalty imposable under second limb of s.129(1)(a): HCGST - Fix responsibility on officers who allowed BG to lapse - Petitioner not justified in not renewing BG - Cost of Rs.15 lacs imposed, to be paid to PM Cares Fund: HCGST - Since the parties agree that petition can be disposed of on the basis of records available before Appellate Authority, petitioner is directed to enclose all documents filed before Appellate Authority in a compilation, in form of a paper book: HCWrong RoadST - Whether any service is used for personal consumption or not is certainly question of fact and being question of fact, no substantial question of law arises: HCGovt proposes to amend Geographical Indication of Goods Rules; Draft issued for feedbackST - If what has been paid as tax is without authority of law, Revenue should refund the same - Denial of credit would result in the whole exercise being tax neutral: HCWarehousing Authority notifies several agri goods to be stored in only registered warehousesST - Even if the petitioner may have a case on merits, it is best left to be decided by the Appellate Authority under the hierarchy prescribed under the FA, 1994: HCUS FDA okays Eli Lilly Alzheimer’s drugGST - Petitioner challenges jurisdiction of assessing officer - Petitioner is entitled to file an appeal u/s 107 by availing an alternate efficacious remedy: HCFive from Telangana killed in car accident on Pune-Solapur HighwayGST - Existence of an alternative remedy is a material consideration but not a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction: HCHush money case against Donald Trump - Sentencing deferred to Sept 18GST - It is open to a trader to take goods by whichever route he opts, unless the law otherwise requires, destination point being intact: HCDeadly hurricane Beryl smashes properties in JamaicaIsrael claims 900 militants killed in Rafah since May monthGST - Order expressly records that personal hearing notice was returned with endorsement 'no such person at address' - Since petitioner has shifted to a new premises, it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to contest demand: HC116 die in stampede at UP ’Satsang’I-T- Application for revision of order dismissed in limine on grounds of delay; case remanded for re-consideration: HCWe are deepening economic ties with India, says US official8 Dutch engineers build world’s longest bicycle - 180 feet, 11 inchesRailways earns Rs 14798 Crore from Freight loading in June monthMoD inks MoU to set up testing facilities in Unmanned Aerial System in TN Defence Industrial CorridorI-T- TDS credit can be allowed based on AIS, where details pertaining to TDS, advance tax & other payments are reflected in Form 26AS: ITATVaishnaw to inaugurate Global IndiaAI Summit 2024

MESSAGE BOARD

   

Treading GST path - XL - GST for ongoing constructions


Doubt on applicability of valuation under Para 2

Sir, I have different view in the subject matter which I post for your perusal.
It is mentioned in the above article that in case-II, ST @15% is paid on 40% of amount of Rs. 10 lakhs (Rs. 20 lakhs less Rs 10 lakhs towards UDS of Land) (how UDS land value is ascertained?) and on the balance amount of Rs. 30 lakhs received after 1.7.2017 also GST@ 12% (18% on 2/3rd value) is to be paid. But it appears to me that it is not correct. As per sl.no. 3(i) of Notfn No. 11/2017-CT(R), GST rate is 9% (with addition of equal SGST total GST would be 18%) and as per Para.2 of said notification which reads as follows:
“2. In case of supply of service specified in column (3) of the entry at item (i)……….at serial no. 3 of the Table above, involving transfer of property in land or undivided share of land, as the case may be, the value of supply of service and goods portion in such supply shall be equivalent to the total amount charged for such supply less the value of land or undivided share of land, as the case may be, and the value of land or undivided share of land, as the case may be, in such supply shall be deemed to be one third of the total amount charged for such supply.
Explanation.–For the purposes of paragraph 2, “total amount” means the sum total of,-
(a) consideration charged for aforesaid service; and
(b) amount charged for transfer of land or undivided share of land, as the case may be.”
The amount of Rs. 30 lakhs received after 1.7.2017 do not inclusive of land value as land value was already realized prior to 1.7.2017. Hence, scope of the supply for which subject Rs. 30 lakhs is charged , do not involve ‘transfer of property in land or undivided share of land’ and therefore valuation under para.2 is not applicable. Accordingly, valuation shall be in terms of Section 15 for payment of tax and GST payable @ 18% on Rs. 30 Lakhs. Even if it is considered that para.2 is applicable, the taxable value would be equal to 2/3rd of Rs 40 lakhs (Rs 30 lakhs plus Rs.10 Lakhs). But still it appears to me that taxable value should be Rs. 30 lakhs only. Please re-examine the issue.

mallikarjun reddy c 27/12/2017

 
Re :Doubt on applicability of valuation under Para 2

You have raised a valid point. On the face of it and on the basis of plain reading of the provision it appears that 18 % is payable on 30 lakhs. But it may be noted that had GST not been introduced, on all amounts received (even after realisation of uds value) ST would have been payable on 30 % of such realisation. If we take a pure case under GST on all amounts received, GST is payable only on two third value. The rationale is 70 % of the total amount is presumed to be towards goods and land in ST regime and 1/3 of the total value is presumed to beof land value under GST regime. The fact that in between ST was replaced by GST should not dilute this basic principle. They should have made specific provison for dealing with such transitional cases. So, going by the spirit of the provisions, i feel that my suggestions are legally valid, though the alternative view is also quite possible.

jaikumar seetharaman 27/12/2017

 
Re :Doubt on applicability of valuation under Para 2

Thank you very much Sir,
It is mentioned in the article that ST of Rs.60,000 was paid (under Case II) prior to 01.07.17 @15% on 40% value of Rs.10 lakhs on the ground that Rs.10 lakhs out of Rs 20 lakhs is towards value of UDS of land. Hence, my view is that the balance amount of Rs. 30 lakhs can't be considered as the amount inclusive of land value and thereby valuation in terms of Para 2 of subject notification is not applicable in such case.
With regards

mallikarjun reddy c 27/12/2017

 

Back

TIOL Tube Latest

India's Path to Becoming a Superpower: An Interview with Pratap Singh



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.