News Update

GST - Neither SCN nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, hence cannot be sustained: HCGST - Non-application of mind - If reply was unsatisfactory, details could have been sought - Record does not reflect that such exercise was done - Matter remitted: HCGST - Merely because a taxpayer has not filed returns for some period does not mean that registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when returns were filed and taxpayer was compliant: HCGST - Petitioner's reply, although terse, is not taken into account while passing assessment orders - Petitioner put on terms, another opportunity provided: HCUnveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Notorious history-sheeter Mukhtar Ansari succumbs to cardiac arrest in UP jailTraining Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieNY imposes USD 15 congestion taxCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silver45 killed as bus races into ravine in South AfricaCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayBankman-Fried jailed for 25 yrs in FTX scamI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesI-T- Secured creditor has priority charge over secured asset, over claims of I-T Department & other Departments; any excess amount recovered by Secured Creditor from auction of secured asset, over & above the dues payable to it, are to be remitted to the Departments: HCFederal Govt hands out USD 60 mn to rebuild collapsed bridge in BaltimoreI-T - Receipts of sale of scrap being part & parcel of activity and being proximate thereto would also be within ambit of gains derived from industrial undertaking for purpose of computing deduction u/s 80-IB: HCCanadian School Boards sue social media titans for 4 bn Canadian dollar in damagesI-T - Once assssee on year of reversal has paid taxes on excess provision and similar feature appeared in earlier years and assesee had payments for liquidated damages on delay of deliverables, no adverse inference can be drawn: HCFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerST - Software development service & IT-enabled service provided by assessee was exempt from tax during relevant period, by virtue of CBEC's Notification & Circular; demands raised for such period not sustainable: CESTATUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayCus - Order rejecting exporter's request for conversion of Shipping Bills on grounds that the same has been made by exporter beyond period of three months from date of Let Export Order in terms of CBEC Circular No. 36/2010-Cus : CESTATIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEACus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTATThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCX - As per settled law, a right acquired as result of a statutory provision, cannot be taken away retrospectively unless said statutory provision so provides or by necessary implication has such effect: CESTAT

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

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023