“GST ki Baat, SahiGST ke Saath” :- Weekly GST Newsletter from SahiGST GST Compliance Software”

Disclaimer:

This publication contains information for general guidance only. It is not intended to address the

circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although the best of endeavour has been

made to provide the provisions in a simpler and accurate form, there is no substitute to detailed

research with regard to the specific situation of a particular individual or entity. We do not accept

any responsibility for loss incurred by any person for acting or refraining to act as a result of any

matter in this publication.

About Vayana Network and SahiGST:

SahiGST was founded by a group of entrepreneurs with immense experience in domains of

Taxation and Technology. SahiGST is now a portfolio offering of Vayana Network – an authorized

GSP and India’s largest 3rd party platform for Short Term Trade Finance. Visit www.vayana.com to

learn more.

Case Laws

Rs. 39 crs. GST evasion unearthed in Amritsar, Batala, Jalandhar

17% growth in Telegana GST collections

Annual returns in GST to be a tall task; only 15% of total assessees has filed the annual return;

Transporter’s bodies put on hold buying new trucks due to High GST rate;

TV panels sales Dip; Manufacturers ask Govt.to Lower GST , scrap import duty Pay interest for delay inpaying GST refunds : Gujrat High Court

Govt. detects GST evasion of Rs. 45,000crs. In FY 2019;

Hyderabad; Four restaurants booked for Dual pricing , levying GST over MRP

CBIC seeks public feedback on curbing duty, GST evasion by foreign Ecomm firms

GST News Update

GST Key Highlights- Place of Supply Explanation- Section 10 of IGST Act, 2017

GST Key Highlights- Place of Supply Explanation Section 10 of IGST Act, 2017

GST Key Highlights- Place of Supply Explanation Section 10 of IGST Act, 2017

GST Key Highlights- Place of Supply Explanation Section 10 of IGST Act, 2017

GST Key Highlights- Place of Supply Explanation-Section 10 of IGST Act, 2017

GST Key Highlights- Place of Supply Explanation Section 10 of IGST Act, 2017

GST Key Highlights- Place of Supply Explanation Section 10 of IGST Act, 2017

Consider a case of delivery ex-factory, on making thorough study of the law, i.e. section 10(1)(a);

Section 2(2) which defines “address of delivery” as the address of the recipient of goods or services orboth indicated on the tax invoice issued by a registered person for delivery of such goods or servicesor both.

Section 2(3) defines “address on record” as the address of the recipient as available in the records ofthe supplier.

Section 2(93) defines “recipient” of supply of goods or services or both; and

Section 2(96) defines “removal” in relation to goods, suggest that in case of ex-factory sale orcounter-sale, the delivery of goods done by the supplier or taken by the recipient would terminate atthe registered place or address on record mentioned in the tax invoice.

As such, it can be inferred that if the delivery of goods is taken ex-factory or on counter sale by therecipient such supply would be chargeable to tax based on the address mentioned in the tax invoice

An alternative view is possible – it may be noted that the delivery for the purpose of the contract lawand delivery indicated by this clause may be different. For the purpose of the GST law, a supply iseffected on removal of goods for delivery, whereas for contract law, the supply may be understood(in terms of an agreement) to be completed only on acceptance of such goods by the recipient.Similarly, while the risks and rewards pertaining to the goods being supplied may pass at the factorygate, the movement for delivery of such goods may stand terminated only at the premises of therecipient, considering that the movement is undertaken by the recipient for delivery at his ownpremises.

Issues and concerns

Case Laws- Supreme Court

Name of the case Reported by Issue involved & held

Union of India vs Sapna Jain [2019] 74 GST 218/106 taxmann.com 212 (SC)

High Court should not entertain pre-arrest bail to accused in GST matter

State of Jharkhand vs Akash Coke Industries (P.) Ltd.

[2019] 74 GST 374/106 taxmann.com 328 (SC)

Where assessee was engaged in manufacture of hard coke from coal and it purchased coal within State of Jharkhand on payment of Sales tax and converted coal into hard coke and sold same by way of inter-State sale on payment of central sales tax, assessee was entitled for reimbursement of sales

tax paid on purchase of coal.

Case Laws- High Court

Name of the case High Court Reported by Issue involved and Held

Ganpati Advisory Ltd. vs Union of India Allahabad [2019] 74 GST 364/107 taxmann.com 31

Where there some mistake in Form GST Tran-1 filed by assessee and it tried to submit revised declaration in Form GST Tran-1 and also moved application before Nodal Officer in this regard but no response, Commissioner was directed to call upon above application and pass.

Kesoram Industries Ltd. vs Assistant

Commissioner of Central GST & Central

Excise

Andhra Pradesh and

Telangana

[2019] 74 GST 335/106

taxmann.com 11

Competent Authority levied interest

upon assessee and assessee filed

writ petition challenging impugned

order, since and efficacious

alternative remedy of appeal was

available to assessee, High Court

was not inclined invoke the order.

Case Laws- High Court

Name of the case High Court Reported by Issue involved and Held

Tata Steel Ltd. vs State of Jharkhand

Jahrkhand [2019] 26 GSTL 295 Officers cannot pre-judge issue about nature of transaction nor can enquire into fact whether Form-C being demanded by assessee for avoidance of payment of tax. Such enquiry to be done only at time

OSL Logistics (P.) Ltd. vs Assistant

State tax Officer

Kerala [2019] 74 GST/106

taxmann.com 215

Where Competent Authority had

detained goods of assessee goods of assessee under transport and alsovehicle on ground that validity of eway bills had expired, said authority was directed to release goods and vehicle on assesseefurnishing Bank Guarantee for tax and penalty amount found due and a bond for value of goods

Case Laws- National Anti-Profiteering Authority

Name of the case Reported by Issue involved and Held

Deepak Kumar Khurana vs SattvaDevelopers (P.) Ltd.

[2019] 74 GST322 / 106taxmann.com 184 (NAA)

Where builder had denied benefit of ITC to buyers of flats being constructed by him in contravention of section 1 71 and had thus compelled them to pay more GST on additional realization than what they were required to pay by issuing incorrect tax invoices, he would be liable for imposition of penalty U/s 122

Sahil Mehta vs Salarpuriareal Estate

(P.) Ltd

[2019] 74 GST301 / 105

taxmann.com 362 (NAA)

Where applicant filed application alleging

profiteering by respondent in respect of purchase of a flat in project "East Crest" in Bangalore on ground that benefit of ITC had not been passed on to him by respondent by way of commensurate reduction in price of flat after implementation of GST with effect from 1-7-17,respondent had failed to pass net benefit of ITC, which needed to be passed to all home buyers who had booked flats prior to 1 -72017 but made payments after 1-72017 and, thus, respondent had contravened provisions of section 171 by denying benefit of ITC to buyers of flat .

GST Important News- GST AAR ruling on “Specified Imported Equipments

AAR findings & Conclusions

At present the company is discharging GST liability on transfer of goods from one Registrant to another registrant of the company and the value of supply is determined on the basis of Rule 30 of the GST Rules, where value of supply is considered as 110% of the manufacturing cost.

As per the scheme of GST, tax is payable on ad – valorem basis and taxable value is the transaction value i.e. the price actually paid or payable, provided the supplier and recipient are not related and the price is the sole consideration

In the present case, the factory, the depots, located in different states sharing common PAN but different GST registrations are distinct persons as specified in section 25(4) of the CGST Act.

In such cases specific rules have been provided, Rule 28 of the GST rules has been specified to determine the value of transaction between related persons. Rule 30 will also come into operation in a situation where the value of supply of goods or services or both is not determinable by any of the rules preceding Rule 30 of the chapter IV of the GST Rules.

As per Rule 28 of the value of supply shall be as per following priority:

a) Open Market Value

b) Value of supply of like kind and quality

c) Value of supply as determined by application of rule 30 or 31.

However, as per 2nd proviso to Rule 28, if the recipient is eligible for full ITC, the invoice value will be deemed to be open market value. Hence, the applicant can change the method of determination of value of supply by application of Rule 28 instead Rule 30 of the GST Rules.

Thank you!!

For further information, visit us at www.SahiGST .com

For any queries related to the product, write to us at sales@SahiGST.com

Call us for support on +91-9773-801-802