Once the application had been processed and or order passed, which has attained finality, the respondents cannot escape the plain effect of the same. They also cannot escape the liability of interest that arises on non-compliance of the same.
As per Section 15, there is no provision available which provides for deduction of Management Fee, ESI and EPF contribution. Therefore, in the given case, GST is liable on entire invoice value including EPF and ESI.
A supply of a package consisting of canned foods, sweets, chocolates, cakes, dry fruits, aerated drinks and fruit juices when supplied for a single price is a mixed supply. Each of these items can be supplied separately and is not dependent on any other.
It shall not be a mixed supply if these items are supplied separately;”
The power conferred under Rule 86A is very drastic. Power under Rule 86A should be invoked only if fraudulent ITC or ineligible ITC has been claimed by the assessee and the authority has recorded the reasons for the same in writing.
The authority is bound to record the reasons of invoking Rule 86A in writing and communicate such reasons to the assessee. On receipt of such reasons, the assessee is entitled to make his submission/objection requesting for lifting.
Hon’ble High Court held that power conferred under Rule 86A is very drastic. Power under Rule 86A should be invoked only if fraudulent ITC or ineligible ITC has been claimed by the assessee and the authority has recorded the reasons for the same in writing. In this matter, Hon’ble High Court relied on precedence of apex court in the matter of GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited Vs. ITO reported in (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) wherein it was held that in case of reopening of assessment under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, the assessee should be afforded an opportunity of hearing and he is entitled to know the reasons for reopening and is also entitled to object to such reopening done by the Assessing Officer. Same analogy is applicable in the given case also, the authority is bound to record the reasons of invoking Rule 86A in writing and communicate such reasons to the assessee. On receipt of such reasons, the assessee is entitled to make his submission/objection requesting for lifting.
The Amneal Pharmaceuticals Private Limited (The Appellant), is providing food facilities to its 500 employees. Canteen is run by a third party, i.e., Canteen Service Provider, to provide food to the employees. The Appellant collects a portion of the price of the canteen service provider from the employees by way of deduction from their salaries. To determine whether GST is payable on the amount collected from the employee, the appellant filed an appeal before GAAR wherein Hon’ble GAAR held affirmative and decided that appellant is liable to pay GST on such amount.
In pursuance of the recommendation of GST Council, CBIC issued necessary clarification vide Circular No. 160/16/2021-GST dated 20th September 2021 on the following issues
A lot of benefits are provided for “Export” of goods or services. However, various conditions are required to be fulfilled to qualify a transaction as “Export”. Similarly, to qualify a supply of service as “Export of service”, five conditions are provided under Section 2(6) of IGST Act, 2017. However, one of the conditions given in clause (v) of Section 2(6) of IGST Act is always covered with lots of ambiguity. Considering the representations received, GST Council in 45th GST Council meeting recommended CBIC to issue necessary clarification around condition (v) of Section 2(6) of IGST Act, 2017. Therefore, CBIC issued
The GST council received various representations to clarify scope of “Intermediary” service and therefore, in the 45th GST Council meeting, the GST council recommended CBIC to issue the necessary clarifications to resolve this matter to the extent possible.
V J M & Associates LLP