GST Sectoral Guidelines on TEXTILES from CBEC M/o Finance issued on 18.7.2017

Extension of time limit for filing intimation for composition levy under sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of the CGST Rules, 2017

In exercise of the powers conferred by section 168 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Board hereby extends the period for filing an intimation in FORM GST CMP-01 under sub-rule (1) of rule (3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 upto 16th August, 2017. Read the rest of this entry »

Tweets received by askGST_GoI and developed into a short FAQ

The tweets received by askGST_GoI handle were scrutinized and developed into a short FAQ of 100 tweets. Read the rest of this entry »

Number of HSN digits required on tax invoice

G.S.R. …..(E).— In pursuance of the first proviso to rule 46 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the Central Board of Excise and Customs, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby notifies that a registered person having annual turnover in the preceding financial year as specified in column (2) of the Table below shall mention the digits of Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN) Codes, as specified in the corresponding entry in
column (3) of the said Table, in a tax invoice issued by him under the said rules Read the rest of this entry »

CGST exemption from reverse charge upto Rs.5000 per day under section 11 (1)

G.S.R. (E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby exempts intra-State supplies of goods or services or both received by a registered person from any supplier, who is not registered, from the whole of the central tax leviable thereon under sub-section (4) of section 9 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017): Provided that the said exemption shall not be applicable where the aggregate value of such supplies of goods or service or both received by a registered person from any or all the suppliers, who is or are not registered, exceeds five thousand rupees in a day.
2. This notification shall come into force with effect from the 1st day of July, 2017.  Read the rest of this entry »

DDIT vs. Metapath Software International Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

S. 271(1)(c) penalty cannot be levied unless there is “evidence beyond doubt” that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of the assessee. The fact that the assessee did not voluntarily furnish the return of income, and that the merits were decided against it, does not per se justify levy of penalty. The bonafides of the explanation of the assessee for not complying with the law have to be seen

It is an well established proposition of law that being penal in nature, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are invoked only when there is evidence beyond doubt that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of the assessee towards the tax alleged to be evaded. That is the reason behind that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are independent proceedings. In other words, making and sustaining an addition against the assessee will not be always resulted into levy of penalty

Read the rest of this entry »

ITO vs. Aditya Narain Verma (HUF) (ITAT Delhi)

S. 50C: Failure by the AO to refer the valuation of the capital asset to a valuation officer instead of adopting the value taken by the stamp duty authorities is a fatal error and the assessment order has to be annulled. The matter cannot be set aside to the AO for a second chance. The power of the ITAT to set aside cannot be exercised so as to allow the AO to cover up the deficiencies in his case

When the assessee in the present case had claimed before Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer, the Assessing Officer should have referred the valuation of the capital asset to a valuation officer instead of adopting the value taken by the state authority for the purpose of stamp duty. The very purpose of the Legislature behind the provisions laid down under sub section (2) to section 50C of the Act is that a valuation officer is an expert of the subject for such valuation and is certainly in a better position than the Assessing Officer to determine the valuation. Thus, non-compliance of the provisions laid down under sub section (2) by the Assessing Officer cannot be held valid and justified

Read the rest of this entry »