The article aims to provide the latest information and comprehensive update on most recent GST notifications, circulars, and judgments for October 2023.
- Notification No. 48/2023- Central Tax dated 29 September 2023
CBIC has notified the effective date of Central Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act, 2023 (30 of 2023), as 1 October 2023. It contains the amendment in the Act relating to Online gaming sector.
- Notification No. 49/2023- Central Tax dated 29 September 2023
CBIC vide this notification prescribes for valuation provisions applicable in case of supply of online money gaming, supply of online gaming, other than online gaming and supply of actionable claims in casinos. The effective date of this notification is 1 October 2023.
- Notification No. 51/2023- Central Tax dated 29 September 2023
- CBIC vide this notification provides for Central Goods and Services Tax Rules (Third Amendment) Rules, 2023. Summary of relevant amendments are as below:
- Rule 8 and Rule 14 are suitably amended to provide for GST registration in case of a person supplying online money gaming from a place outside India to a person in India
- Rule 31A and Rule 31B provides for value of supply in case of online gaming including online money gaming and supply of actionable claims in case of casino
- Rule 64 amended to include a person providing online money gaming from a place outside India to a person in India to file return in Form GSTR-5A on or before the 20th day of month succeeding calendar month
- Notification No. 52/2023- Central Tax dated 26 October 2023
CBIC vide this notification further amends CGST Rules and therefore it is called as Central Goods and Services Tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2023. A new-sub rule has been inserted in Rule 28 of CGST Rules, which provides that value of supply of services by a supplier to a recipient being a related person, by way of providing corporate guarantee to any banking company or financial institution on behalf of the said recipient, shall be deemed to be one per cent of the amount of such guarantee offered, or the actual consideration, whichever is higher.
- Notification No. 5/2023- Integrated Tax dated 26 October 2023:
This notification further amends Notification No. 1/2023- Integrated Tax which dealt with the refund of IGST paid on export of goods or services can be claimed. With this amendment, supply made to SEZ unit or developer for its authorised operations is also covered and therefore, except few notified goods, refund of IGST paid by supplier on supply of all goods or services can be claimed.
- Notification No. 11/2023- Central Tax (Rate) dated 29 September 2023
This notification amends the original rate notification for goods i.e. Notification No 1/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June 2017. A new entry 227A is added in Schedule IV i.e. Goods falling under 28% tax bracket. The said entry pertains to specified actionable claim which includes betting, casinos, gambling, horse racing, lottery and online money gaming. Further entry no 228 and 229 under schedule IV has been omitted. This notification comes into effect from 1 October 2023.
- Circular No. 204/16/2023-GST dated 27 October 2023
This circular apart from providing clarification with respect to taxability of providing personal guarantee by Directors to bank, clarifies that valuation in case of provision of corporate guarantee by a related person to banks/financial institutions for another related person, as well as by a holding company in order to secure credit facilities for its subsidiary company, shall be determined in terms of new sub-rule (2) of Rule 28 irrespective of the case whether full ITC is available to recipient or not.
- Circular No. 203/15/2023-GST dated 27 October 2023
This circular has provided clarification with respect to place of supply in case of supply of service of transportation of goods, including through mail and courier, supply of services in respect of advertising sector and supply of co-location services.
Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai Versus M/S Ganpati Overseas Through its Proprietor Shri Yashpal Sharma & Anr. [2023 (10) TMI 364 – SUPREME COURT]
In one of the recent judgement, Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai Versus M/S Ganpati Overseas Through its Proprietor Shri Yashpal Sharma & Anr. [2023 (10) TMI 364 – SUPREME COURT] has laid down the principle for exercising the power to issue summons under Section 108 of Customs Act (Power to summons persons to give evidence and produce documents). The said section is similar to Section 70 of CGST Act (Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents). Hence, this judgement can fairly be relied upon for GST matters.
Apex Court in this case held that customs officer is not a police officer and the person summoned under section 108 of Customs Act is not accused. The object behind Section 108 of Customs Act is to find out the truth from the person who is examined for the incident of customs infringement. Since the objective is to ascertain the truth, custom officer has to ensure truthfulness of the statement so recorded and if the statement is incorrect the sole purpose of recording such a statement would get defeated. Therefore, in this context the custom officer shall record statement in a fair and judicious manner providing for procedural safeguards to the concerned person, so that the statement so recorded which is admissible as evidence, meets the standard of basic judicial principles and natural justice. Further, Apex Court held that a statement recorded under duress or coercion cannot be used against the person making the statement. It is the responsibility of the adjudication officer who exercises quasi-judicial power, to find out whether there was any duress or coercion in the recording of such a statement.
Also, Apex Court made an observation that there is no prohibition under the Evidence Act to rely upon a retracted confession to prove the prosecution case or to make the same the basis for conviction of the accused. However, the practise and prudence would require that the court would seek assurance by getting corroboration from other evidence adduced by the prosecution.
KS Enterprises Versus C.C-Mundra [2023 (9) TMI 1264 – CESTAT AHMEDABAD]
CESTAT Ahmedabad in case of KS Enterprises Versus C.C-Mundra [2023 (9) TMI 1264 – CESTAT AHMEDABAD], Tribunal held that generally exemption notification is to be construed strictly but an exemption notification dealing with export benefit schemes shall be liberally construed. Further, a notification at threshold while deciding applicability is required to be liberally construed and after the applicability threshold is passed, the same is to be construed strictly as a matter of interpretation. Further, tribunal held that the decision of M/s. Dilip Kumar & Company can be pressed into use only when there is ambiguity in the language of the notification.
CESTAT Ahmedabad, in case of Dhariwal Industries Limited Versus C.C.E. & C. –Anand [2023 (10) TMI 595 – CESTAT AHMEDABAD]
Tribunal held that if the payment of service tax has been accepted by the department, availment of CENVAT Credit of the said amount cannot be disputed. In this case, appellant was liable to pay service tax under reverse charge on receipt of GTA service. However, the tax on the same was paid by GTA. Department contended that as per law the appellant being the recipient of service is liable to pay service tax under reverse charge. Therefore, the service tax paid by GTA is nothing but deposit made by GTA and not being service tax paid on GTA service. Also, the appellant is not entitled for CENVAT Credit.
Tribunal held that once the service provider has discharged the service tax on a particular service wherein the service recipient was liable to pay, the same cannot be demanded again from the service recipient since it would tantamount to double taxation. Further, the appellant can avail CENVAT Credit of the said tax amount.
Mr. Goparaj Gopalakrishnan Pillai Proprietor, M/s. Taurus Communication Versus The State Tax Officer-1 Thripunithura., Joint Commissioner (Appeals) Kottayam [2023 (10) TMI 1042 – KERALA HIGH COURT]
High Court in this case has held that the decision given in case of Divya Agencies shall squarely apply in the present case as ITC cannot be merely denied on the ground of non-remittance of tax by the supplier as the same is not reflected in Form GSTR-2A. HC remanded back the matter to the assessing officer for giving an opportunity to petitioner for providing evidence and documents in support of its claim for ITC.
Praveen Bhaskaran (Proprietor) M/s. Galaxy Traders, Versus Union Of India, State of Kerala, The Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax Department, The State Tax officer, The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Arrear Recovery) [2023 (10) TMI 1204 – KERALA HIGH COURT]
High Court in this case relying upon its decision in case of Divya Agencies held that ITC should not be denied merely on the ground that the invoice is not reflecting in GSTR-2A. Additionally, HC has referred to Section 155 of CGST Act read with the judgement of Supreme Court in case of The State of Karnataka Versus M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited directing the assessing officer to examine the evidence in possession of the petitioner irrespective of difference in GSTR-2A.
M/s Malik Traders Versus State of U.P. And 2 Others [2023 (10) TMI 947 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]
High Court in this case has relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka Vs. M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited [2023(3) TMI 533 – SUPREME COURT] and held that the documents as envisaged by Apex Court in this case shall be submitted for validating the claim of ITC.
In this case since the petitioner has only brought on record the tax invoices, e-way bills, GR and payment through banking channel, and failed to provide details such as payment of freight charges, acknowledgment of taking delivery of goods, toll receipts and payment thereof. Thus in the absence of these documents, the actual physical movement of goods and genuineness of transportation as well as transaction cannot be established and therefore, the proceeding has rightly been initiated against the petitioner.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information existing at the time of preparation and we take no responsibility to update it with the subsequent changes in the law. The article is intended as a news update and Affluence Advisory neither assumes nor accepts any responsibility for any loss arising to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of any material contained in this article. It is recommended that professional advice be taken based on specific facts and circumstances. This article does not substitute the need to refer to the original pronouncement
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD PDF