Explained: GST collection surges in November, what it means

The Finance Ministry said that the recent trend of high GST revenues has been a result of various policy and administrative measures that have been taken in the past to improve compliance.Gross Goods and Services Tax (GST) revenue

collections in November (for sales in October) rose 25.3 per cent year-on-year to Rs 1,31,526 crore. This is the second highest revenue collection under GST ever since its rollout in July 2017, and has two specific triggers: a pickup in economic activity alongside multiple compliance measures and increased surveillance undertaken by the tax authorities. These compliance measures include auto-population of returns, blocking of e-way bills and passing of input tax credit for non-filers taken by tax authorities for curbing evasion. GST collections at Rs 1,41,384 crore in April this year, accounting for year-end sales, are the highest level so far in the indirect tax regime.

How much are the GST collections?

Gross GST revenue collected in November is Rs 1,31,526 crore, out of which CGST — the tax levied on intra state supplies of both goods and services by the Central Government — is Rs 23,978 crore, SGST — the tax levied on intra state supplies of both goods and services by the states — is Rs 31,127 crore, IGST — tax levied on all inter-state supplies of goods and services — is Rs 66,815 crore (including Rs 32,165 crore collected on import of goods) and cess is Rs 9,606 crore (including Rs 653 crore collected on import of goods).

The government has settled Rs 27,273 crore to CGST and Rs 22,655 crore to SGST from IGST as regular settlement. The total revenue of Centre and the states after regular settlements in the month of November 2021 is Rs 51,251 crore for CGST and Rs 53,782 crore for the SGST. Centre has also released Rs 17,000 crore to States/UTs towards GST compensation on November 3.

source:https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/november-gst-collection-surge-explained-7650750/

बिना नोटिस पीरियड सर्व किए छोड़ रहे हैं नौकरी? तो देना होगा इस पीरियड की सैलरी पर GST

नई दिल्ली. एडवांस रूलिंग की एडवांस्ड अथॉरिटी (AAR) ने कहा है कि इंप्लाइज की विभिन्न रिकवरी पर गुड्स एंड सर्विस टैक्स (GST) लागू होता है. इस ताजा फैसले के मुताबिक, नोटिस पे (Notice Pay), ग्रुप इंश्योरेंस और टेलीफोन बिल पर टैक्स लगेगा. इस फैसले में ये साफ किया गया है कि कर्मचारी को नोटिस पीरियड के दौरान मिलने वाली सैलरी पर कर्मचारी जीएसटी (GST) का भुगतान करने का उत्तरदायी है.

भारत पेट्रोलियम (Bharat Petroleum) की सब्सिडियरी कंपनी भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज़ (Bharat Oman Refineries) से जुड़े एक मामले की सुनवाई के दौरान AAR ने ये बात कही है.

क्या है ‘रिकवरी’ का मतलब?
बिजनेस टुडे की एक रिपोर्ट के अनुसार, एएआर के फैसले में कहा गया है कि जीएसटी (GST) कर्मचारियों की अलग-अलग रिकवरी पर लागू होगा. यहां रिकवरी का अर्थ कंपनी की ओर से चुकाया जाने वाला टेलीफोन बिल, ग्रुप इंश्योरेंस का पैसा आदि हो सकते हैं. कंपनी की तरफ से कर्मचारियों के इंश्योरेंस का जो पैसा दिया जाता है और नोटिस पीरियड में सैलरी दी जाती है, उस पर भी जीएसटी लग सकता है.सप्लाई ऑफ सर्विसेज का केस!
वस्तु एवं सेवा कर (GST) की परिभाषा देखें तो यह मामला बहुत हद तक स्पष्ट हो सकता है. सरकार वैसे हर काम या सर्विस पर GST लेती है, जिसमें उसे ‘सप्लाई ऑफ सर्विसेज’ का मामला नजर आता है. यहां सप्लाई ऑफ सर्विसेज का अर्थ सेवा देने से है. जिस काम में या जिस सर्विस में सेवा दी जा रही है, उस पर जीएसटी लगेगा. ये सर्विस डायरेक्ट या इनडायरेक्ट दोनों हो सकती है.किसके लिए है नियम
अलग-अलग मीडिया रिपोर्ट्स के अनुसार, फैसले में कहा गया है कि जो कर्मचारी नोटिस पीरियड को पूरा किए बिना कंपनी छोड़ रहे हैं, उनके नोटिस पेमेंट रिकवरी पर GST लग सकता है. यहां नोटिस पीरियड का अर्थ है कांट्रेक्ट लेटर में लिखी गई अवधि, जो कंपनी छोड़ने से पहले सर्व करनी होती है. अगर कांट्रेक्ट लेटर में कंपनी ने 3 महीने का समय दिया और आप एक महीने ही नोटिस सर्व करके काम छोड़ देते हैं तो नोटिस पीरियड की सैलरी पर GST लिया जा सकता है.

source:https://hindi.news18.com/news/business/employees-liable-to-pay-gst-on-salaries-received-in-lieu-of-notice-period-says-aar-ruling-mlks-3878303.html

Employees liable to pay GST on salaries received in lieu of notice period: AAR

AAR ruling says GST will be applicable on different employees’ recoveries, including telephone bills, group insurance and notice period salary.

Amid a talent war among companies, the issue of high attrition rate has taken centre stage in the corporate world. However, another crucial point of debate among tax officials and companies is the tax treatment on salaries of employees serving the customary notice period.

A recent ruling in the case of Bharat Oman Refineries, which is a subsidiary of state-owned Bharat Petroleum, by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs’ Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) said the GST will be applicable on different employees’ recoveries.

These include telephone bills paid by companies, group insurance of the company employees, and payment of salaries in lieu of the notice period, The Economic Times reported. As per the definition of GST, the government charges a specific tax on any activity viewed as “supply of service”. These services can either be direct or indirect.The ruling said the company provides services to the employee in the case of a notice pay, and that GST should be levied on it.

In a similar order passed by the Gujarat Authority of Advanced Ruling in July 2020, the GST authority had ruled that the applicant is “liable to pay GST on recovery of notice pay” from the employees leaving the company without completing the notice period as specified in the appointment letter issued as per the contract entered between the employer and the employee.

The order was passed on an application by Amneal Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad. The Authority had said the applicant is liable to pay GST at 18 per cent under the entry of “services not elsewhere classified, on recovery of notice pay from the employees who are leaving the company without completing the notice period”.

The authority reached the conclusion after going carefully through the case-law of Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemical Ltd (2016), wherein it was held that the cessation of employment should also be treated as employment service not liable for service tax. It also perused the decision of Allahabad CESTAT in the case of HCL Learning Systems Vs CCE, Noida, wherein it has been held (November 2019) that when amounts are recovered out of salary already paid, such amounts would not be subject to service tax as salaries are not subject to tax.

GST collections rise up to Rs 1.31 lakh crore in November

Revenues from central GST stood at Rs 23,978 crore for the month, state GST was Rs 31,127 crore and integrated GST Rs 66,815 crore

Higher demand during the festival months and greater compliance pushed GST collections up to Rs 1.31 lakh crore in November, the second highest since its implementation more than four years ago.

Revenues from central GST stood at Rs 23,978 crore for the month, state GST was Rs 31,127 crore and integrated GST Rs 66,815 crore. Cess collection was Rs 9,606 crore. Revenues for November 2021 are 25 per cent higher than November 2020 and 27 per cent higher over November 2019.

“These GST collections are somewhat lower than what we had expected, even as the year-on-year expansion is robust. We were hopeful that the GST collections in November would exceed the prevailing highest collections recorded in April 2021, given the all-time high generation of e-way bills during October,” Aditi Nayar, chief economist at Icra, said.

She said GST collections may dip in December as daily average e-way bill generation in the first three weeks of November reflect a deceleration.

Deloitte India partner M.S. Mani said: “A significant increase in the GST surveillance activities in recent times would have also contributed to the increased collections even as economic growth played a part.”

Vivek Jalan, a partner, Tax Connect Advisory Services, said the spurt in collection is mainly a result of DGARM, which is the Data Analytics wing of the GST Council.

“Changes in the GST machinery provisions such as blocking of GSTR-1 and waybills when even one GST return is not filed within time have ensured greater compliance.”

Jalan said the increase in rates on items such as solar panels, textiles, footwear has paved the way for higher collections in the future.

source:https://www.telegraphindia.com/business/gst-collections-rise-up-to-rs-1-31-lakh-crore-in-november/cid/1841549

Not satisfied why petroleum products can’t be brought under GST: Kerala HC

One of the reasons cited by the Council was that during the pandemic, it would be difficult to bring petroleum products under the GST regime.

A division bench of Kerala High Court on Wednesday said it was not satisfied with the reasons pointed out by the Centre and the GST Council on why petroleum products could not be brought under the GST regime.

One of the reasons cited by the Council was that during the pandemic, it would be difficult to bring petroleum products under the GST regime.

Last month, while hearing a petition of Kerala Pradesh Gandhi Darshanavedi, challenging the decision of the GST Council not to include petroleum products under GST, the High Court had directed the Council to file a statement.

On Wednesday, the standing counsel for the GST Council handed over the statement to the bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly.

After perusing the statement filed on behalf of the Director of Goods and Services Tax Council, the bench observed, “Even though the matter was taken in the 45th GST Council meeting, three issues seemed to have been considered by the Council for bringing the petroleum products under the GST regime, i.e., (i) the matter involves high revenue implications, (ii) requires larger deliberations and (iii) during pandemic times, it would be difficult to bring petroleum products under the GST regime.”The court observed, “We are not satisfied with the reasons. There should be some discussion and genuine reasons as to why petroleum products cannot be brought under the GST regime. Further, the pandemic period cannot be cited as a reason. It is well known that even during the pandemic, several decisions were taken involving revenue, after deliberations.”Subsequently, the court directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to file a detailed statement with reference to the observations made above and the prayers sought for. The court posted the matter in the second week of December.

source:https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/thiruvananthapuram/petroleum-products-gst-kerala-hc-7651363/

GST puzzle: Within Kerala’s hands, but beyond its reach

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Challenges posed by the new tax regime, post-GST, have added to the strain of Kerala economy. The stressed state finances are feared to hit rock bottom if the GST compensation ends on the original deadline of June 30, 2022. Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in September said the Centre’s decision is not to extend the compensation scheme by another five years as demanded by various states.

She said the Centre would continue with the compensation cess till March 2026 to repay the money borrowed for compensating the states till July 2022. State Finance Minister K N Balagopal responded saying that an extension of the compensation scheme was imperative considering the big shortfall in revenue. Even if the Centre decides to extend the scheme, it is unlikely to continue the existing shortfall calculation formula, making the state’s position weaker, feel experts.

The state’s own tax revenue consists of state GST, state excise, taxes on vehicles, stamp duty and registration fees. After showing an increasing trend for five years, the state’s own tax revenue (SOTR) decreased by `321 crore in 2019-20, according to the CAG Report on State Finances for FY20. GST contributed an average 40% to the state’s own tax revenue in the 2018-19 and 2019-20 fiscals, it showed.

The non-achievement of a desirable growth in the GST revenue can be attributed partly to the string of natural disasters faced by the state, says Dr N Ramalingam, associate professor at the Gulati Institute of Finance and Taxation. “The average growth rate of VAT in the five-year period before the GST implementation was 10%. Had the VAT regime continued, the growth rate would have hovered around 12%. But with the GST and the subsequent addition of the service tax, the growth rate should have become 15% which did not happen,” he says.

One of the reasons for the non-achievement of this growth rate is the impact of the floods and Covid on the economy, he said. Another is evasion which has increased manifold after the abolition of checkpost-based surveillance. “The GST department is training its officers to plug evasion. There will be a significant increase in collections within two years,” he said.

The absence of any concrete action to check tax evasion in some businesses like gold trade is another issue. The state GST department suspects large-scale tax evasion in gold sales. The tax revenue from gold sales at the end of the VAT regime was Rs 627 crore a year, which fell to Rs 220 crore under the GST regime.

A high-level meeting chaired by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan in September discussed several measures to plug evasion, including video surveillance of showrooms. A proposal being considered by the GST Council to bring gold under the ambit of e-way bill offers hope to the state. At present, gold is exempted from the requirement of e-way bill which is mandatory for the transportation of goods valued over Rs 50,000.

In the recent months, the GST department had registered several cases of illegal transportation of gold. Of late, the department has started confiscation of smuggled gold. This is after an order by the Gujarat High Court that allowed the taxes department there to confiscate the contraband invoking Section 130 of the GST Act. Till then, states invoked Section 129 of the GST Act in which the offender was let off after levying 3% GST and an equal amount as fine.

The state also hopes to gain from the GST rate rationalisation which is being discussed in the Group of Ministers. The GoM meeting scheduled for November 27 to finalise this was postponed in the last minute. “The GST rate rationalisation to get back to the revenue neutral rate, from the current tax incidence of 11% to 15%, was supposed to be discussed in this meeting,” said a senior official. The scope of the state to increase tax on liquor and fuel is limited too as the rates are very high already.

A modest increase in taxes unrevised for long and strict expenditure control measures are the need of the hour, feels economist and chairman of the Fifth State Finance Commission B A Prakash. “The economy is facing the biggest-ever crisis after the state’s formation. It is not wise to burden the people through mindless tax hikes. But taxes levied by the local self-governments which have not seen a hike in decades can be revised. It will help them extend more support to the people in the crisis time,” he said.

Digitisation and e-governance that provide ample scope for expenditure cutting measures should be given importance by the government, says Prakash. Establishment cost should be reduced. Instead of new recruitment, temporary employment should be opted for until the crisis ends. Large-scale development projects can be put on hold and focus be given on priority sectors like health, he said.

source:https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2021/nov/30/gst-puzzle-within-keralas-hands-butbeyond-its-reach-2389687.html

Traders flay hike in GST on textile, footwear items

The Himachal Pradesh Veopar Mandal has taken a exception to the Centre’s move to enhance GST rates from 5 per cent to 12 per cent on cloth (textile), footwear, readymade garments and stationery items from January 1. The businessmen’s body has sought immediate revocation of the notification issued by the Government of India.

Sumesh Sharma, president of the mandal, today said the trading community, which was already passing through a financial crisis due to Covid, would suffer another setback after the GST rates are enhanced.

After the lockdown owing to the pandemic and unhealthy competition of online trading, businessmen were facing difficulty in surviving. “The proposed enhanced GST rates will rub salt into the wounds of the traders already struggling for survival,” he lamented.

Sharma said the state Veopar Mandal and its executive members had written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, urging him not to increase the GST rates, as it would result in price rise and corruption, besides trading complications. “How can we survive when a trader has to pay more tax than his margin of profit,” he questioned.

The mandal president said the Centre had made the GST regime complicated by bringing in 950 amendments to the GST structure during the past over four years, without taking the traders into confidence. He said the GST structure had made the trading a complex affair and even stamped traders as culprits if they were not aware of the amendments brought into the tax structure. “Squeezing business, rising GST rates and arduous tax structure has made the lives of traders miserable and their business has become unviable,” Sharma added.

M/S. KHERIWAL ENTERPRISES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Acceptance of FORM GST TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 of the petitioner (hard copy) – Input Tax Credit/CENVAT credit – period running from 1st April, 2017 to 30th June, 2017 – pre Goods and Service Tax (GST) regime – Held that:- The GST portal of the Central Government was not accessed by the petitioner for varieties of reasons, as stated in Annexures-5, 6, 7 and 8 of this writ petition. Time and again, there is correspondence to that effect.

The respondents are directed to accept the hard copies of the FORM GST TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 and to scrutinize the same on or before the next date of hearing.

No.- W.P. (T) No. 3028 of 2018

Dated.- August 20, 2018

MR. D.N. PATEL AND MR. AMITAV K. GUPTA JJ.

For the Petitioner : Mr. M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Varsha Ramsisaria, Advocate Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate Ms. Priyanka Singh, Advocate Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent-UOI : Mr. Neeraj, A.C. to A.S.G.I.

For the Respondent-State : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, G.A.  

Oral Order

Per D.N. Patel, J.

1. This writ petition has been preferred mainly seeking permission upon the respondents to accept the FORM GST TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 of the petitioner so as to avail Input Tax Credit/CENVAT credit totalling to ₹ 8,75,039/- for the period running from 1st April, 2017 to 30th June, 2017 which is a pre Goods and Service Tax (GST) regime.

2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that Section 140 of the JGST Act, 2017, which is pertaining to transitional arrangements for Input Tax credit to be read with Rule 117 of the JGST Rules, 2017 provides that within 90 days application should be preferred for receiving credit of the Input Tax/CENVAT.

3. Thus, from 1st July, 2017 onwards within 90 days such application should have been preferred by the petitioner, but, this date has been extended up to 27th December, 2017, thereafter, up to 31st May, 2018 for TRAN-1 and filing date has been extended up to 30th June, 2018 for TRAN-2.  

4. Looking to the facts, it appears that the GST portal of the Central Government was not accessed by the petitioner for varieties of reasons, as stated in Annexures-5, 6, 7 and 8 of this writ petition. Time and again, there is correspondence to that effect.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India is seeking time.

6. We, therefore, direct the respondents to accept the hard copies of the FORM GST TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 and to scrutinize the same on or before the next date of hearing.

7. The matter is adjourned on 24th September, 2018.

M/S MASHA ENTERPRISES VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Seizure of goods alongwith the vehicle – expired E-Way bill – whether the expiry of the delivery time mentioned in the E-Way Bill would be construed as contravention of the provisions of GST Act? – HELD THAT:- List for admission/final disposal after a month.

In the meantime, the goods and the vehicle seized on 10.08.2018 shall be released in favour of the petitioner on its furnishing security of the amount other than cash and bank guarantee equivalent to the proposed tax and the penalty already imposed.

No.- Writ Tax No. 1144 of 2018

Dated.- August 21, 2018

Mr. Pankaj Mithal and Mr. Saral Srivastava, JJ.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankur Agarwal,Suyash Agarwal

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Vaibhav Tripathi

ORDER

Heard Sri Suyash Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Department.

The goods of the petitioner in transportation from Ghaziabad to Meerut were seized along with the vehicle on 10.08.2018 as the E-Way Bill had expired.

The submission of Sri Suyash Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no intention on the part of the petitioner to evade the tax and that no such intention is reflected from the seizure order. The transportation of the goods could not be completed within the time mentioned in the E-Way Bill due to traffic jam on account of “Kanvar Yatra” in Western U.P.

Sri Tripathi, on the other hand, contends that contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules ipso facto entitles the seizure of the goods under Section 129 of the Act. The Act only provides that the goods in transportation shall accompany the E-Way Bill.

The question that arises is whether the expiry of the delivery time mentioned in the E-Way Bill would be construed as contravention of the provisions of the Act.

Sri Tripathi may seek instructions and file counter affidavit to the petition within a period of three weeks. One week thereafter is allowed to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.

List for admission/final disposal after a month.

In the meantime, the goods and the vehicle seized on 10.08.2018 shall be released in favour of the petitioner on its furnishing security of the amount other than cash and bank guarantee equivalent to the proposed tax and the penalty already imposed.

M/S. ANKIT ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE GST COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, THE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX NETWORK (GSTN) , THE COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, THE GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

Transitional credit – grievance of the petitioner is that even though they are entitled to claim transitional credit as per Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 r/w Section 140 of the TNGST Act, 2017, such input tax credit fails to appear in the electronic credit, despite the fact that the petitioner duly complied with the requirements for transition of credit on input tax.

Held that:- It is not in dispute that a circular has already been issued on 03.04.2018 by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, by setting up a Grievance Redressal Mechanism to address certain grievance of the Assesses, which contemplates the appointment of a Nodal Officer to address the problem faced by the tax payers in the GST portal during the transitional period – it is for the petitioner/Assessee, to submit their application ventilating their grievance in accordance with the said circular, before the concerned Nodal Officer – petition disposed off.

No.- W. P. No. 21337 of 2018

Dated.- August 21, 2018

K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.

For the Petitioner  : Mr.S.Muthuvenkataraman

For the Respondents : Mrs.R.Hemalatha, Mr.V.Sundareswaran, Mr.J.Kumaran

ORDER

Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents 3 & 4. Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel takes notice for the respondents 1 & 2. Mr.J.Kumaran, learned Government Advocate (P) takes notice for the fifth respondent. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. The petitioner seeks for mandamus directing the respondents herein to allow the petitioner to avail the credit of ₹ 36 Lakh (Approx), being the amount of Cenvat Credit carried forward in the return relating to the period ending with the day immediately preceding the date on which the provisions of the new tax regime, the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, came into force, as credit on input tax under the new tax regime.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The petitioner-Company is an Assessee under Range-III, Central Excise Division, Kalaikal. The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though they are entitled to claim transitional credit as per Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 r/w Section 140 of the TNGST Act, 2017, such input tax credit fails to appear in the electronic credit, despite the fact that the petitioner duly complied with the requirements for transition of credit on input tax, the un-utilized amount in the return relating to the period ending with the day immediately preceding the date on which GST Act, 2017 came into force. It is contended that the petitioner had duly filled declaration electronically in Form GST TRAN-I on 05.09.2017. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner vide their communication sent by E-mail dated 26.01.2018, informing the respondents that due credit which ought to have been forwarded from the old tax regime to GST had not materialised. As the said request has not been considered, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition.

5. It is not in dispute that a circular has already been issued on 03.04.2018 by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, by setting up a Grievance Redressal Mechanism to address certain grievance of the Assesses, which contemplates the appointment of a Nodal Officer to address the problem faced by the tax payers in the GST portal during the transitional period. Therefore, when such Grievance Redressal Mechanism has already been formed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and consequently, a Nodal Officer is also appointed by the State Government, it is for the petitioner/Assessee, to submit their application ventilating their grievance in accordance with the said circular, before the concerned Nodal Officer.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, only with the following directions:

(a) The petitioner shall submit their application in accordance with the circular dated 03.04.2018 to the respective Assessing Officer/Jurisdictional Officer/GST Officer, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

(b) On receipt of such application, the Assessing Officer/Jurisdictional Officer/GST Officer is directed to forward the application to the respective Nodal Officer within a period of one week.

(c) The Nodal Officer in consultation with the GSTN shall take note of the grievances expressed by the petitioner/Assessee and forward the same to the Grievance Committee, which in turn would take an appropriate decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of six weeks thereafter.

No costs.