CA in Jaipur | CA. Yogesh Jangid |ITR Filing 2023 | Company Registration | NGO Registration | Income Tax Raid Cases | Audit | Inc Incroporation | CPA in India | Subsidy | Project Funding | GST | GST Raid Cases | Income Tax Notice Faceless | DRI Cases | https://www.nyca.in ITR Filing 2023 | Company Registration | NGO Registration | Income Tax Raid Cases | Audit | Inc Incroporation | CPA in India | Subsidy | Project Funding | GST | GST Raid Cases | Income Tax Notice Faceless | DRI Cases Mon, 20 May 2024 08:04:41 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.1 https://www.nyca.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/9060CA_logo_icai-1.jpg CA in Jaipur | CA. Yogesh Jangid |ITR Filing 2023 | Company Registration | NGO Registration | Income Tax Raid Cases | Audit | Inc Incroporation | CPA in India | Subsidy | Project Funding | GST | GST Raid Cases | Income Tax Notice Faceless | DRI Cases | https://www.nyca.in 32 32 No Denial of ITC Merely Because the Supplier Failed to File Returns and Pay Taxes https://www.nyca.in/no-denial-of-itc-merely-because-the-supplier-failed-to-file-returns-and-pay-taxes/ https://www.nyca.in/no-denial-of-itc-merely-because-the-supplier-failed-to-file-returns-and-pay-taxes/#respond Mon, 20 May 2024 08:04:41 +0000 https://www.nyca.in/?p=9718 In a recent case before the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court, the issue of denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) to a purchasing dealer due to the supplier's failure to file returns and pay taxes was examined.

The post No Denial of ITC Merely Because the Supplier Failed to File Returns and Pay Taxes appeared first on CA in Jaipur | CA. Yogesh Jangid |ITR Filing 2023 | Company Registration | NGO Registration | Income Tax Raid Cases | Audit | Inc Incroporation | CPA in India | Subsidy | Project Funding | GST | GST Raid Cases | Income Tax Notice Faceless | DRI Cases.

]]>

In a recent case before the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court, the issue of denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) to a purchasing dealer due to the supplier’s failure to file returns and pay taxes was examined. This article provides an overview of the case, highlighting the facts, issues, and the court’s decision.

Introduction

The case of Subhash Singh v. Deputy Commissioner, SGST revolved around the denial of ITC to a purchasing dealer, Subhash Singh, on the grounds that the supplier failed to fulfill their tax obligations. The court’s decision sheds light on the interpretation of relevant provisions under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Uttarakhand GST Act).

Facts of the Case

Subhash Singh, engaged in the retail and wholesale business of iron scrap and waste, had availed ITC for the tax period April 2021 to March 2022 based on invoices and payments made to the supplier, M/s Dev Bhoomi Spat. Despite Subhash Singh’s compliance with GST regulations, the respondent (Revenue) raised a demand against him, alleging fraudulent availing of ITC due to the supplier’s non-compliance with tax obligations.

Issue

The primary issue before the court was whether the denial of ITC to Subhash Singh was justified solely based on the supplier’s failure to file returns and pay taxes.

Held

The Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court, in Special Appeal No.100 of 2024 dated May 03, 2024, delivered the following judgment:

  • The court modified the assessment order, considering that Subhash Singh had produced all invoices from the suppliers, fulfilling his documentation requirements.
  • Emphasizing the supplier's responsibility to file returns and pay taxes, the court directed Subhash Singh to deposit 10% of the demanded amount, acknowledging his compliance with GST procedures.

category

The post No Denial of ITC Merely Because the Supplier Failed to File Returns and Pay Taxes appeared first on CA in Jaipur | CA. Yogesh Jangid |ITR Filing 2023 | Company Registration | NGO Registration | Income Tax Raid Cases | Audit | Inc Incroporation | CPA in India | Subsidy | Project Funding | GST | GST Raid Cases | Income Tax Notice Faceless | DRI Cases.

]]> https://www.nyca.in/no-denial-of-itc-merely-because-the-supplier-failed-to-file-returns-and-pay-taxes/feed/ 0 Assessee Considered Electronic Commerce Operator in Digital Gold Sale Case: Karnataka AAR https://www.nyca.in/assessee-considered-electronic-commerce-operator-in-digital-gold-sale-case-karnataka-aar/ https://www.nyca.in/assessee-considered-electronic-commerce-operator-in-digital-gold-sale-case-karnataka-aar/#respond Wed, 01 May 2024 06:16:02 +0000 https://www.nyca.in/?p=9103 The ruling by the Karnataka Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) in the case of In Re. M/s. Changejar Technologies Private Limited has significant implications for businesses operating digital gold platforms.

The post Assessee Considered Electronic Commerce Operator in Digital Gold Sale Case: Karnataka AAR appeared first on CA in Jaipur | CA. Yogesh Jangid |ITR Filing 2023 | Company Registration | NGO Registration | Income Tax Raid Cases | Audit | Inc Incroporation | CPA in India | Subsidy | Project Funding | GST | GST Raid Cases | Income Tax Notice Faceless | DRI Cases.

]]>

Introduction

The ruling by the Karnataka Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) in the case of In Re. M/s. Changejar Technologies Private Limited has significant implications for businesses operating digital gold platforms. This article examines the key aspects of the case and its impact on the classification of e-commerce operators.

Facts of the Case

M/s. Changejar Technologies Private Limited, the Applicant, operates an online micro-saving and investment platform named Jar. Under a distribution agreement with Digital Gold India Private Limited, the Applicant offers the sale of digital gold on its platform.

Issue

The primary issue addressed in the advance ruling application was whether the Applicant should be considered an agent or an electronic commerce operator when digital gold is sold through its platform. Specifically, the query pertained to the tax collection obligations in cases where the sale amount is directly paid through an escrow account, with a commission charged.

Held

The Karnataka AAR ruled as follows:

  • Definition of Electronic Commerce Operator: The AAR observed that an electronic commerce operator includes any person who owns, operates, or manages a digital or electronic facility or platform for electronic commerce. This encompasses the supply of goods or services, including digital products, over a digital or electronic network.
  • Ownership of Digital Platform: Noting that the Applicant owns a digital platform for offering the sale of seller digital gold, the AAR emphasized the nature of the agreement between the Applicant and the Seller as a distribution agreement.
  • Absence of Agency Relationship: The ruling clarified that neither the Applicant nor the Seller acts as an agent to each other. Since the sale of seller products occurs through the Applicant's online platform, the Applicant qualifies as an electronic commerce operator.
  • Tax Collection Obligations: As a result of being classified as an electronic commerce operator, the Applicant is required to collect tax at source under Section 52 of the CGST Act. Additionally, the Applicant must obtain compulsory registration as per the relevant regulations.

category

The post Assessee Considered Electronic Commerce Operator in Digital Gold Sale Case: Karnataka AAR appeared first on CA in Jaipur | CA. Yogesh Jangid |ITR Filing 2023 | Company Registration | NGO Registration | Income Tax Raid Cases | Audit | Inc Incroporation | CPA in India | Subsidy | Project Funding | GST | GST Raid Cases | Income Tax Notice Faceless | DRI Cases.

]]> https://www.nyca.in/assessee-considered-electronic-commerce-operator-in-digital-gold-sale-case-karnataka-aar/feed/ 0