Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + AAR GST - 2021 (12) TMI AAR This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (12) TMI 145 - AAR - GST


Issues:
- Determination of liability to pay tax under reverse charge mechanism when the supplier has already paid tax under forward charge.

Analysis:
1. Background and Facts: The applicant, a dairy plant company, sought an advance ruling on the liability of the recipient to pay tax under reverse charge when the supplier has already paid tax under forward charge.

2. Question Raised: The main issue raised was whether the tax paid by the service provider under forward charge would absolve the recipient from the payment of tax under reverse charge.

3. Department's View: The jurisdictional officer opined that if the liability to pay tax under reverse charge is specified in a notification, payment should be made accordingly. The officer also highlighted that the question raised did not come under the purview of a specific section of the GST Act.

4. Applicant's Submissions: The applicant argued that due to a procedural flaw, tax was paid under forward charge instead of reverse charge, leading to a discrepancy. They emphasized the principle of revenue neutrality and cited legal precedents to support their stance against double taxation.

5. Discussion and Findings: The Authority examined the legal basis for the question raised. It was noted that the application fell under the category of determining the liability to pay tax. However, the Authority highlighted that the question was not about the existence of the liability but rather its validity, which is beyond the Authority's scope.

6. Conclusion: The Authority concluded that the application did not fall within the scope of Section 97 of the CGST Act. Therefore, the Advance Ruling Authority could not provide a ruling on the question raised. The ruling was disposed of accordingly, subject to the provisions of the GST Act.

7. Ruling: The ruling stated that the application was not covered under Section 97 of the CGST Act, and hence, the Authority could not comment on the question. The ruling was deemed valid unless declared void under specific provisions of the GST Act.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates