Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + Commissioner GST - 2019 (8) TMI Commissioner This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1562 - Commissioner - GSTComposite supply of services or not - coaching services - Evasion of GST - Suppression of taxable outward services supply related turnover - invocation of Section 74 read with Rule 142(1) of CGST/APGST Act & Rules, 2017. Whether the point of the objection of the appellant that their supply of coaching services shall not be termed as composite supply, is based on any logical basis and legitimate provision or not? - HELD THAT:- The appellant is definitely at fault for not obtaining registration under CGST/APGST Act, 2017, though he was aware of liability of tax on commercial coaching service. The appellant has been brought to tax net only post inspection after which he has been issued with suo motu registration. The appellant ought to have registered himself at least after crossing threshold limit, but failed to do so, which supports the AO’s finding that the appellant has been wilfully attempted for tax evasion - The core & fundamental friction between the appellant & Department revolves around treating the appellant supplies as composite supply. It is beyond any doubt that the appellant’s principal supply among the combined supplies, is nonetheless commercial coaching of NEET education, which is undoubtedly taxable and admitted by the appellant also. The other services of lodging and boarding are only incidental whether chosen by the student or not? That means, though students does not choose auxiliary services but the principal supply must be the criteria while charging the students - No student can choose only lodging or boarding without coaching. Here the appellant contentions fails prima facie, because the narration of the appellant that student can choose any one of the three (3) services is clearly found to be on wrong note. The appellant argument that since some students have opted for only coaching service but not received boarding/lodging as day scholars has no relevance to the present dispute, because such students will only pay for principal supply, resultantly such receipts are to be taxable invariably as applicable to principal supply values only even if treated as composite supply. The present case undoubtedly qualifies to be fallen into category of composite supplies. It is also noteworthy here to comment on the AO’s findings, who has discretely observed that the appellant’s transactions clearly liable to be treated as composite supply on analyzing the basic records/documents during the course of inspection. The A.O. also opined that the appellant is resorting to separate the receipts in books of accounts to distract the composite nature of receipts, which could not be countered by the appellant through his explanations. Whether the appellant contentions with reference to exemption up to threshold limit and allowing ITC on building rental charges are found to be having any sustainable aspects or not? - HELD THAT:- The AO has recorded certain specific remarks, which on a fundamental reading are found to be logical and legitimate. The AO has asserted that; (a) The appellant must have been a registered taxable person, (b) he must be in possession of tax invoice, and (c) such dealer ought to have filed all GST returns. However, in the present case, none of the above criteria satisfied, hence ITC shall not be eligible to the appellant. The AO’s declaration in this regard found to be based on valid provisions of the GST Act. The assessment & levy of tax by the audit officer are confirmed - Appeal dismissed.
|