Articles & Latest Update - income tax - Gst - thetaxtalk

New Rules for GST Practitioners Exam

New Rules for GST Practitioners Exam

This is regarding the applicability of Rotation principles on a company as per Section 139 of the Companies Act 2013 where the company ceases to fall under the ambit of Rotation principles in subsequent years. Provisions of the Companies Act 203 and Rules thereon Section 139 (2) of the Companies Act 2013 provides that no listed company or a company belonging to such class or classes of companies as may be prescribed, shall appoint or re- appoint— (a) an individual as auditor for more than one term of five consecutive years; and (b) an audit firm as auditor for more than two terms of five consecutive years: Further as per the “Companies (Audit and Auditors) Rules, 2014, for the purposes of sub- section (2) of section 139, the class of companies shall mean the following classes of companies excluding one person companies and small companies:- (a) all unlisted public companies having paid up share capital of rupees ten crore or more; (b) all private limited companies having paid up share capital of rupees fifty crore or more; (c) all companies having paid up share capital of below threshold limit mentioned in (a) and (b) above, but having public borrowings from financial institutions, banks or public deposits of rupees fifty crores or more. Issue “A Chartered Accountant/ firm, an auditor in a company on which Rules relating to Rotation of auditors were applicable, retired in the year 2017 and a new auditor appointed in the same year. After amendment was brought as per Companies (Amendment) Act 2017, the company do not meet principles of rotation of auditors in the year 2018. Whether the auditor who was an auditor of the company in the year 2017 can be reappointed by the company as the company ceases to fall under the criteria of rotation of auditors?” View The Corporate Laws & Corporate Governance Committee at its 43rdmeeting held on 7th January, 2019 discussed the issue and was of the view that since the requirement of rotation of auditors is not applicable on the company subsequently, therefore the auditor who was the auditor in the company earlier in the year 2017 can be reappointed without prejudice to the other provisions of the Companies Act 2013. In other words, once a company ceases to fall under the ambit of Rotation principles, the company can appoint any chartered accountant/ firm as an auditor of the company irrespective of the fact that the same chartered accountant/ firm was an auditor of the company in previous years. With Regards CA. Debashis Mitra Chairman, Corporate Laws & Corporate Governance Committee The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India CA. Dhinal A. Shah Vice Chairman, Corporate Laws & Corporate Governance Committee The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

Announcement Regarding Clarification on Applicability of Rotation principles for Auditors

Various Discounts and its treatment in GST

Various Discounts and its treatment in GST

Filing return, be it direct tax or indirect tax, is going to be as simple as using the WhatsApp & Facebook

Filing return, be it direct tax or indirect tax, is going to be as simple as using the WhatsApp & Facebook

No registration u/s 12A if trust is intended to distribute properties acquired from Grants amongst private members

No registration u/s 12A if trust is intended to distribute properties acquired from Grants amongst private members

GST Audit opportunity in Bihar

TAXATION OF AOP AND BOI

TAXATION OF AOP AND BOI

GST paid under wrong head can be adjusted under another: High Court

GST paid under wrong head can be adjusted under another: High Court

DPT-3 Mandatory Information of Loan to ROC : FAQs

DPT-3 Mandatory Information of Loan to ROC : FAQs

Insight of GST AUDIT

Insight of GST AUDIT

GST on services by corporate office employees for other units: AAR

GST on services by corporate office employees for other units: AAR

No credit of Krishi Kalyan Cess allowed under GST: AAAR

No credit of Krishi Kalyan Cess allowed under GST: AAAR

Summary of various forms under GST

Summary of various forms under GST

No GST liability on good procured and sold directly outside India -AAR GST Kerala

No GST liability on good procured and sold directly outside India -AAR GST Kerala

GST Small business exemption eligible to co-owners separately in case of jointly owned property

GST Small business exemption eligible to co-owners separately in case of jointly owned property

Builder penalized for not passing on the benefit of ITC to buyers:

Builder penalized for not passing on the benefit of ITC to buyers:

If there is no reduction in the rate of tax under GST then allegation of profiteering is not sustainable 2018 TaxPub(GST) 0917 (NAPA) IN THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY B.N. SHARMA, CHAIRMAN, J.C. CHAUHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER, R. BHAGYADEVI, TECHNICAL MEMBER, AMAND SHAH, TECHNICAL MEMBER State Level Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering v. Panasonic India (P) Ltd. Case No. 23/2018 24 December, 2018 Application Dismissed. Applicant No. 1 by: A. Shainamol, Additional Commissioner, SGST, Kerala Applicant No. 2 by: Anwar Ali T.P., Additional Commissioner ORDER The present Report dated 27-9-2018, has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. The Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that The Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering vide the minutes of it's meeting held on 8-5-2018 had referred the present case to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, alleging profiteering by the Respondent on the supply of Panasonic LED TH43E200DX#45580 by not passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax at the time of implementation of GST with effect from 1-7-2017. Thus it was alleged that the Respondent had indulged in profiteering in contravention of the provisions of section 171 of CGST Act, 2017. In this regard, Kerala State Screening Committee had relied on two invoices issued by the Respondent, one was dated 15-6-2017 (Pre-CST) and the other was dated 22-7-2017 (Post-GST). 2. The above reference was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering and was further referred to the DGAP vide minutes of it's meeting dated 2-7-2018 for detailed investigations under rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 3. The DGAP has stated in his Report dated 27-9-2018 that after scrutiny of the two invoices issued by the Respondent, it was observed that in the pre-GST era, the said product attracted VAT @ 14.5% and Central Excise Duty @ 12.5% on 65% of abated MRP of the product, in terms of Notification No. 49/2008 Central Excise (N.T.) dated 24-12-2008. on implementation of the GST with effect from 1-7-2017, the GST rate on the said product was fixed at 28%. The pre-GST & post-GST sale invoice-wise details of the applicable tax rate and discounted price (excluding VAT or GST) of the said product supplied by the Respondent, are furnished in the table below:- S. No. Description of the product supplied Pre GST Invoice No. 140217101517 dated 15-6-2017 Post GST Invoice No. 14021702034 dated 22-7-2017 Base price Total Tax (Rs) Total Price (Rs.) Base price (Rs.) GST (Rs.) Total Price (Rs) 1. Panasonic LED TH43E200DX#45 580 (HSN code 85281211) 27,428 7349 (Rs. 2945 Central Excise Duty @ 12.5% on 65% of abated MRP of Rs. 36250/as per Annexure-7) + Rs. 4404 VAT on discounted price Rs. 30,373) 34,777 27818 (after discount) 7789/(28% GST) 35,607 Total Tax Pre-GST in (%) 26.79% Total Tax Post-GST in (%) 28% 4. After scrutiny of the above two invoices issued by the Respondent, the DGAP has intimated that there was an increase in the rate of tax on the said product from 26.79% in the pre-GST era (VAT and Excise Duty) to 28% in the post-GST era and there was no reduction in the rate of tax. Consequently, the DGAP has stated that as there was no reduction in the tax rate of the said product the provisions of section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 were not contravened and hence the allegation of profiteering by the Respondent was not established. 5. The above Report was considered by the Authority in it's meeting held on 26-9-2018 and it was decided that since there was no complainant/other applicant in this case, the Kerala Screening Committee be asked to appear before the Authority on 9-10-2018. Ms. A. Shainamol, Additional Commissioner, SGST, Kerala appeared on behalf of the Applicant No. 1. During the hearing she agreed to the report submitted by the DGAP. 6. We have carefully examined the report of the DGAP and the documents placed on record and find that the only issue that needs to be dwelled upon in as to whether there is a case of reduction in the rate of tax and whether the provisions of section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 are attracted in the case. 7. Perusal of section 171 of the CGST Act shows that it provides as under :-- (1). Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. 8. It is apparent from the perusal of the facts of the case that there was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product with effect from 1-7-2017 and that the rate of tax in the Post-GST era has also been increased from 26.79% to 28%, therefore, the allegation of profiteering is not sustainable in terms of section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. As such, we do not find any merit in the application filed by the above Applicant and the same is dismissed 9. A copy of this order be sent to both the Applicants and the Respondent free of cost. File of the case be consigned after completion.

If there is no reduction in the rate of tax under GST then allegation of profiteering is not sustainable

GST: Supply of Food & Beverages in Trains is supply of Goods: Delhi AAR

GST: Supply of Food & Beverages in Trains is supply of Goods: Delhi AAR