Latest news with #CentralGSTAct
Time of India
2 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
‘GST Act little beyond understanding of common man'; HC overturns restaurant registration cancellation
Dehradun: Uttarakhand high court has quashed the cancellation of a restaurant's GST registration and allowed it to reapply, saying the GST Act remains "technically complex for citizens focused on running their daily businesses". The division bench of Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra held that the delay in seeking revocation must be condoned as such cancellations affect sources of livelihood and reduce state revenue. The court passed the order earlier this week while hearing a petition filed by M/s River View Restaurant in Bageshwar. The bench noted that GST is still in its initial phase and that several of its provisions are beyond the understanding of a common person. The court directed the petitioner to file a fresh application for restoration of GST registration within three weeks. It also instructed the department to process the application within the following three-week period. Counsel for the respondents — commissioner and joint commissioner of state goods and services tax — said the petitioner had the option to apply for revocation under Section 30 of the Central GST Act, 2017. The provision allows a registered taxpayer, whose GST registration has been cancelled by the proper officer on their own motion, to apply for revocation of the cancellation order within 30 days — which can be extended up to 90 days — provided all pending returns are filed and tax dues are paid. The petitioner's counsel admitted that no such application was filed within the prescribed time. The court said, "We feel that the limitation should not take precedence for reconsideration of the order of cancellation. Keeping a larger objective of the involvement of livelihood and also loss of revenue to the department, we are of the considered opinion that delay in invoking the provisions of the Act is required to be condoned and is, accordingly, condoned." Several high courts, including Delhi, Madras and Gujarat, have in recent months condoned delays in GST registration revocation filings under section 30, particularly in cases involving small businesses, where courts observed that cancellation could affect income and state revenue.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
15-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Levy of 28% GST on online money gaming flawed, firms tell Supreme Court
Online real-money gaming companies on Tuesday opposed the imposition of a 28 per cent Goods and Services Tax (GST) on their services, arguing that the levy was fundamentally flawed and contrary to the legal framework. Senior advocate V Sridharan, appearing for the online gaming companies (petitioners), argued that the GST provisions before October 2023 were inadequate to impose a 28 per cent tax on online gaming operators in the manner attempted by the authorities. The government's reliance on Rule 31A of the GST Rules—pertaining to the value of supply in cases of lottery, betting, gambling and horse racing—was challenged on grounds that the rule lacked statutory authority under the Central GST Act. Sridharan argued that Rule 31A, which prescribed the valuation method for betting and gambling, did not comply with the mandatory two-step process under Section 15(5) of the CGST Act. Specifically, the rule was issued without first notifying 'actionable' claims as taxable supplies, rendering it ineffective and invalid, he said. He contended that attempts to tax actionable claims such as betting and gambling as 'goods' by amending the Goods Rate Notification were flawed. Until 1 October 2023, there was no entry for actionable claims in the Customs Tariff Schedule, making their classification as goods unsustainable under GST. The petitioners also argued the distinction between platform fees—on which GST is already paid—and prize pool contributions made by players, which are held in trust and returned to winners. The petition claimed that these deposits do not constitute consideration and thus cannot be taxed under GST. In online games, players compete against each other, while the operator merely provides the platform, the gaming companies submitted. As the supplier of platform services, the operator had discharged GST during the relevant period at the applicable rate. 'However, the operator does not make any other supplies and only holds the prize pool as a deposit to be settled in favour of the winner, who is decided between the players. Thus, the operator cannot be made liable for supplies made inter se between the players,' Sridharan said. The division bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan asked whether the entire game would be treated as a single transaction, to which Sridharan replied, 'GST is a contract-based tax.' The case highlights the absence of clear taxing provisions to enforce GST collection before the October 2023 overhaul. The petitioners concluded that attempts to retroactively impose GST without statutory backing violate fundamental tax principles and must be struck down as ultra vires. The Supreme Court has scheduled 25 July 2025 as the date for the final hearing in the case, which involves show-cause notices issued to several online gaming firms. With an estimated financial impact of ₹2.5 lakh crore, the case ranks among the largest tax battles in India's history. The matter will continue on Wednesday.
Indian Express
02-07-2025
- Indian Express
HC initiates contempt proceedings against GST officials for illegal detention
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has initiated contempt proceedings against officials of the Central Revenue Department in a habeas corpus case involving alleged illegal detention and obstruction of justice. In a strongly worded order passed on Tuesday, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar directed the Additional Director General GST to disclose by affidavit the names and designations of officials who allegedly obstructed a court-appointed warrant officer and snatched official papers during the recovery of the detainee. The case, Barkha Bansal vs. State of UT Chandigarh and Others, was filed on June 5 by Barkha Bansal, who sought the release of her husband from illegal detention. The detainee was allegedly picked up by GST officials at 12:05 pm on June 4, 2025, and held without being produced before a magistrate within the constitutionally mandated 24 hours. Represented by senior advocate Vinod Ghai, the petitioner alleged that the detention lasted more than 30 hours. 'The detainee was forcibly taken away in a convoy of three cars from the custody of the Warrant Officer, who was performing his official duty, as directed by this Court,' Ghai submitted, referring to video footage annexed with the petition. The warrant officer, appointed by the court on June 5, entered the Central Revenue Building in Sector 17, Chandigarh, at 6:42 pm with local police assistance. He recorded the detainee's statement, noted visible injuries, and documented the recovery. However, the court noted that 'respondents no. 2 and 3 and other officials of the Department… created obstruction when he, in discharge of his official duty, was recording statement of the detainee. In fact, they also snatched papers from his hand.' The detainee was eventually shown as arrested at 8:40 pm on June 5, over 30 hours after he was picked up, and produced before the Duty Magistrate at 9:25 pm. Justice Brar termed this a clear breach of Article 22 of the Constitution and held the conduct of the officials as 'ex facie contemptuous'. The court observed, 'This Court cannot turn a Nelson's eye to such recalcitrant misconduct depicting a blatant disregard for the rule of law. Allowing such lawlessness to continue unchecked would undermine the authority and dignity of the justice administration mechanism.' The identities of respondents no. 2 and 3 are yet to be disclosed. The court has directed respondent no. 3, the Additional Director General GST, to file an affidavit by July 18, providing the names and designations of officials present between 6:30 pm and 9:00 pm on June 5. The affidavit must also address compliance with the Supreme Court's directive in Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh (2021) regarding CCTV installation in investigation offices. Opposing the petitioner's claims, Additional Solicitor General of India Satya Pal Jain submitted that the detainee had been summoned for investigation under Section 22 of the Central GST Act and was legally arrested after giving evasive replies. He sought time to file a reply, which the court allowed. Public Prosecutor Manish Bansal and Additional Public Prosecutor Viren Sibbal appeared for UT Chandigarh. The court also allowed a related application for placing additional documents on record, including videos, medical records, and statements. The matter will be heard next on July 18. The court has ordered the production of the original arrest memo, grounds of arrest, and the detainee's medical report, signalling a sharp judicial response to what it described as a grave violation of legal and constitutional safeguards.
Time of India
23-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Ride-hailing firms to seek GST clarity from tax regulator
Ride-hailing platforms, including Ola , Uber , and Rapido , are set to make a fresh set of representations to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) on the contentious issue of applicability of goods and services tax (GST) on services offered under the SaaS model. Under the SaaS model, platforms charge a fixed subscription fee to gig workers instead of a commission. Companies are expected to flag ambiguities arising from inconsistent tax treatment of the SaaS model following divergent rulings from the Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), said people in the know. They alleged that the Karnataka AAR 's decision is distorting competitive parity in the sector. While the Karnataka AAR allowed ONDC-affiliated Namma Yatri to operate without levying GST, it held that Uber and Rapido remain liable to pay the tax under the same model. Rapido operates the subscription model for its auto-rickshaw and four-wheeler ride-hailing offerings, while Uber has deployed this model for the three-wheeler ride-hailing. Ola Consumer, which started by deploying the subscription model for autorickshaws, earlier this month expanded it to four-wheeler taxi services as well. 'Some companies have taken a 'no-tax position' on the subscription model, and this creates inequality for tax-paying players who charge commission," said a senior executive at one of the ride-hailing firms . "The ride-hailing space is a price sensitive sector, and the fares offered to riders by those operating on the subscription model end up being significantly lower…this puts certain companies at a competitive disadvantage,' The move to launch subscription-based plans wherein platforms charge a fixed daily or weekly fee to driver partners on their platforms for an unlimited number of rides helps companies potentially bypass the 5% GST applicable on rides facilitated by them, people said. The 5% GST is applicable under Section 9 (5) of Central GST Act, which mandates ecommerce firms such as ride-hailing platforms, food-delivery companies, and online retailers to collect and pay tax on behalf of service providers listed on their apps. These include drivers, restaurants and e-marketplace sellers. Uber, Ola and Rapido did not respond to ET's queries. The fresh representations come in the backdrop of a recent Karnataka High Court order that asked CBIC to engage stakeholders and clarify its stand on the matter. On companies rolling out subscription model to bypass the 5% GST, tax experts said it could also lead to potential disputes between operators and tax authorities amid lack of clarity on whether a September 2023 advance tax ruling, which held that Namma Yatri need not collect and pay GST, would apply to other platforms as well. In July 2024, however, the Karnataka AAR ruled that Rapido was liable to pay GST for its cab services, and later in November issued a similar ruling saying Uber would also be liable to pay tax for services launched on the subscription model.
Time of India
23-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Ride-hailing firms to flag SaaS services GST worries to CBIC
Ride-hailing platforms, including Ola , Uber , and Rapido , are set to make a fresh set of representations to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) on the contentious issue of applicability of goods and services tax (GST) on services offered under the SaaS model. Under the SaaS model, platforms charge a fixed subscription fee to gig workers instead of a commission. Companies are expected to flag ambiguities arising from inconsistent tax treatment of the SaaS model following divergent rulings from the Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), said people in the know. They alleged that the Karnataka AAR 's decision is distorting competitive parity in the sector. While the Karnataka AAR allowed ONDC-affiliated Namma Yatri to operate without levying GST, it held that Uber and Rapido remain liable to pay the tax under the same model. ETtech Live Events Rapido operates the subscription model for its auto-rickshaw and four-wheeler ride-hailing offerings, while Uber has deployed this model for the three-wheeler ride-hailing. Ola Consumer, which started by deploying the subscription model for autorickshaws, earlier this month expanded it to four-wheeler taxi services as well. Discover the stories of your interest Blockchain 5 Stories Cyber-safety 7 Stories Fintech 9 Stories E-comm 9 Stories ML 8 Stories Edtech 6 Stories 'Some companies have taken a 'no-tax position' on the subscription model, and this creates inequality for tax-paying players who charge commission," said a senior executive at one of the ride-hailing firms . "The ride-hailing space is a price sensitive sector, and the fares offered to riders by those operating on the subscription model end up being significantly lower…this puts certain companies at a competitive disadvantage,' The move to launch subscription-based plans wherein platforms charge a fixed daily or weekly fee to driver partners on their platforms for an unlimited number of rides helps companies potentially bypass the 5% GST applicable on rides facilitated by them, people said. The 5% GST is applicable under Section 9 (5) of Central GST Act, which mandates ecommerce firms such as ride-hailing platforms, food-delivery companies, and online retailers to collect and pay tax on behalf of service providers listed on their apps. These include drivers, restaurants and e-marketplace sellers. Uber, Ola and Rapido did not respond to ET's queries. The fresh representations come in the backdrop of a recent Karnataka High Court order that asked CBIC to engage stakeholders and clarify its stand on the matter. On companies rolling out subscription model to bypass the 5% GST, tax experts said it could also lead to potential disputes between operators and tax authorities amid lack of clarity on whether a September 2023 advance tax ruling, which held that Namma Yatri need not collect and pay GST, would apply to other platforms as well. In July 2024, however, the Karnataka AAR ruled that Rapido was liable to pay GST for its cab services, and later in November issued a similar ruling saying Uber would also be liable to pay tax for services launched on the subscription model.
