Since its implementation on July 01, 2017, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime continues to evolve on various fronts by way of rationalisation of tax rates, availability of exemptions, procedural amendments, etc. While the Government has been relentless in its efforts to iron out every crease, bottlenecks continue to persist. With the benefit of hindsight, here is a critical look at some of the significant triumphs and misses on completion of its first anniversary.
Parties entering into contractual arrangements usually insist on including a clause for liquidated damages to pre-emptively agree upon the amount of reparation that would be payable by either Party on failure to meet its commitment. Generally, such commitments are in the nature of adhering to timelines, fulfillment of conditions, quality of products, etc.
The levy of an indirect tax on the amount of liquidated damages, has faced a series of challenges under the erstwhile service tax regime. Agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act was deemed to be service under the service tax regime . Where liquidated damages were in the nature of accidental damages caused due to unforeseen actions and not relatable to the provision of service, these were not included in the value of the service, and hence not to be taxed .
The industry has been grappling with uncertainty around anti-profiteering provisions since its introduction. While the Goods and Services Tax (GST) legislation and rules were available in the public domain long before the effective date of July 01, 2017, the rules relating to anti-profiteering were made public only on June 28, 2017.
To everyone’s disappointment these rules failed to bring transparency and clarity to the implementation of anti-profiteering provisions; they merely chalked out the administrative hierarchy and framework of the authorities dealing with anti-profiteering complaints.
Subsequently, the Finance Ministry has made various statements promising clear guidelines on the manner of computation of commensurate benefit to be passed on to customers. However, till date nothing has been notified on this front.
Continue Reading Anti-Profiteering Orders – A Right Step Forward?
In the first concrete step towards implementing the much awaited Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) regime, the Model GST Law was released on June 14, 2016 (“Model”), even as the Government strives to pass the enabling Constitutional Amendments. Under the Model, Central/State GST shall be leviable on all intra-state supplies of goods and/or services and Integrated GST shall be leviable on all inter-state supplies of goods and/or services.
- A new Taxable Event:
As the GST regime is meant to subsume existing indirect taxes, concepts such as manufacture, provision of service, sale of goods, etc. shall be replaced by a single taxable event: supply of goods and/or services. The term “supply” has been defined to include all forms of supply of goods and/or services made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business, importation of service, and supplies made or agreed to be made without consideration such as permanent transfer of business assets, etc. Interestingly, the definition also deems the supply of any branded service by an aggregator under a brand name owned by him to be a supply by the aggregator. This all pervasive definition of “supply” has to be complemented by seamless availability of input tax credit, which has been largely addressed by the Model.
However, note that the supply of goods by a registered person to a job-worker shall not be treated as supply of goods. A negative list has also been prescribed for transactions (e.g. transactions by Government, etc.) on which GST shall not apply.