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 - 2024 (7) TMI AAR This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (7) TMI 979 - AAR - GST


Issues Involved:
1. Whether GST is leviable on stamp duty & registration fee for registering a lease deed.
2. Applicability of nil rate of tax on stamp duty & registration fee under exemption notification.
3. Treatment of stamp duty and registration fee as consideration for mining lease service.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Applicant sought a ruling on the levy of GST on stamp duty and registration fee paid for registering a lease deed. The Applicant, engaged in mining and supply of Iron Ore, argued that GST on stamp duty would lead to a cascading effect, as it amounts to tax on tax. The Applicant highlighted that stamp duty is a statutory duty under the Indian Stamp Act, collected by the State Government. The Applicant also referred to an exemption notification providing nil tax rate for services by the Government for registration, indicating that the duties paid are essential for registering the lease deed.

Issue 2:
Regarding the applicability of the nil tax rate on stamp duty and registration fee, the Applicant emphasized the exemption notification's provision for services by the Government for registration. The Applicant contended that both stamp duty and registration fee are prerequisites for registering the lease deed, qualifying for exemption under the notification. The Applicant's argument focused on the interpretation of the exemption notification to support their position against the imposition of GST on these charges.

Issue 3:
The Authority examined the Applicant's submission in light of the ongoing proceedings initiated by the Audit Commissionerate for recovery of GST on the stamp duty and registration fees paid by the Applicant. The Authority noted that the Applicant opted for an advance ruling while the matter was already under consideration in the proceedings by the Audit Commissionerate. Citing the proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, the Authority deemed the application for advance ruling as not maintainable under the law and rejected it on this basis.

Conclusion:
The Authority ruled that the application for advance ruling filed by the Applicant was not maintainable under the law and, therefore, liable for rejection. The Applicant was informed of the option to appeal to the Odisha State Appellate Authority for advance ruling within 30 days if aggrieved by the ruling. The decision was based on the procedural aspect of the application and its timing concerning the ongoing proceedings by the Audit Commissionerate, rather than delving into the substantive tax implications raised by the Applicant.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates