Since, the appellant’s transactions are service to the group customers of commercial coaching, as per time of supply rules, there is every possibility that the appellant might have scored 20 lakhs turnover on the 1st day itself, Therefore, the liable date for registration would become 1st day of supply, hence, the appellant automatically will be liable to pay tax from 1st day itself. Thus, 20 lakhs threshold limit does not arise.
Registration under GST— Section 22 of CGST Act— In the instant case, appellant
primarily submitted that they have been with an impression that their services are not liable to GST, that’s why they have not obtained GST registration. However, after the inspection, the appellant has been issued with a suo motu registration under GST Act, 2017. The following issues are required to be decided—
(1) 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?
(2) 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— it is unambiguously established that the combination of supplies of the appellant needs to be termed as composite supply and liable to be taxed at the rate of principal supply i.e. Commercial Coaching.
the appellant has not submitted the details of initial 20 lakhs turnover, as to how and when they have scored the 20 Lakhs turnover. Since, the appellant’s transactions are service to the group customers of commercial coaching, as per time of supply rules, there is every possibility that the appellant might have scored 20 lakhs turnover on the 1st day itself, Therefore, the liable date for registration would become 1st day of supply, hence, the appellant automatically will be liable to pay tax from 1st day itself.
Regarding the appellant claim of ITC, 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.
Since, the appellant’s transactions are service to the group customers of commercial coaching, as per time of supply rules, there is every possibility that the appellant might have scored 20 lakhs turnover on the 1st day itself, Therefore, the liable date for registration would become 1st day of supply, hence, the appellant automatically will be liable to pay tax from 1st day itself. Thus, 20 lakhs threshold limit does not arise.
Registration under GST— Section 22 of CGST Act— In the instant case, appellant
primarily submitted that they have been with an impression that their services are not liable to GST, that’s why they have not obtained GST registration. However, after the inspection, the appellant has been issued with a suo motu registration under GST Act, 2017. The following issues are required to be decided—
(1) 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?
(2) 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— it is unambiguously established that the combination of supplies of the appellant needs to be termed as composite supply and liable to be taxed at the rate of principal supply i.e. Commercial Coaching.
the appellant has not submitted the details of initial 20 lakhs turnover, as to how and when they have scored the 20 Lakhs turnover. Since, the appellant’s transactions are service to the group customers of commercial coaching, as per time of supply rules, there is every possibility that the appellant might have scored 20 lakhs turnover on the 1st day itself, Therefore, the liable date for registration would become 1st day of supply, hence, the appellant automatically will be liable to pay tax from 1st day itself.
Regarding the appellant claim of ITC, 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.