Skip to main content

GST

 Under the previous tax regime, infrastructure projects were burdened with litigation on the issue of whether the contracts have to be treated as separate ‘supply of goods’ or ‘supply of service’ contracts, or could they be treated as a composite works contract involving supply of both goods and services. This was an important determination, as ‘supply of goods’ was subject to Value-added Tax (“VAT”), which was a state tax, while ‘supply of services’ was subject to service tax, which was a central tax. Moreover, composite works contract was subject to a combination of both VAT and service tax. Works contract is a composite contract for the supply of goods and services. Works contract is a composite contract for the supply of goods and services. Works contract is a composite contract for the supply of goods and services.

With the implementation of GST these litigations will come to an end. The Central GST Act, 2017 (“GST Act”)1, specifically provides that ‘works contract (including any transfer of property in goods in the execution of such contract)’ as well as ‘construction of a complex or a building, civil structure or a part thereof’ shall be treated as supply of services. Even though this provision will provide clarity to a great extent, it may not be able to eliminate ambiguity completely. Contracts in the infrastructure sector can be quite complex, involving multiple parties and multiple scopes of works for either full project or for parts of a single project. Thus, determining the nature of these contractswould be difficult, and critical from the perspective of the place of supply, the taxable value, the applicable rate of tax and the compliances to be undertaken.

Under the erstwhile regime, majority of construction contracts were in the nature of work contracts and were subjected to a combination of service tax and VAT. A service tax of around 4.5 per cent (assuming taxable component of the service contract is 30%)was applicable to construction contracts. However, there were several construction activities, such as construction of roads, dams, irrigation, that were exempted from service tax. Furthermore, the VAT applicable to the supply of goods portion of the construction contracts, varied from State to State and ranged from 1-15 per cent.Thus, the effective tax incidence for an average construction contract, under the previous regime, ranged from 11 to 18 per cent. With the rollout of GST, a higher rate of 18 per cent will be applicable to works contract. The constructive activities, which were previously exempted from service tax, may be negatively impacted with such a high GST rate of 18 per cent.

 

While prima-facie, the GST rate for construction contracts is higher than the previous tax rate, the benefit of input tax paid and ITC on the raw-materials could set off the higher GST rate. However, GST rates could also result in higher costs, if there is limited scope for renegotiating construction contracts and contracts do not account for contingency factors. Cost of construction services will also be impacted due to credit restrictions provided under Section 17 (5) of the GST Act. According to the aforesaid section, “input tax credit shall not be available for works contract services, when supplied for construction of an immovable property, except where it is an input service for further supply of works contract service2".

Thus, we can see that this provision is confusing and contradictory. For example, a contractor will not get ITC if he constructs a building, but can avail the benefit of ITC on construction services availed from the sub-contractor. Furthermore, the aforesaid section also provides that ITC shall not be available on goods or services or both received by a taxable person for construction of an immovable property (other than plant or machinery)3. Thus, ITC would be available to a builder on goods or services received by him while constructing plant and machinery, but not so when constructing any other immovable property. We can see that implementation of the above-mentioned credit restrictions can have an adverse impact upon the infrastructure sector
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more