Author: admin

Amidst escalating scrutiny, the GST Council is poised to reconsider the Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed by companies like Infosys, especially in light of significant tax notices. The upcoming council meeting on September 9 is expected to address these issues, potentially shaping the future of GST compliance for multinational corporations operating in India.

After resolving the pre-show cause notice related to Infosys’ fiscal year 2017-18, authorities are now set to investigate whether the full ITC was claimed on expenses by the company’s overseas branches from FY19 to FY22. The investigation extends to notices issued to Infosys, foreign airlines, and shipping companies, with decisions anticipated during the next GST Council meeting. This scrutiny could determine the trajectory of ITC claims and tax compliance for years to come.

Documents from Infosys, both submitted and pending, will be thoroughly examined by GST officials before deciding on the course of action—whether to close the notice or proceed with formal demands. On July 31, Infosys disclosed receiving a pre-show cause notice from the Director General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) for a staggering ₹32,000 crore in tax dues, arising from its overseas branches between FY18 and FY22. Infosys maintains that these expenses should not attract GST, referencing a June 26 circular that aligns with the GST Council’s recommendation exempting services provided by overseas branches to Indian entities from GST. Furthermore, the company asserted that it has duly paid all GST obligations and is in full compliance with both Central and State regulations.

The DGGI has since closed the pre-show cause notice for FY18, which initially cited a GST amount of ₹3,898 crore. However, notices concerning dues from FY19 to FY22 remain unresolved, continuing to pose a substantial financial challenge for the company. Similarly, foreign airlines and shipping companies have been issued notices related to unpaid taxes on the import of services by their Indian branches from overseas headquarters.

Anticipated Adjustments in GST Regulations

The GST Council is expected to address potential changes in its upcoming meeting, possibly influenced by the June 26 circular. Ankur Gupta, a leading expert in Indirect Tax at SW India, highlighted that the circular permits the transaction value for imported services between group companies to be deemed as NIL, provided the recipient fully avails ITC. However, this exemption is not applicable if the services are used for exempt or non-GST supplies. In such scenarios, the recipient may not be entitled to the full ITC, as Section 17 of the CGST Act, 2017 restricts credit on inputs and services used for exempt supplies.

This limitation implies that GST might still be levied on imported services based on actual consideration or open market value, even among group companies. Moreover, if imported services are partly utilized for exempt or non-GST activities, the recipient must proportionally reverse the ITC according to GST regulations. This reversal could nullify the benefits of NIL valuation, leading to a GST demand on the portion of services used for such supplies. Consequently, while the circular offers considerable relief in specific situations, businesses engaged in exempt or non-GST supplies must meticulously evaluate their transactions to ensure compliance and avert unforeseen tax liabilities.

In summary, the upcoming GST Council meeting is set to be a pivotal event, with potential adjustments to the current GST framework that could have far-reaching implications for multinational companies and their tax obligations in India. Businesses must remain vigilant and proactive in their compliance strategies, especially concerning ITC claims, to navigate the complex landscape of GST regulations effectively.

Union Minister Nitin Gadkari has made a compelling case to Finance Minister Nirmala Sitaraman, urging the withdrawal of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on life and medical insurance premiums. This appeal follows a significant memorandum from the Nagpur Life Insurance Union, which categorizes GST on these premiums as a tax on life’s uncertainties and a barrier to the expansion of medical insurance.

Nitin Gadkari, in his role as the Minister for Road Transport and Highways, has formally communicated this pressing concern to the Finance Minister. In his detailed letter, he highlighted the critical issues brought forward by the Nagpur Divisional Life Insurance Corporation Employees Union, specifically addressing the detrimental impact of GST on the insurance industry.

The union’s memorandum underscores the 18% GST levied on both life and medical insurance premiums. This taxation, as Gadkari elaborates, effectively penalizes individuals who seek to mitigate life’s inherent uncertainties by securing insurance coverage. The argument posited is that taxing life insurance premiums equates to taxing the efforts of individuals to provide a safety net for their families.

Moreover, the 18% GST on medical insurance premiums is cited as a significant deterrent to the growth of this vital sector. Gadkari stressed that this high tax rate is particularly discouraging for the expansion of medical insurance, which plays a crucial role in ensuring social welfare.

The memorandum also addresses several other pertinent issues, including the need for differential treatment of savings through life insurance, the reintroduction of income tax deductions for health insurance premiums, and the consolidation of public sector general insurance companies. These points highlight the broader concerns within the insurance sector that necessitate urgent attention and reform.

In his letter, Gadkari emphasizes the importance of prioritizing the withdrawal of GST on life and medical insurance premiums. He argues that the current taxation system imposes unnecessary burdens, especially on senior citizens, complicating their access to essential insurance services.

The union’s plea, backed by Gadkari’s strong endorsement, calls for immediate reconsideration of GST policies to foster the growth of the insurance sector and to provide much-needed relief to individuals seeking to safeguard their lives and health through insurance.

In summary, Nitin Gadkari’s advocacy for the removal of GST on insurance premiums is not just a policy recommendation but a call to recognize and rectify the undue financial burden placed on those striving to secure their future and wellbeing through insurance. This initiative, if acted upon, could pave the way for a more robust and accessible insurance industry, benefiting society at large.

Infosys has publicly acknowledged receiving pre-show cause notices for GST dues exceeding ₹32,000 crore. This announcement, made in a regulatory filing late Wednesday, follows communication from Karnataka State authorities, which retracted the initial pre-show cause notice and directed Infosys to further respond to the central Directorate-General of GST Intelligence (DGGI).

This hefty GST demand reverberated throughout the IT sector, sparking fears of similar demands on other companies. Experts argue that since the operating models of major IT services firms are alike, the reverse charge mechanism (RCM) under GST would apply uniformly across the industry.

Nasscom, the industry body, has called for clarity from the Finance Ministry, emphasizing the issue’s broader implications. The organization stated that the media reports on the ₹32,000 crore GST demand highlight a misunderstanding of the industry’s operating model. This scenario poses industry-wide challenges, including avoidable litigation, uncertainty, and concerns from investors and customers, due to the applicability of GST via RCM.

A CFO from a mid-size IT firm, opting for anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the issue, remarked that this situation should not be viewed as company-specific. He underscored that what Infosys is experiencing is a common industry practice, and similar actions could be taken against other companies, necessitating a collective industry response.

Nasscom further noted that this problem is not new, referencing past court rulings favorable to the industry during the service tax era, as adjudicated by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Amit Maheshwari, a partner at AKM Global, clarified that the DGGI’s notice demands GST payment on expenses of Infosys’ overseas branches, classifying these as imports of services under RCM. He cited a recent CBIC clarification that when a foreign branch provides services to its Indian counterpart eligible for full input tax credit, the invoice value is the open market value or deemed zero if no invoice is issued.

This situation underscores the necessity for clear guidelines and consistent interpretations to ensure compliance and avoid disputes, reflecting broader GST framework challenges for multinational enterprises.

Former Infosys board member and CFO Mohandas Pai condemned the incident as “tax terrorism,” criticizing the tax authorities’ mindset. He lamented the ongoing high fee demands and unresolved tax disputes, noting that despite promises of reform, significant changes remain unfulfilled. Pai highlighted the prolonged harassment and reputational damage companies face due to such tax disputes, calling for substantial reforms in tax dispute resolution.

Omkar Tanksale, a senior research analyst at Axis Securities, pointed out the ambiguity in this case, noting that Infosys’ management maintains it isn’t liable for the GST amount due to their foreign subsidiaries. He suggested that even in the worst-case scenario, Infosys’ business operations or financial health would remain unaffected. Other IT companies are expected to consult their tax advisors to mitigate similar risks and take necessary actions.

The recent allegations by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) against Infosys have sent ripples through the corporate world, raising significant concerns about GST compliance for companies with foreign branches. The accusations, amounting to an evasion of ₹32,000 crore in GST on imported services from overseas branches, underscore a critical issue for multinational corporations.

Analyzing the DGGI’s Accusations

The DGGI has asserted that Infosys failed to pay GST under the reverse charge mechanism (RCM) for expenses incurred by its overseas branches from FY18 to FY22. According to the DGGI, these expenses, included in Infosys’s export invoices from India, should be classified as ‘import of service.’ This classification is based on the criteria that the supplier is located outside India, the recipient is in India, and the place of supply is in India. Under RCM, the recipient is responsible for remitting GST to the government on behalf of the service provider.

Infosys’s Position and Legal Precedents

Infosys has contended that GST regulations exempt these expenses. The company cites a recent Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) Circular (No. 210/4/2024, dated June 26, 2024) which clarifies that services provided by overseas branches to an Indian entity are not subject to GST. Infosys maintains that it has complied with all central and state regulations, pointing out that GST payments are eligible for credit or refund against the export of IT services.

Current Status of the Investigation

Infosys announced that the central authority has retracted the demand for the year 2017-18, while the investigation for subsequent years continues. This follows the withdrawal of a pre-show cause notice by state GST authorities. Notably, under GST law, state and central authorities cannot issue notices for the same issue, necessitating the state’s withdrawal to allow the central investigation to proceed.

Origins of the GST Demand

The demand pertains to GST liabilities from July 2017 to March 2022. Tax experts suggest that the timing of the department’s notice, issued on July 31, may be linked to the imminent time-bar for 2017-2018 claims, which occurs on August 5 in cases involving suppression of facts by entities.

Legal Landscape of IGST on Expenses to Foreign Branches

When a company engages with foreign branch offices for activities like R&D or procurement, tax liability depends on the services’ nature. If the foreign branch acts as an intermediary, facilitating goods or services outside India, no tax is levied. However, if the services’ place of supply is in India, it constitutes an import of services, attracting IGST. The June Circular 210/4/2024 aimed to resolve such ambiguities by stating that if no invoice is raised, or if input tax credit is available, the transaction value is considered NIL or as per the Indian entity’s invoice.

Potential Implications for Other Companies

This case could have broader implications, potentially triggering similar GST demands on other companies with international operations. Tax practitioners warn that this situation is a wake-up call for industries with foreign branches to review their transactions and ensure compliance to avoid substantial tax liabilities and interest. Legal experts anticipate that the current pre-show cause stage could lead to more extensive investigations and demands, emphasizing the need for stringent adherence to GST regulations.

Conclusion

The unfolding GST controversy involving Infosys highlights the complexities of tax compliance for multinational companies. As the investigation progresses, it underscores the necessity for corporations to meticulously review and align their international transactions with GST laws to avert significant financial and legal repercussions. This case serves as a crucial reminder of the intricate interplay between domestic tax regulations and global business operations.

Amidst the ongoing discourse on GST policies, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has echoed the call made by Surface Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari for the removal of GST on insurance premiums. Banerjee and her party, the Trinamool Congress (TMC), have fervently pressed for this change, underscoring the significant burden the tax imposes on the common people.

Insurance Premiums and GST Rates

Currently, life insurance premiums attract a GST rate ranging from 1.8% to 18%, while general insurance products such as health and car insurance are taxed at a flat rate of 18%. This steep taxation, according to Banerjee, hinders broader insurance coverage and adds to the financial strain on individuals.

Appeal to the Finance Minister

In a compelling letter to Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, Banerjee urged a review and withdrawal of GST on life and health insurance premiums. She also advocated for these premiums to be included under sections 80C and 80D of the Income Tax Act within the new tax regime. Banerjee emphasized that such measures would significantly enhance insurance accessibility and provide much-needed mental and financial stability to the populace.

The Financial Burden of GST on Insurance

Banerjee highlighted that the GST on insurance premiums exacerbates the financial burden on the general public, potentially deterring individuals from obtaining or maintaining essential insurance policies. This, she argued, leaves many vulnerable to unforeseen financial distress. Furthermore, she pointed out that insurance acts as a critical component of the social safety net, alleviating the government’s burden of providing direct financial assistance during emergencies.

Parliamentary Support and Opposition

The issue resonated in the Lok Sabha, where TMC MP Sudip Bandyopadhyay labeled the taxation of insurance premiums as “anti-people.” He called for an immediate rollback, a sentiment echoed by members of the opposition INDIA bloc. Bandyopadhyay stressed that the 18% GST on life and medical insurance premiums adversely affects the people of India and demanded government clarification on the matter. Following a lack of response, MPs from the TMC and DMK staged a walkout in protest.

Gadkari’s Earlier Advocacy

Earlier this week, Minister Gadkari had also addressed the matter in a letter to Finance Minister Sitharaman. He relayed concerns from the Nagpur Divisional Life Insurance Corporation Employees Union, which advocated for the removal of GST on life and medical insurance premiums. The Union argued that taxing premiums undermines the purpose of providing financial protection to families and hampers the growth of the medical insurance sector, which is crucial for societal well-being.

Future Prospects for GST Policy Change

For any modification or removal of GST on goods or services, recommendations must come from the GST Council, followed by notifications from the Central and State Governments. It is anticipated that the Group of State Ministers assigned to suggest GST rate rationalization will address this pressing issue.

Table: Current GST Rates on Insurance Premiums

Type of Insurance	GST Rate
Life Insurance	1.8% to 18%
Health Insurance	18%
Car Insurance	18%

Conclusion

The call for the removal of GST on insurance premiums is gaining momentum, spearheaded by significant political figures and supported by various parliamentary factions. This advocacy aims to alleviate the financial burden on citizens and promote wider insurance coverage, ultimately contributing to a more stable and secure society.

The Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2024, introduces critical amendments to section 107, reshaping the landscape for appellants by reducing the maximum pre-deposit amount and incorporating new regulatory sections. These changes, aimed at financial alleviation and procedural simplification, mark a significant shift in tax administration.

The Notes on Clauses to the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2024, highlight the reduction of the maximum pre-deposit for appeals before the Appellate Authority from ₹25 crores to ₹20 crores in central tax. This reduction by 20%, effective from a notified date, offers substantial monetary relief to taxpayers, easing the financial burden during the appeal process. Additionally, sub-section (11) now includes a reference to the newly inserted section 74A, which standardizes the time limits for issuing notices and orders for demands from FY 2024-25 onwards.

Refinement in Section 107(6)

The amendment to section 107(6) replaces “twenty-five” with “twenty,” lowering the maximum pre-deposit for filing appeals from ₹25 crores to ₹20 crores for central tax. This decision, endorsed by the GST Council in its 53rd meeting on June 22, 2024, aims to enhance liquidity and reduce capital blockage for taxpayers.

Under the revised framework, the maximum pre-deposit for appeals under CGST and SGST will be ₹20 crores each, down from the previous ₹25 crores. This adjustment significantly impacts the financial commitments for taxpayers challenging demands, offering a more manageable pre-deposit requirement.

Pre-Deposit Payment Structure Post-Amendment

The Finance Act, 2024, delineates the revised pre-deposit requirements as follows:

• For uncontested demands, the entire amount of tax, interest, fine, fee, and penalty must be deposited.
• For contested demands, a sum equal to 10% of the remaining disputed tax amount must be deposited, subject to a maximum of ₹20 crores.

This modification reflects a reduction from the previous cap of ₹25 crores to ₹20 crores, thereby lightening the financial load on appellants.

Amendment Impact on Tax Payments

The updated structure for pre-deposits under section 107(6) is summarized below:

Tax	Prior to Finance Act, 2024	Post Finance Act, 2024
CGST	10% of the disputed tax amount, capped at ₹25 crores	10% of the disputed tax amount, capped at ₹20 crores
SGST	10% of the disputed tax amount, capped at ₹25 crores	10% of the disputed tax amount, capped at ₹20 crores
Total	10% of the disputed tax amount, capped at ₹50 crores	10% of the disputed tax amount, capped at ₹40 crores

CBIC Clarifications and Section 107 Adjustments

The CBIC, via Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST dated July 11, 2024, provides guidelines for recovering outstanding dues during appeal processes. With GST Appellate Tribunals yet to become fully operational, these clarifications ensure proper recovery procedures, requiring pre-deposit payments for stay of recovery under section 78 of the CGST Act, 2017. These guidelines are comprehensively discussed under sub-section 11 of section 107 and in Chapter 13 of the relevant legislation.

Integrating Section 74A

The amendment to section 107(11) incorporates section 74A, consolidating the calculation of tax and penalties under a single section for both fraud and non-fraud cases starting FY 2024-25. This consolidation, replacing sections 73 and 74, simplifies the procedural framework for determining tax liabilities.

Section 74A establishes a unified time limit for issuing demand notices and orders for cases involving fraud, suppression of facts, or willful misstatement, as well as for non-fraudulent cases. Additionally, it extends the timeframe for taxpayers to benefit from reduced penalties from 30 days to 60 days. This extension, endorsed by the GST Council during its 53rd meeting, aims to provide taxpayers with a more reasonable period to comply and benefit from reduced penalties.

In summary, the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2024, ushers in pivotal changes to the tax appeal process by reducing financial burdens and simplifying regulatory provisions. These amendments reflect a strategic move towards more taxpayer-friendly legislation, fostering a more efficient and equitable tax administration system.

The Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 has undergone significant budgetary revisions, coming into effect from July 1, 2024. These amendments are aimed at refining tax compliance and easing procedural constraints for registered taxpayers. Below are the pivotal changes and their far-reaching implications:

Amendment to Section 16

Eligibility for Input Tax Credit (ITC) has been modified with the introduction of sections 16(5) and 16(6).

• Section 16(5) grants ITC for invoices or debit notes pertaining to FY 2017-18 to 2020-21 if filed by November 30, 2021.
• Section 16(6) states that if a taxpayer’s registration is revoked and later reinstated, ITC claims on invoices or debit notes (unrestricted on the date of cancellation) can be filed by November 30 following the financial year of the invoice or within 30 days of revocation.

Amendment to Section 30

Procedures for revoking a cancelled registration have been clarified in Section 30.

• Section 30(2) now includes a proviso that revocation is contingent on conditions and restrictions as prescribed.

Amendment to Section 31

Tax invoice issuance timelines are detailed in Section 31.

• Section 31(3)(f) mandates registered taxpayers to issue invoices for goods or services received from unregistered suppliers within a prescribed period.
• Section 31(6)(g) clarifies that “supplier who is not registered” includes those registered solely for tax deduction under section 51.

Amendment to Section 39

Return filing obligations are reiterated in the revised Section 39.

• Section 39(3) requires taxpayers deducting tax at source under section 51 to file monthly electronic returns for deductions made, even if no deductions occur in a month.

Amendment to Section 54

The refund process for unutilized ITC is refined in Section 54.

• The second proviso to Section 54(3), which denied refunds on goods subjected to export duty, is omitted.
• Section 54(15) specifies no refunds for zero-rated supplies subjected to export duty.

Amendment to Section 70

Section 70 has been expanded with sub-section 70(1A).

• It mandates individuals summoned to attend, provide truthful statements, and produce required documents or things as directed by the proper officer.

Amendments to Sections 73 and 74

Determining tax for periods up to FY 2023-24 is addressed.

• New sub-sections 73(12) and 74(12) specify the application of these sections for tax determination up to FY 2023-24.

Amendment to Section 75

General tax determination provisions have been updated.

• Section 75(2A) adjusts penalty provisions based on appellate conclusions.
• Section 75(10) sets the timeline for concluding adjudication proceedings.

Amendment to Section 109

The constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal is clarified in Section 109.

• The Tribunal will be established as per government notification, based on Council recommendations.

Amendment to Section 112

Appeal procedures to the Appellate Tribunal are detailed in Section 112.

• Appeals must be filed within three months from the order communication date or a date notified by the government, whichever is later.
• Commissioners can direct appeals to the Appellate Tribunal within six months.
• Reduced pre-deposit requirements for appeals have been set at 10% of the disputed tax, capped at Rs. 20 crore.

Amendment to Section 122

Penalties for certain offenses by electronic commerce operators have been specified.

Insertion of Section 128A

A new Section 128A introduces waivers of interest or penalties for certain periods.

• It provides conditions for waiving interest and penalties for taxes payable from July 1, 2017, to March 31, 2020, if paid by a government-notified date.

Amendment to Section 140

Input Service Distributors (ISD) can distribute pre-appointed day service credits under the amended Section 140(7).

Amendment to Section 171

Anti-profiteering measures are addressed in Section 171.

• It specifies that the government may set a cut-off date for the Authority to stop accepting examination requests regarding tax rate reductions or input tax credits.

Amendment to Schedule III

Insurance and reinsurance services are detailed in new paragraphs 9 and 10 of Schedule III.

• Para 9 pertains to co-insurance agreements, while Para 10 deals with reinsurance services, ensuring tax is paid on gross premiums inclusive of commissions.

---

These amendments are designed to streamline processes, ensure compliance, and clarify taxpayers’ obligations under the CGST Act. Stakeholders must stay abreast of these changes to avoid non-compliance and leverage available benefits.