Option to add Different Trade Names under one GSTIN enabled on GST portal.
Very useful for Taxpayers having Multiple Businesses on the same GSTIN with Different Trade Names
GST पोर्टल पर सक्षम एक GSTIN के तहत विभिन्न ट्रेड नाम जोड़ने का विकल्प।
विभिन्न व्यापार नामों के साथ एक ही GSTIN पर कई व्यवसाय करने वाले करदाताओं के लिए बहुत उपयोगी
Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh have topped in Goods and Services Tax (GST) registrations by businesses and dealers followed by Gujarat and Tamil Nadu, reflecting that economic prowess of these states.
Official data from the government on aggregate GST registrations in the 2017-22 period showed that Maharashtra has 1.48 million normal GST payers who pay taxes on a monthly basis, while Uttar Pradesh has 1.33 million such tax payers. However, if smaller traders who pay taxes on a quarterly basis are included, Uttar Pradesh has 1.69 million GST registrations, while Maharashtra has 1.6 million registrations, showed official data which was previously not available. The figures do not include service distributors and casual tax payers which are smaller in number.
Gujarat has 1.09 million normal and composition tax payers, while Tamil Nadu has 1.06 million GST registrations. Businesses having operations in different states are required to take registrations in each of the states where they operate. Karnataka has over 953,000 GST registrations, while Rajasthan has over 795,000 GST registrations. Nagaland, Mizoram, Sikkim, Lakshadweep and Andaman and Nicobar Islands have fewer than 10,000 GST registrations.
GST registrations also indicate the nature of the economic activity. Uttar Pradesh has the largest share of small businesses with the state accounting for over 357,000 composition dealers those with sales upto ₹1.5 crores who have signed up for the quarterly tax payment facility. Maharashtra has over 122,000 composition dealers, while Rajasthan has over 137,000 composition dealers.
Source from: https://www.livemint.
We have recently released the 7th Edition (May, 2022) of our book on Goods and Services Tax, titled, "GST LAW AND COMMENTARY – WITH ANALYSIS AND PROCEDURES", updated with the Finance Act, 2022 in a set of 4 Volumes. We thank you all for the support and your enduring response.
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has recently issued notice in a public interest litigation challenging the constitutionality of Section 194N of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The provision was inserted by the Finance Act, 2019 and became effective from September 1, 2019. The provision mandates the deduction of tax at source at the rate of 2% on cash withdrawals from, inter alia, a banking company exceeding Rs. 1 crore in a financial year.
The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, observed,
"Issue notice to the respondents, returnable within four weeks. PF be filed within one week."
The plea stated,
"The validity of Section 194N providing for 2% TDS on cash withdrawals exceeding Rs. 1 crore or Rs. 20 Lakh as per their respective conditions is doubtful. Since tax to be deducted at source is on cash withdrawals which shall not be treated as income, the question of deduction of any tax at source does not arise. When the transaction is not liable to levy of income tax, the question of deduction of income tax at source with a provision for adjustment of the same against the ultimate tax liability cannot be said to be legal."
It was also added in the plea,
"Section 194N provides for deduction of income tax at source on cash withdrawal exceeding Rs.1 Crore, and the said cash withdrawal is not income liable to be taxed under the Income Tax Act, the aforesaid provision of deduction of tax at source with a provision for adjustment of the same against the ultimate tax liability of the said person, in view of the decisions of the Apex Court as well as basic objective of the Income Tax Act, is clearly ultra vires and unconstitutional."
It was also stated in the plea that in common parlance applying the Literal Rule of Interpretation on the objective of the Income Tax Act, it is very simply derived that this Act is applicable over the Income of the individual. So, charging the same on the Cash Withdrawal from Bank Account is completely against the Act and illegal in nature, added the plea.
Moreover, it was mentioned in the plea that as per the provision, tax can be deducted or collected at source only on the income of the assessee. The plea also stated that cash withdrawal from one or more accounts maintained with a bank, cooperative society engaged in the business of banking or a post office, does not involve the character of income of the recipient and hence cannot be said to be a payment. They are merely returning the money, which belongs to the recipient, on demand of the recipient, added the plea.
Hence, the petitioner alleged that cash withdrawal from banks cannot under any stretch of imagination be treated as the income generated by the recipient as one cannot make income from himself.
The plea stated,
"Section 198 of the Act states that the tax deducted at source is income received. The above section was also amended by the Notice of Amendments to Finance Bill, 2019 as introduced in the Lok Sabha on 18 July 2019 by adding a proviso to Section 198. The added provision itself intends to mean that the tax deducted on withdrawal of cash shall not be the income of an assessee and hence clearly shows that the TDS on withdrawal of cash is not on income and therefore is in violation of Section 190 of the Act."
The petitioner relied on the case of Apeejay Tea Ltd. Anr. v. Union of India, wherein Calcutta High Court granted an interim order restraining the concerned respondents authorities from deducting tax on source on the basis of the aforesaid provisions of Section 194N.Further reliance on Kanan Devan Hills Plantations Company Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India wherein a writ petition had been admitted by Kerala High Court on the same issue and accordingly an interim stay on deduction of tax on source under Section 194N of the Income Tax Act was imposed.
In addition to this, reliance was also placed on Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd. vs State of Punjab, where while dealing with the levy of purchase tax, Supreme Court held that if a person is not liable for payment of tax at all at any time, the collection of a tax from him with a possible contingency of refund at a later stage will not make the original levy valid.
Additionally, petitioner also relied on Union of India vs. M/S Tata Chemicals Ltd., where Supreme Court observed that since there being no express statutory provision for payment of interest on the refund of excess amount/tax collected by the Revenue, the government cannot shrug off its apparent obligation to reimburse the deductors lawful monies with the accrued interest for the period of undue retention of such monies. The State having received the money without right, and having retained and used it, is bound to make the party good, just as an individual would be under similar circumstances, added the Apex court.
Further, the plea added,
"Article 265 of the Constitution of India states that "no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law." Further, Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India defines and specifies the allocation of powers and functions between the Union and the States. None of the lists (Union List or Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule empowers the levy of tax on expenditure. Hence, the expenditure tax is unconstitutional.
The plea alleged that Section 194N will lead to deduction of huge amounts of TDS and it will result in loss in Working Capital of the Business.
Case Title: Abhay Singla v. Union of India
