9th CST Council Meeting Dated:- 16-1-2017 GST Council – Minutes – Circulars – GST – Minutes of the 9th GST Council Meeting held on 16 January 2017 The ninth meeting of the GST Council (hereinafter referred to as 'the Council') was held on 16 January 2017 in Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi under the Chairpersonship of the Hon'ble Union Finance Minister, Shri Arun Jaitley. The list of the Hon'ble Members of the Council who attended the meeting is at Annexure 1. The list of officers of the Centre, the States, the GST Council and the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) who attended the meeting is at Annexure 2 . The officials from the Ministries of Power and Renewable Energy of the Government of India and the trade representatives who made presentations before the Council is at Annexure 3 . 2. The following agenda items were listed for discussion in the ninth meeting of the Council- 1. Brief presentation by representatives of Power Sector 2. Confirmat
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the Power Sector to make a brief presentation on the impact of GST on Power Sector. 4.1 Shri Pradeep Kumar Pujari, Secretary, Ministry of Power, in his introductory remarks, stated that implementation of GST would have an impact on the cost of generation, transmission and distribution of power. He observed that impact on thermal and hydel power plants would be different because coal was a major input for thermal power plants. He stated that any change in the tariff of power would have a big impact on the economy. He further stated that power tariff was approved by the regulator. He explained that there were broadly two regimes for determining power tariff, namely the cost-plus regime and the competitive bid regime. He explained that in the cost-plus regime, the cost of inputs was passed on to the consumers and in the competitive bid regime, the bidder took into account the cost of the inputs while making the bid for power tariff. He also explained that there was a very large elemen
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nistry of Power made a presentation giving different input tax rate scenarios under GST for the power sector and its impact on the price of power per unit for both coal-based and hydro power plants. For coal-based power plants, he stated that if electricity was kept out of the GST net, but inputs for generating electricity were taxed at the rate of 18%, the net impact could be an increase in price per unit from ₹ 6.99 to ₹ 7.10. He suggested alternative options for plants in operation and for new plants. He explained that if electricity was kept under GST in the zero rated category, the cost per unit would be reduced to ₹ 6.53 from the present ₹ 6.99. He stated that if this scenario was not possible due to revenue implication and if electricity was kept out of the GST net, the cost per unit of power for plants in operation would be ₹ 7.01 if coal was taxed at the rate of 12% and other inputs were taxed at the rate of 18%. He added that this cost could come
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
st of power per unit would be higher if the same GST rate was kept for inputs for coal based and hydro power plants. He suggested that the hydro power plants should be treated as part of the renewable energy sector where presently duty regime was considerably lower as compared to coal and hydel power plants. He stated that around 11,000 megawatt hydro power capacity was expected to be added in the next five years and most of the projects were situated in the North-East or in the Special Category States. He suggested that supplies made to under-construction power projects should be granted the status of deemed export as was being contemplated for solar power projects. He observed that this would involve a relatively small tax short fall of₹ 880 crore spread over a period of five years. He pointed out that any tariff increase on power due to GST would have a multiplier effect on economic development and would adversely impact industrial production, GDP growth, make in India campaig
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
coal at 5% and on other inputs at 18%. He pointed out that they had also given alternate proposals. The Hon'ble Chairperson enquired whether it would be desirable to maintain the present rate of taxation for the power sector and to this the Secretary, Ministry of Power responded that this could work for the thermal power sector but not for the hydro power sector. He also pointed out that electricity sector was different from the sectors like transport, civil aviation, etc. as this was consumed by the poorer sections of the society and the aim of the Government has been to electrify every home. The Secretary, Renewable Energy observed that permitting zero rating for this sector would not have any impact as presently they were not charged to any taxes. The Hon'ble Minister from Tamil Nadu observed that tax rate should be revenue neutral. He also wondered whether increase of tariff was due to tax rate on services going up to 18% for EPC (Engineering Procurement and Construction) c
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
39;to encourage voluntary registration'. The Council agreed to replace the version of the Hon'ble Minister as per the suggestion made. 5.2. The Hon'ble Minister from Karnataka stated that the decision recorded in paragraph 24(ii) in relation to Section 10(2) of the Draft GST Compensation Law implied that the Council would sit and decide the mode of raising additional resources only when amount in the GST Compensation Fund fell short. He observed that this would not be a practical approach and suggested that, instead, the Council could give a standing authorisation to the Government of India to raise additional resources when the amount in the GST Compensation Fund fell short. The Secretary to the Council (hereinafter referred to as 'the Secretary') suggested to also add the expression 'is likely to fall short' in the fourth line. The Council agreed to the suggestion of the Secretary. 6. In view of the above discussions, for Agenda item 2, the Council d
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
dual control and cross-empowerment. He proposed that these issues should be discussed first such as the 13 changes to the Model GST Law proposed by the Law Committee and circulated as an agenda note under agenda item 7 for the 8th GST Council meeting held on 3 and 4 January 2017, the provisions of Appellate Tribunal and the fitment of various commodities into the tax slabs. He suggested that the subject of cross-empowerment might be taken up after discussing and deciding the above issues. The Hon'ble Chairperson stated that the issues relating to the Model GST Law could be taken up later and that in this meeting, the Council should try to resolve the thorny issue of cross-empowerment. He invited the Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) to give his views on this subject. He further stated that along with the Members, officers could also contribute in the discussion to follow. 8. The Chairman, CBEC observed that cross-empowerment in the context of Central Goods an
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
5 crore. He stated that most activities relating to taxpayers with turnover below ₹ 1.5 crore could be entrusted to the States and that the Centre could only have a small presence in this taxpayer segment. He stated that for taxpayers with turnover above ₹ 1.5 crore, Centre could carry out a greater percentage of scrutiny. He suggested that the taxpayers could be given a choice to go to either of the two administrations and that a taxpayer could choose to go to the State administration for activities relating to registration, post registration, etc. On IGST, he emphasised that there was a Constitutional challenge to entrust its administration to the State tax authorities, but in order to help build a consensus, he presented two options by which the Central government could cross-empower the State tax authorities under the IGST Act. He stated that the first option could be to empower State tax administrations for all processes like scrutiny, demand, audit, etc. but they shou
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
377; 1.5 crore. As regards suggestion for carve out for exclusive jurisdiction of the Centre for adjudication on place of supply issues, he suggested that this should apply only where there was a dispute between two States. The Chairman CBEC suggested that carve out for the Central tax administration should be for all place of supply issues including where a third State was aggrieved or where there was a valuation challenge for an inter-State supply. 10. The Hon'ble Chief Minister of Puducherry stated that earlier, several permutations and combinations had been discussed on this issue including a proposal of vertical division. He added that an entirely new concept had been introduced by the Chairman, CBEC and requested that it should be tabled in writing. The Hon'ble Minister from Karnataka observed that the proposal appeared rational and worthy of consideration but requested more details in terms of numbers. He also added that the Chairman, CBEC had introduced a few caveats
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e, the officers of the State and the Central tax administration could sit together and decide the percentage of audit to be done by each. He stated, as an example, that more complicated service tax assessees could be taken up for audit by the Central tax administration. He stated that other than audit, servicing of taxpayers in other areas like change in registration particulars, etc. could be done by the State tax administration if the taxpayer was comfortable with them and this could also include taxpayers from the services sector. He stated that on cross-empowerment under the IGST Act, out of the two options proposed by the Chairman, CBEC, the better option would be that the States could do adjudication relating to issues arising out of inter-State supply except for place of supply issues as such disputes would affect the interest of two States. 12. The Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister of Gujarat suggested to first arrive at the ratio for division and the rest could follow. He s
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rejected outright as the percentage of intervention above ₹ 1.5 crore would have exceeded 5%. Instead, he suggested that the auditable sample should be 5% each for taxpayers below and above ₹ 1.5 crore turnover. He also agreed that neither the Central Government nor the State Government should be ousted from any jurisdiction. He stated that 42 lakh taxpayers with turnover above ₹ 1.5 crore should be divided in the proportion of the staff strength of each administration. He also supported the proposal of the Chairman; CBEC that the other functions in relation to taxpayers below the turnover of ₹ 1.5 crore should be handled by the State tax administration. The Hon'ble Minister from Assam welcomed the proposal of the Chairman, CBEC to empower the State tax authorities under the IGST Act. The Hon'ble Minister from Telangana also observed that the suggestion of the Chairman, CBEC was a good one and it could be a basis to resolve this issue. Ms. Mona Khandhar
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
not assigned to one administration, each would blame the other for lack of action. The Additional Chief Secretary (Taxes), Kerala stated that if freedom was left to the taxpayer to choose one of the two administrations, he might choose the one who would favour him. The CCT, Assam also expressed the apprehension that a taxpayer might not choose any tax administration or choose one who could collude with him. The ACS and CCT, Tamil Nadu stated that a large number of functions needed to be carried out in the field and the taxpayers needed handholding by the tax administration. The CCT, Uttar Pradesh supported dividing the taxpayer base. The CCT, Gujarat observed that for a successful implementation of GST, responsibilities to tax administrations should be assigned clearly and, if this was not done, there would be lack of accountability. He supported a vertical division. The CCT, Bihar supported the suggestion of Chairman, GSTN that a tax payer should report to the same authority to whom
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
t and carry out enforcement functions. It added that the State's tax administration could issue demand, adjudicate or file appeals in respect of inter-State supplies of goods and services except in the following situation: (i) where issue related to changing the declared nature of supply from intra-State to inter-State or vice versa or led to change in the destination of supply from one State to another; (ii) consumption of supply was required to be apportioned between various States; (iii) valuation of inter-State supplies between related parties; (iv) the consuming State advise that the case be adjudicated by the Centre; (v) all import and export related functions. 15. The Secretary summed up the deliberations during the lunch break meeting with the officers and informed the Council that the overwhelming view of the States was to have a division of tax-payers for administrative purposes between the Central and the State tax administrations. He further informed that two options
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
16: The Hon'ble Minister from West Bengal observed that the oral proposal of the Chairman, CBEC had only one caveat but the written paper circulated by the CBEC had five caveats. He expressed that the notion of taking geographically stratified sample was problematic. He further pointed out that CBEC's proposal appeared to be more in the nature of loud thinking as it was contingent upon the Ministry of Law being able to find a viable legal solution. The Hon'ble Chairperson stated that CBEC had taken a strict legal view that IGST could only be levied and collected by the Central tax administration and apportioned to the States. He pointed out that there was another view that under Article 258 of the Constitution, the Hon'ble President of India, with the consent of the Hon'ble Governor of the State, could entrust the function of the Central administration to the State administration. The Hon'ble Minister from Karnataka stated that another alternative was to delegat
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
into five caveats and he had reservations in this regard. The Hon'ble Minister from Tamil Nadu observed that CBEC's written note was at variance with the statement of the Chairman, CBEC. He stated that in his view, IGST could not work without cross-empowerment to the State tax authorities and that it was not a correct way of discussion to state that the legal department would need to find a solution for cross-empowerment. He suggested that in order to avoid dual interface for tax payers, there should be a cut off of ₹ 1.5 crore turnover and audit of a certain percent of 'tax payer falling below this threshold could be done by the Central tax administration but otherwise, the control of the taxpayers in this segment should rest with the States. He added that taxpayers above the turnover of ₹ 1.5 crore should be divided equally between the Central and the State tax administrations. He stated that the overall percentage of sharing should be 75% for the States and
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e Minister from Kerala stated that tax payers with turn over below ₹ 1.5 crore should be exclusively with the State tax administration and those above the turnover of ₹ 1.5 crore should be divided equally between the two administrations. He further stated that there should be cross-empowerment under the IGST Act. Shri Alok Shukla, Joint Secretary TRU, CBEC stated that like States had concern regarding ensuring correctness of assessment of IGST and wanted powers under the IGST Act, the Central administration must also have a say on the collection of CGST for tax payers with turn over below ₹ 1.5 crore. He added that the Centre's jurisdiction for enforcement, audit and scrutiny of returns should not be completely ousted in respect of taxpayers below ₹ 1.5 crore turnover segment but the other functions could be carried out by the States. He also suggested that for tax payers below ₹ 1.5 crore turnover, Centre's intervention could be limited to 1% with
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
strative division. The Hon'ble Minister from Assam supported this proposal. He observed that there could be a potential dispute as to when a taxpayer crossed the turnover threshold of ₹ 1.5 crore or conversely went below this threshold. The Hon'ble Minister from Maharashtra also supported a vertical division in the ratio of two-third for the States and one-third for the Centre and suggested that computer could do this division. The Hon'ble Minister from Kerala stated that all taxpayers below the turnover of ₹ 1.5 crore should be exclusively under the control of the State tax administrations. Shri Manish Kumar Sinha, Commissioner GST Council suggested that whatever model was adopted, the risk prone taxpayers for audit should be drawn from the entire taxpayer base. 19. The Hon'ble Chairperson, summing up the discussion laid out a few broad guidelines for a possible decision on the subject. He stated that out of the entire universe of the taxpayer base, draw
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ll taxpayers below ₹ 1.5 crore should be with the State tax administration and that the Central administration should not take up audit of 10% of the taxpayers in this segment. The Hon'ble Minister from Kerala stated that the State tax administration was closer to small dealers in the administrative reach and he agreed that the Centre could have a small space for auditing taxpayers falling below the turnover limit of ₹ 1.5 crore and that this sample could be drawn from the entire taxpayer base below ₹ 1.5 crore turnover. The Hon'ble Minister from Maharashtra reiterated his preference for a vertical division with two-third share going to the States from the entire value chain and suggested that a variation of this principle might be allowed for those States who wanted to have exclusive control of taxpayers below ₹ 1.5 crore turnover. He added that the two-third share of such States could be calculated after adjusting the total number of taxpayers below &#
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e should be no dual control in respect of audit by the Central tax administration for taxpayers with turnover below ₹ 1.5 crore. He also supported the suggestion to give flexibility to the States in determining the share of two-third taxpayers falling under their jurisdiction. He further stated that such an arrangement should not be made as a part of the law; rather it could be operated through a resolution which could be changed later. He stated that the Council could also permit a State to move from one model to another. Shri Tuhin Kanta Pandey, Principal Secretary (Finance), Odisha stated that there should be no diffused accountability except for enforcement and that a fixed proportion of dealers should be assigned to the Central and the State tax administrations. He added that option may also be made available to any State if it wishes to be allocated 100% taxpayers below the turnover of ₹ 1.5 crore subject to the overall share/proportion of dealers allocated to a State
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
supported the proposal of the Hon'ble Minister from Tamil Nadu. 22. The Hon'ble Chairperson summed up the suggestions and the possible solutions: (i) there should be a vertical division of taxpayers where two-third share should go to the States and one-third share should go to the Centre (Gujarat's suggestion); (ii) for taxpayers below ₹ 1.5 crore, the administrative control should vest with the States and only 10% of units to be audited by the Central tax administration (Tamil Nadu's proposal); (iii) administration of taxpayers below ₹ 1.5 crore turnover to rest with the States and those above ₹ 1.5 crore to be divided between the Centre and States; (iv) States could have flexibility to negotiate the numbers with the Central tax administration; (v) Intelligence based action could be taken by both tax administrations without any division; (vi) Scrutiny and audit to be part of the division; (vii) IGST to be cross-empowered either under law or under
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rom West Bengal observed that the issue regarding allowing 10% audit to Central tax administration for taxpayers below ₹ 1.5 crore turnover was an important matter and it should be discussed when the Hon'ble Member from D.P. was also present. The CCT Gujarat suggested that within the overall formula of two-third and one-third division between State and the Centre, it could also be considered whether the base of the Service Tax payers could be left with the Central tax administration. The Hon'ble Minister from Assam observed that the States might need to create more posts at State level if administration of all Service Tax assessees below the turnover of ₹ 1.5 crore was entrusted to the States. The Hon'ble Minister from West Bengal suggested that both the Central and the State tax administrations could completely give up audit of taxpayers below Rs. l.5 crore turnover and that the other aspects of administration should be left with the States alone. 24. The Se
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
variation should be permitted for administrative division of taxpayers. The Hon'ble Chairperson observed that States had historically taken a certain position in respect of taxpayers below the turnover of ₹ 1.5 crore and that needed to be taken note of. The Hon'ble Minister from Tamil Nadu suggested that there should be a particular percent of division of taxpayers below ₹ 1.5 crore turnover and another percent for taxpayers above ₹ 1.5 crore. He further stated that no carve out should be allowed in relation to cross-empowerment under lGST. The Hon'ble Chairperson stated that the only grey area left was in relation to division of taxpayers below ₹ 1.5 crore threshold where the Centre proposed a 20% share and the Hon'ble Minister from Tamil Nadu had suggested a 10% share. He further observed that there was not much substantial difference between the two proposed percentages of 20 and 10. 25. The Hon'ble Minister from Tamil Nadu sought clar
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
5 crore and so on. He also observed that the proposed arrangement should not be binding on all the States. The Hon'ble Minister from West Bengal stated that for taxpayers below the turnover of ₹ 1.5 crore, there were three options on the table, namely to have a division in the ratio of 80% and 20% or 90% and 10% or 100% and 0% in favour of the States. He stated that Tamil Nadu's position was very close to the option of 100% and 0%. He added that the proposal made by the Hon'ble Minister of Tamil Nadu was not acceptable to his State and he sought a flexibility for West Bengal that 100% of its taxpayers below ₹ 1.5 crore turnover would remain with the State. The Hon'ble Chairperson stated that broadly, the concern of the States was that the Central tax administration should not scrutinise the books of account of small taxpayers in the goods sector and one solution to this concern could be that the 20% taxpayers allocated to the Centre should only be from the S
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
jurisdiction of Centre could only be Service taxpayers and taxpayers above ₹ 1.5 crore turnover should be divided equally between the two administrations. He stated that other suggestions remained the same which he had earlier put on the table. The Hon'ble Minister from Bihar supported the proposal of the Hon'ble Chairperson. The CCT Andhra Pradesh raised an issue whether goods would include 'deemed' goods and whether these would remain with the States. The Secretary observed that the 'deemed' goods were mostly considered as services and that the Centre would have to get a share of such Service Tax assessees. The Hon'ble Minister from West Bengal stated that restaurant was in the category of deemed goods and it should remain in the jurisdiction of States. The Hon'ble Minister from Tamil Nadu suggested not to divide the taxpayer base on the basis of service category and suggested that the division should be based on the available resources with the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
The Hon'ble Minister from Haryana suggested that the Hon'ble Chairperson could seek the views of each State on this issue. The Hon'ble Minister from West Bengal objected to this suggestion and stated that this amounted to voting in disguise. He also reminded the House that earlier on many occasions the sense of the House was not adopted as the basis of consensus and on this issue, no sense of the House had emerged as yet. The Hon'ble Chairperson observed that the Council had avoided voting till now and it must continue to work on the principle of consensus and develop a healthy convention in this regard. The Hon'ble Minister from Tamil Nadu stated that he had changed his position and now supported a vertical division with two-third of taxpayers going to the States and one-third to the Centre. The Hon'ble Chairperson stated that in order to reach consensus, he offered that of the taxpayers below ₹ 1.5 crore turnover, 90% should be allocated to the States a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
taxpayers above ₹ 1.5crore turnover, all administrative control shall be divided equally in the ratio of 50% each for the Central and the State tax administration; iv. The division of taxpayers in each State shall be done by computer at the State level based on stratified random sampling and could also take into account the geographical location and type of the taxpayers, as may be mutually agreed; v. The new registrants shall be initially divided one each between the Central and the State tax administration and at the end of the year, once the turnover of such new registrants was ascertained, those units with turnover below ₹ 1.5 crore shall be divided in the ratio of 90% for the State tax administration and 10% for the Central tax administration and those units above the turnover of ₹ 1.5 crore shall be divided in the ratio of 50% each for the State and the Central tax administration; vi. The division of the taxpayers may be switched between the Centre and
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nion of India unless the Hon'ble Supreme Court decides otherwise in the ongoing litigation on the issue but the power to collect the State tax in the territorial waters shall be delegated by the Central Government to the States. Agenda Item 4: Discussion on issues of considering sale within twelve nautical miles as inter-state or intra-state sale 29. This agenda item was covered during the discussion on agenda item 3. Agenda Item 5: Date of the next meeting of the GST Council 30. Before discussing the next date of the meeting, the Council briefly discussed the date Of implementation of GST. The Hon'ble Minister from Maharashtra suggested that GST should be implemented from l April, 2017. The Hon'ble Minister from Assam stated that it was not desirable to change the tax regime in the middle of the financial year and suggested that it should be implemented from 1st April, 2017. The Hon'ble Minister from Kerala stated that the decision could not be rus
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
w had been put in the public domain on 26 November, 2016, several comments had been received and on this account, about 15 to 20 minor changes might be needed. On enquiry from the Hon'ble Chairperson, he informed that the revised Model GST Law could be brought to the Council for its consideration by around 15 February, 2017. The Hon'ble Minister from Kamataka stated that the registration process was on going and that the status of fitment exercise for rates of tax was not known. The Hon'ble Minister from West Bengal stated that adequate time was needed for rate of taxes to be put into the ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) of the taxpayers. The Hon'ble Minister from Tamil Nadu stated that 1 st July, 2017 appeared a more practical date for implementation of GST. The Hon'ble Minister from Kamataka also concurred with this observation. The Principal Secretary (Revenue), Telangana stated that an effort could be made to implement GST by 1st April, 2017 and if it was not
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =