New forms for advance ruling
Rules for compliance, computation of minimum investment and exempt income
Mandatory requirement of PAN before entering into the following transactions:
New Faceless Penalty (Amendment) Scheme 2022 and its Revised Directions has been notified by CBDT, the highlights are:
As per Section 51A of the Customs Act, the Government has notified that the payment of duty, interest, penalty, fee or any other amount under Customs Act needs to be made through Electronic Cash Ledger (ECL). Earlier, the Government had notified 1 June 2022 for implementation of the provisions of ECL, Now the same has been postponed till 30 November 2022.
This deferral has been notified by way of exemption to the deposits pertaining to all class of persons and all categories of goods for the period from 1 June 2022 up to 29 November 2022.
The Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd has held that in CIF (Cost, Insurance and Freight) import contract, levy of IGST under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) on ocean freight component is contrary to concept of ‘composite supply’ in Section 8 of Central GST Act.
In CIF contract, foreign exporter contracts with shipping line, without the involvement of importer, for transportation of goods from foreign port to the destination port of importer’s country. Entry 9(ii) of Notification number 8/2017 of Integrated Tax (Rate) read with Entry 10 of Notification number 10/2017 of Integrated Tax (Rate) seeks to levy IGST at the rate of 5% on ocean freight value in CIF contract and ‘Importer’ in India was categorized as ‘recipient of service’ liable to pay this tax under RCM, though he is not a party to the subject contract. Further, when ocean freight value is not ascertainable, a deeming fiction was created to assume freight value at 10% of CIF import price for the purpose of computation of IGST.
Earlier, the Gujarat High Court had struck down this IGST levy on multiple counts viz. (i) importer is not service recipient in this case, (ii) levy of IGST on ocean freight amounts to double taxation as IGST is already paid on import of goods, (iii) the subject transaction does not have territorial nexus with India. The High Court, on these grounds, had held that the Entry 10 of Notification number 10 is ultra vires to the scheme of GST law.
The Government had filed an appeal before Supreme Court of India challenging the decision of Gujarat High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Government and in para 148 of its decision, among other points, it concluded that the IGST levy imposed on the ‘service’ aspect of the transaction is in violation of the principle of ‘composite supply’.
The Maharashtra AAR in the case of M/s. MEK Peripherals India Private Limited has held that:
The Gujarat AAR in the case of M/s. Adani Green Energy Ltd has held that the Applicant is not liable to pay GST under reverse charge mechanism in respect of the services received from the ‘Manager’ located in non-taxable territory, where the ‘Manager’ has arranged the subscription of ‘Senior Secured Notes’ between the Applicant and actual investors. The AAR noted that, in whole subscription process, the Manager has undertaken many activities like scheduling a meeting between the Applicant and investors, initiating the process of book building for offer of Notes to the potential investors, soliciting counter offers from the interested investors, collecting the proceeds of subscription, etc. Hence, the Manager has the characteristics of an agent and a broker, performing subsidiary role in arranging the main supply and thus, satisfying the definition of ‘intermediary’. Thus, the AAR held that the place of supply in this case is the location of Manager, that is, non-taxable territory. Consequently, the present transaction is not an ‘import of service’ as the place of supply is outside India and therefore, GST is not payable under reverse charge mechanism.
The Gujarat AAR in the case of M/s Cadila Healthcare Limited has held that the canteen service facility provided by the Applicant to its employees is not an activity made in the course or furtherance of business and hence, GST is not leviable on the recovery of canteen charges. AAR noted that, as per the arrangement, part of the canteen charges is borne by the Applicant whereas the remaining part is borne by the employees. Applicant does not retain any profit margin in the activity of collecting employees’ portion of canteen charges.
The Gujarat AAR in the case of M/s Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited has held that:
The Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Northern Operating Systems Pvt. Ltd. has held that secondment of employees by foreign entity qualifies as ‘manpower supply service’ and thus, leviable to service tax under reverse charge in the hands of Indian entity.
The issue in this case was that whether the reimbursement of salary of seconded employees by Indian entity to foreign entity is liable to service tax under reverse charge mechanism.
In the present case, there were primarily two agreements entered between Indian entity and foreign entity. One agreement was for provision of back-office support services by Indian entity to foreign entity on a cost-plus mark-up basis (“Service Agreement”). In the other agreement viz. ‘secondment agreement’, it was agreed between the parties that Indian entity would request its foreign entity for secondment of its employees in India. The secondment arrangement was for a limited duration and the seconded employees were under the supervision and control of the Indian entity during the period of secondment. However, due to social security laws of the home country of the secondees and other business considerations, the seconded employees were retained on the payroll of the foreign entity and their salary was also paid by the foreign entity which was then claimed as reimbursement from Indian entity.
The department contended before Supreme Court that the real purpose of secondment of employees by foreign entity to Indian entity was to ensure that the expertise of seconded employees is available to the Indian entity for performance of agreed tasks and to ensure the quality under the Service Agreement. It was also argued that though the seconded employees were operationally under the control of the Indian entity the fact remains that they were on the payroll of the foreign entity and the employees would return to their original position in the foreign entity after upon cessation of the assignment. Thus, the arrangement was one of a contract for service which was provided by foreign entity to India entity through seconded employees.
The respondent-assessee in this case primally argued that the seconded personnel are contractually hired as employees of the Indian entity and their remuneration is also fixed by it. Further, the process of disbursal of salaries and allowance is solely for the sake of convenience and continuation of the social security benefits in the home country. Since, there exists employer-employee relationship in this case, the reimbursement is in the nature of salary payment and hence, not liable to service tax.
Supreme Court of India on analyzing the entire arrangement between foreign entity and Indian entity noted that:
Having regard to this, the Supreme Court held that the Indian entity is recipient of manpower supply service in the present case in relation to secondment of employees by foreign entity to it. However, Supreme Court held that invocation of extended period of limitation is not tenable in this case as the view held by the assessee was neither mala fide nor untenable.
The rapid adoption of technology in the last two decades has fuelled the exponential growth of connected devices, custom applications and IoT. The penetration of digital technology has not only entered our daily life but also in the day-to-day activities in every organization. With ordinary eyes, all our software and network would look organized and performing in ways that it meant to be. However, to a person with the right skill set, vulnerabilities caused by rapid adoption, intrinsically connected software of different generations and poor configuration can be easily identified.
The safety of IT assets depends on the person ethically acting upon it and not exploiting it for personal gains. Our advice is to not to wait for someone else’s moral compass to protect an organization and perform Vulnerability Assessment and Penetration Testing (VAPT) to strengthen the security and bring about the necessary fixes.
All industries invest a fair amount of money on their system security to ensure reliability and security of their applications. VAPT is one such investment that protects your network and applications and make them immune to threats. It helps one identify pre-existing flaws in the network and gives a clear picture on the consequences that may occur due to these flaws.
The necessity of VAPT is usually by organizations. On the contrary, companies should understand that each one of them are potential targets for hackers. This can be seen by looking at the increase in the ransomware attacks on organisations ranging from schools, hospitals, food outlets to large corporates.
Significant Causes for Vulnerabilities
The major causes of vulnerabilities in an organization network can be attributed to the following reasons:
Benefits of VAPT
The security environment of an organization gains excessive benefits from a periodic (at least on annual basis) VAPT. A few of them as mentioned below:
Necessity of Penetration Testing
Securing our assets can be an intimidating task. Every organization invests in security, but is your data safe?
Protecting your assets before the attack is the way to go. Performing VAPT and safeguarding your assets should be the goal of every organization
With effect from 30 May 2022, companies should enter into their Register of Nominee Directors (ROND) information received from nominee directors (including any updates) within 7 days after receiving the information.
Foreign companies need to update their Register of Members within 30 days following any changes.
The Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) is proposing amendments to the Companies Act, ACRA Act and a new Corporate Service Providers Bill (CSP Bill).
Following are the proposals for ACRA’s key legislative:
(a) Enact a new CSP Bill requiring all entities or persons providing corporate secretarial services in and from Singapore to register with ACRA as CSPs, regardless of whether they need to transact with ACRA.
(b) Increase financial penalties on RFAs/CSPs/RQIs [2] for breaches of terms and conditions of their registration and introduce a fine [3] for breaches of anti-money laundering/ countering the financing of terrorism obligations (AML/CFT obligations) committed with the connivance of, or through the neglect by individuals like directors, owners or partners of CSPs.
(c) Introduce a requirement for CSPs to ensure that individuals they appoint to act as nominee directors are fit and proper, and satisfy prescribed training requirements, if they hold more than a legally prescribed number of nominee directorships by way of business (unless they are qualified persons); and
(d) Introduce a new requirement for nominee directors and shareholders to disclose their nominee status and the identity of their nominator to ACRA, and for ACRA to maintain such information. The nominee status of these directors and shareholders will be made publicly available.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”) has released an information paper after conducting a thematic review on financial institutions in relation to Anti-Money Laundering/Countering of Financing of Terrorism (“AML/CFT”) name screening practices.
By selecting a number of financial institutions, mainly banks, merchant banks, and finance companies, MAS determined gaps in the name screening frameworks adopted by the financial institutions.
The summarized key findings are as follows:
Whilst senior management had adequate access to information to oversee, monitor and deliberate follow-up actions for money laundering/terrorism financing/proliferation financing (ML/TF/PF) risks, there was insufficient oversight on AML/CFT processes, including name screening processes to ensure they were operating well. MAS recommends senior management prevent these lapses which result in true hits being erroneously dismissed.
It was noted by MAS that some financial institutions failed to:
MAS recommends subscribing to a system solution to enable robust and timely screening. MAS also recommends that AML/CFT policies adequately cover the need to screen former names of customers and entities that require screening.
MAS noted that financial institutions did not adequately understand, evaluate and regularly review the appropriateness of name screening methodology including parameters. MAS also noted that financial institutions did not enquire and document the information/resources used by screening vendors and did not include certain information sources, relevant to ML/TF/PF related matters in their screening databases. MAS has given some suggestions on optimising name screening permutations and has suggested excluding titles, legal entity statuses such as Pte. Ltd., punctuations and symbols and common words such as &, bin, s/o.
MAS recommends that staff responsible for setting policies for screening parameters are familiar with the systems and how to conduct effective screening. Appropriate training and regular review of the AML screening providers should be undertaken by financial institutions.
MAS noted that financial institutions have used inappropriate criteria to determine relevance of news and did not establish clear documentation standards on name screening. Financial institutions are recommended to establish proper records of assessment of alerts especially for dismissing any alerts. Appropriate second line of defence checks and balances should be regularly conducted to detect possible oversight on handling of alerts.
Although the thematic review was conducted by MAS on banks and finance companies, recommendations provided in the report are useful for all financial institutions. Name screening is an essential part of the AML/CFT process and in the risk rating of customers. Inadequate practices, lack of robustness in terms of name screening procedures will lead to inaccurate risk rating of customers and prevent financial institutions from taking appropriate steps to mitigate ML/TF/PF risks.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has issued an eight-year prohibition order (PO) against Ms Nancy Tan Mee Khim, following her conviction for consenting to Noble Consulting Group Pte Ltd (Noble) carrying on a business of dealing in securities without holding a capital markets services licence under the Securities and Futures Act 2001 (SFA).
Under the PO, which took effect on 18 May 2022, Ms Tan is prohibited from performing any regulated activity or from taking part in the management of, acting as a director of, or becoming a substantial shareholder of a holder of a capital markets services firm under the SFA.
Between July 2013 and December 2015, Ms Tan was the managing director of Noble, a company in the business of helping small and medium enterprises raise funds from the public. Noble organised multiple seminars, participated in investment exhibitions, created and disseminated marketing materials to potential investors and raised a total of $15,355,000 from 145 members of the public. The Investment or Loan Agreements that the investors entered into with Noble’s client companies were found by the State Courts to be debentures, a form of securities.
On 3 June 2020, Ms Tan was convicted under section 82(1) read with section 331(1) of the SFA for consenting to Noble carrying on a business of dealing in securities without holding a capital markets services licence. She was sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment.
With effect from 30 May 2022, companies should enter into their Register of Nominee Directors (ROND) information received from nominee directors (including any updates) within 7 days after receiving the information.
For more information, please visit the following links: