Page 39 - GSTL_6th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 1

2020 ] NEWS DESK J21
The Government had said the basic aim behind adopting the system is to
facilitate convenience to the taxpayers by further simplifying the GST return sys-
tem.
“E-way bills were implemented to track movement of goods and catch
hold of any clandestine movement. Similarly e-invoice would track flow of
transactions and identification of revenue leakages on real time basis,” said Rajat
Mohan, Partner, AMRG Associates.
[Source : Business Standard, New Delhi, dated 1-8-2020]

Government appoints three Members of CBIC
Bureaucrats Ajay Jain, Vivek Johri and Sungita Sharma have been ap-
pointed as Members of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC),
according to a Personnel Ministry order. Jain and Johri are Indian Revenue Ser-
vice (Customs and Central Excise) officers of 1985 batch. Sharma is a 1986-batch
IRS (Customs and Central Excise) officer. The appointments Committee of the
Cabinet has approved the appointment Jain, Johri, and Sharma as CBIC Mem-
bers, the order said, without citing details. The Board, top policy making body
for Indirect Taxes, is headed by a Chairperson. It can have a maximum of six
Members.
[Source : The Economic Times, New Delhi, dated 4-8-2020]

States face fresh pressure for GST rate rationalisation
States are under fresh pressure to agree to rationalisation of GST rates by
reworking slabs and raising the levy on garments and footwear as the Centre has
got legal opinion to back its claim that it does not have a liability of paying com-
pensation to the States that fail to increase collections by 14%.
While officials at the Centre and the States have maintained this argu-
ment for months, last winter, State Finance Ministers had opposed any attempt
to rationalise the levies at a meeting of the GST Council. Armed with the Attor-
ney General’s opinion, the Centre will once again lob the ball back in the GST.
Council’s Court. The all-powerful panel comprising State and Union Finance
Ministers is scheduled to meet shortly to discuss the issue of compensation, with
opposition-ruled States such as Kerala and West Bengal pressing the Centre to
bear the burden.
Sources at the Centre argued that the 101st Amendment provides for
five-year compensation to the States for “revenue loss” due to implementation of
GST. “Revenue loss” has been defined to mean an annual collection growth of
14%, which was based on the higher growth rates seen during earlier years.
The GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 provides for compensation
to be paid from the Compensation Fund, which is to be built through the pro-
ceeds of Cess and “such other amounts as may be recommended by the Coun-
cil”.
“Obviously this would mean that it is the GST Council which has to de-
cide on making good the shortfall in the GST Compensation Fund, by providing

GST LAW TIMES  6th August 2020  39