Notification No. 3/2023 - Compensation Cess (Rate) dt. 26.07.2023-Is it retrospective?

[K.lakshmipati rao]

Dear Experts,

Greetings for the Day!

The 50th GST Council Meeting held on dt.11-07-2023. On the recommendations of GST Council, below Notification issued.

Notification No. 3/2023 - Compensation Cess (Rate) dt. 26.07.2023:

(xlv) against S. No. 52B, in column (3), for the entry, the entry “Motor vehicles known as Utility Vehicles, by whatever name called including Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV), Multi Utility Vehicles (MUV), Multi-purpose vehicles (MPV) or Cross-Over Utility Vehicles (XUV), with engine capacity exceeding 1500 cc ; Length exceeding 4000 mm and Ground Clearance of 170 mm and above.

Explanation: For the purpose of this entry, the Ground Clearance means ground clearance in unladen condition.” shall be substituted;

This notification shall come into force on 27th July 2023.

However, the GST dept., issued SCN demanding CESS @22% retrospectively w.e.f. 11-09-2017, under entry 52B by virtue of Notification No.05/2017- Compensation CESS (Rate) date 11-09-2017.

Therefore, I request the Experts to share any Supreme Court orders, wherein, we can find that any Clarifications, Amendments, Explanations of any previous Law whether Prospective or Retrospective in Nature?

Best wishes

K.Lakshmipati Rao

9618904545

AI Summary

Experts Debate Retrospective Application of GST Compensation Cess Notification; Clarification Under Section 11(3) Discussed A discussion on a forum revolves around the retrospective application of Notification No. 3/2023 regarding GST Compensation Cess on certain utility vehicles. A query was raised about whether the notification, effective from July 27, 2023, applies retrospectively from September 11, 2017, as per Notification No. 05/2017. Experts debated the interpretation of Section 11(3) of the CGST Act, which allows explanations within a year of a notification's issue. The consensus was that the department's demand isn't based on the 2023 notification being retrospective but rather as a clarification. The debate included legal interpretations and potential defenses against the department's stance.