CA Final · Indirect Tax Laws · Liability to Pay in Certain Cases
Mr. Anil Deshmukh, a trustee carrying on a business under a trust for beneficiary Master Rohan, was registered under GST and owed ₹1,50,000 tax for the period up to 30 June. The trust was terminated on 30 June. In September, an order determined an additional ₹50,000 tax for supplies made before 30 June. In addition, a notice was issued under another provision regarding a penalty not covered under any other assessment proceedings. Which is correct?
The beneficiary becomes liable for all tax, interest or penalty due up to termination of the trust, including the ₹50,000 determined later, so ₹2,00,000 in total. A penalty outside the listed proceedings can be levied by the proper officer only by an order after a reasonable hearing.
- AMr. Deshmukh alone remains liable, since he was the registered person
- BThe beneficiary is liable for the ₹1,50,000 only, as the ₹50,000 was determined after termination
- CThe beneficiary is liable for the tax, interest or penalty due up to termination of the trust, including the ₹50,000 determined later; a penalty not covered by assessment proceedings may be levied by the proper officer by an order after a reasonable opportunity of being heardCorrect
- DThe beneficiary is liable only after obtaining a fresh registration, and no penalty can be levied separately
Explanation
On termination of a trust, the beneficiary is liable for tax, interest or penalty due from the trustee up to termination, whether determined before or thereafter. So ₹2,00,000 is covered. A penalty not covered under the specified proceedings may be levied by the proper officer by an order after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Option 2 wrongly limits the liability to amounts determined before termination.
Did you get it right without looking?
One question tells you little. A timed set on Liability to Pay in Certain Cases shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.
More Liability to Pay in Certain Cases questions
- Ramesh Iyer, a sole proprietor registered under GST, died on 10 July. Before his death, a demand of tax and interest had been determined but…
- Alpha Associates, a partnership of A and B, had unpaid GST of Rs 3,00,000 for FY 2023-24. On 1 October 2024, partner B retired and C was adm…
- Sharma & Verma Traders, a partnership firm, was dissolved on 31 March. Partners were Mr. Sharma, Mr. Verma and Mr. Gupta. On 15 July, after …
- A registered Hindu Undivided Family, Sharma HUF, carried on a trading business with members Mohan, Sohan and Rohan. On 1 April the HUF prope…
- Mr. Raghunath Iyer, a sole proprietor registered under GST, died on 10 August. A tax demand of ₹4,80,000 for earlier periods remained unpaid…
- Sunrise Traders, a partnership firm, was dissolved on 31 March. Partners Anil, Bhavna and Chetan were partners at dissolution. In July, tax …