CA Vinod Kaushik

CA Vinod KaushikDetailed analysis of annual budget Delhi 2016-17-Final changes after issuance of notification dated 09-05-2016.

Introduction:

This article has been written to give you clarity on the changes introduced through annual budget of Delhi Govt. (2016-17) which was presented on 28-03-2016. The changes which were announced in the budget do not automatically become applicable unless a gazette notification is issued in this regard. I was also getting so many queries on applicability of budget changes from the day budget was presented in the assembly. The Govt. was also delaying the issuance of notification to avoid revenue loss for some time. Finally on the pressure being mounted by opposition and trade association Govt. issued a notification in this regard and changes made applicable from 10-05-2016. This short article will outline the differences in the provisions initially introduced in the budget and finally made applicable through this notification.

Summary of provisions introduced:

dvat

Clarification on certain items:

Sweets and namkeen- Sweets and namkeen has not been specifically defined in act and rules but annexure III at the end of schedule III can be guiding force to find the items covered under the term sweets and namkeen. The snacks like samosa, tikki and other like snacks are also covered under the term namkeen. On the same lines term sweets has been defined under annexure III which includes gulab jamun, Laddu and other like item. If you need copy of annexure III you can mail us the requirements we shall revert you at earliest.

Other disputed items:

Marble has also been subject to some confusion among dealers and professionals. Weather marble included tiles and granite it is still confusing question for a class of dealer. As per newly inserted entry 191 ” All kinds of marble now ” taxable @ 5% under schedule III. In my opinion also granite and tiles are not covered under above entry and taxable @ 12.50% as unspecified items.

The items where Govt. took back steps:

At the time of presentation of annual budget it was proposed to hike rate of Vat on fabric, plastic waist and footwear where mrp is up to 500. On the very next day Govt. faced stiff opposition from its own party MLA’s and also opposition party. Looking at the mounting pressure the proposals for hike of Vat rates were rolled back and the status quo was maintained in this case.

Conclusion:
Looking at the budget proposal it can be said that no extra tax has been levied by state govt. which is good for dealers. Compliance has been made more stringent by introducing concept of item name and item code.Hope this article would be useful for you in daily practice.

(Author can be reached  at cavinodkumar67@gmail.com, +91-9953236278)

Disclaimer: Views expressed are strictly personal. The content of this document are solely for informational purpose. It doesn’t constitute professional advice or recommendation. The Author does not accept any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of information in this article and for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Posted Under

Category : GST (2079)
Type : Articles (10802)
  • CA Vinod Kaushik

    Kindly Correct the rate on ferrous and non ferrous metals would be 5%. Inadvertent mistake.