AAR CASES

2018-TIOL-42-AAR-GST

GKB Lens Pvt Ltd

Facts: Applicant is a Re-seller and Importer of Sun Glasses, Frames, Lenses, Contact Lenses, etc. having Head Office in West Bengal. Goods, namely, Optical Lenses and Frames for Spectacles and Accessories, are transferred from the Head Office in West Bengal to its branches in other states - Advance Ruling has been sought on whether such goods supplied to the branches in states other than West Bengal can be valued in terms of the Cost Price under the Second Proviso to Rule 28 of CGST Rules, 2017, instead of 90% of MRP as required under the First Proviso of the same Rule.

Held: + Applicant has the option of not supplying goods to its branches under the first Proviso of Rule 28 and is eligible to value these goods by applying the terms of the second Proviso to Rule 28 of CGSTRules.

+ The expression “ where the recipient is eligible for full input tax credit ”, as used in the Second Proviso to Rule 28 of CGST Rules, 2017, means that the recipient will be eligible to take full input tax credit of the amount of tax paid by the supplier as mentioned in the respective invoice or any other document valid under Section 16(2)(a) of CGST Act. - Application disposed of : AUTHORITY ON ADVANCE RULINGS

2018-TIOL-41-AAR-GST

Photo Products Company Pvt Ltd

Facts: Applicant is printing, content supplied by the customers, on photographic paper - Advance Ruling is sought regarding the nature and classification of the activity – whether it is supply of goods or service and whether the activity carried out by the Applicant is taxable under HSN 4911 or SAC 9989.

Held: Activity carried out by Applicant of “printing of photographs from media” is classifiable under SAC 9989; is taxable at CGST @ 6% under Serial No. 27 (i) of Notification No. 11/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28/06/2017 & equivalent SGST@6%: AAR - Application disposed of : AUTHORITY ON ADVANCE RULINGS

HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-44-HC-ALL-GST

Maneesh Singh Vs State Of UP

GST - the petitioner herein was served a notice from the municipal corporation concerned, raising duty demand for advertisement tax - Hence the present writ.

Held - Considering the provisions of Section 173 of the UPGST Act, 2017, the provisions of Section 172(2), 192 & 193 of the UP Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 have been omitted - In such case, the municipal corporation concerned has no authority to levy advertisement tax - The activity in question will only attract levy of GST - Hence the SCN issued is bad in law & merits being quashed: HC - Writ Petition Allowed : ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-43-HC-KERALA-GST

Manjunathaa Rock Drills Vs Assistant State Tax Officer

IGST - the first petitioner purchased some goods from Tamil Nadu & transported them to the second petitioner located in Kerala - The goods were detained in transit, u/s 129 of the Kerala GST Act, 2017 - SCN was issued raising demand for IGST with penalty - The petitioners were aggrieved by the supposed inaction of the authorities in completing adjudication u/s 129 of the Act with regard to the detained goods.

Held - The relevant officer is directed to consider the petitioner's objections to such detention - Entire adjudication process to be completed within two week's time: HC - Writ Petition Allowed : KERALA HIGH COURT