2018-TIOL-GST-184 Dated: Wednesday, June 06, 2018

NEWS FLASH

Union Cabinet okays revised guidelines on time bound closure of sick and loss making CPSEs and disposal of assets + approves proposal to revise wages of Dak Sevaks + continuation of Satellite Launch Vehicle Mark-III

NAPA CASE

2018-TIOL-03-NAPA-GST

Abel Space Solutions LLP Vs Schindler India Pvt Ltd

CGST Act, 2017 - Section 171 - Anti-Profiteering - Advance paid for purchase of lift correctly charged to service tax which was leviable at the time of issue of invoice on 28.06.2017 and since installation was completed after coming into force of CGST Act, 2017, GST correctly charged for invoices dated 27.07.2017 - no case of profiteering: NAA

Application dismissed

Facts:

Applicant alleged that the respondent had not charged GST on the base price of the lift ordered by him from respondent after excluding the pre-GST excise duty on the material component and thus he had been charged tax twice on the same material.

Applicant vide his letter dated 28.03.2018 sent to the DGSG and vide his letter dated 14.05.2018 sent to the Authority admitted that he was not fully aware of the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 when he had filed the application on 20.09.2017 and since the issues pertaining to his case had been further clarified subsequently, his application should be treated to have been withdrawn.

Observations:

It is clear that the applicant had paid advance for purchase of this lift and he was charged the service tax which was leviable at the time of issue of the invoice on 28.06.2017, which is correct as the applicant was liable for payment of service tax under the then applicable provisions of FA, 1994; however, in respect of the two invoices dated 27.07.2017, as the installation of the second lift had been completed after coming into force of CGST Act, 2017, he was liable to be charged GSTat the rate which was prevalent on 27.07.2017.

Held:

There is no substance in the claim made by applicant and, therefore, the Authority accepts the report dated 16.04.2017 filed by the DGSG u/r 129(6) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and orders dropping of the present proceedings as no violation of the provisions of s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been established: National Anti-Profiteering Authority

AAR CASES

2018-TIOL-43-AAR-GST

Giriraj Renewables Pvt Ltd

GST - Supply of turnkey Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contract for construction of Solar Power plant wherein both goods and services are supplied, whether to be construed as Composite Supply; Whether benefit of concessional rate of 5% of solar power generation system and parts thereof would also be available to sub-contractors.

Held: Major component (PV Module) said to have been constituting 70% of the whole project cannot be construed to be supplied by the applicant consequent upon High Sea Sale of the said product and hence it cannot be construed to be a principal supply of the project and thereby cannot be a composite supply - The supply made by sub-contractor need to be viewed as an individual supply and thereby the appropriate rate of GST has to be applied depending on the specific nature of supply: AAR - Application disposed of : ADVANCE RULINGS

HIGH COURT CASES

2018-TIOL-47-HC-DEL-GST

Sales Tax Bar Association Vs UoI

GST - the petitioner, an association, was aggrieved by several glitches in the GSTN portal - Regarding the first issue was said to have been resolved, the problem still persisted & the manner in which the matter was resolved was not disclosed - The other issue pertains to the non-credit of electroni cash ledger - Moreover the petitioner claimed at the portal did not permit rectification of a return already filed, although the Central and State GST Acts permit rectification of mistakes.

Held - the petitioner's submission that reply under a grievance mechanism must indicate the manner in which the grievance is resolved, holds weight - Matter listed for hearing on August 3 2018: HC - Matter Listed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-46-HC-KERALA-GST

B K Biju Vs Assistant Commissioner

GST - Petitioner seeks release of detained goods.

Held: In an identical matter, the Division Bench by its order - 2017-TIOL-1942-HC-KERALA-VAT directed expeditious completion of adjudication and permitted release of goods detained, pending adjudication, in terms of s.140(1) of the Kerala GST Rules, 2017 - Accordingly, competent authority directed to complete adjudication within one week and release of goods detained, forthwith, if petitioner complies with rule 140(1) ibid: High Court. - Petition disposed of : KERALA HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-45-HC-DEL-GST

Bharti Airtel Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner submits that GSTR-3B and the related mechanism contemplates its provisional use and does not indicate any timely reconciliation and which had lead to serious economic consequences whereby the petitioner is stated to have paid excess duty to the extent of Rs. 700 crores approx. and is unable to either adjust its input credit available or apply for a refund - Petitioner highlighted Section 54 of the Act to say that the vacuum created on account of the suspension of the two forms GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 and the related absence of any clarification, has lead to this serious impasse - Counsel for the Revenue submits that he would take appropriate instructions and make submissions in the Court on the next date of hearing - Matter listed on 24.07.2018: High Court - Matter listed : DELHI HIGH COURT