FLASH NEWS
GST - Govt keen to make refund automatic process, says Revenue Secretary
TOP NEWS
Industry happy with e-Way Bill system: FICCI Survey
GST - June revenue goes up to 95,000 Crore
'GST replaced most complicated indirect tax system in world', says Jaitley
CGST (RULES) NOTIFICATION
29/2018
Seek to make amendments (Seventh Amendment, 2018) to the CGST Rules, 2017
HIGH COURT CASES
2018-TIOL-61-HC-KOL-GST
Indus Integrated Information Mgmt Ltd Vs PR CGST & CS
GST - Writ petition filed challenging the final order passed by respondent No. 1 determining the Service Tax finally payable by petitioner along with interest and penalty - Petitioner submits that as per provisions of Section 4(B)(b) of Finance Act, 1994, Authority responsible for determining tax should complete the adjudication within one year from the date of Demand Notice - It is argued that the respondent No. 2 is the only officer who heard the petitioner and, therefore, the Demand having been decided by a different respondent No. 1, cannot be sustained - GST Law was introduced in July, 2017 and under the deeming provisions of Section 3 of the 2017 Act, the respondent No. 1 in his earlier avatar as the respondent No. 2 conducted the hearing - However, since with the implementation of the GST Act, 2017 the designation of respondent No. 2 was converted to that of the respondent No. 1, in exercise of deeming provisions of Section 3 of the 2017 Act signed the final order - Accordingly, there is no infraction of principles of natural justice or limitation qua the petitioner - Respondents submits on the purposive interpretation of the legal provisions in the light of the deeming provisions under Section 3 that it never was the intention of Legislature to frustrate a pending/continuing adjudication - Arguments advanced by petitioner are based on hyper technicalities which are not of a nature so as to derail the adjudication process - This Court is satisfied that the statutory provisions relied upon by respondents to take care of the contingencies sought to be exploited by the petitioner for filibustering the adjudication: HC - Writ petition dismissed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-60-HC-MUM-GST
All India Liquid Bulk Importers & Exporters Association Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner relies upon Circular No.39/13/2018-GST to submit that they are victim of an IT glitch and as IT glitches or technical issues pertaining to GST portal are involved, the present Circular sets up a IT-Grievance Redressal Mechanism to address the grievance of the tax payers relating thereto - The petitioner would, therefore, withdraw this writ petition and approach this IT-Grievance Redressal Mechanism and request it to take a decision in terms therewith, but in accordance with law - Writ petition allowed to be withdrawn: HC - Writ petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-59-HC-KERALA-GST
Vinod G Vs UoI
GST - the petitioner claimed to be unable to upload Form GST TRAN - 1 within the time stipulated for the same due to system error - Consequently, the petitioner was unable to avail input tax credit.
Held - Petitioner directed to approach the Nodal Officer concerned & make representations - The authority is directed to adjudicate it within a week - If petitioner found unable to avail input tax credit for reasons not attributable to the petitioner, then appropriate measures be taken to enable availment of credit: HC
2018-TIOL-58-HC-KERALA-GST
G & C Infra Innovations Vs UoI
GST - the petitioner climed to be unable to generate Form GST TRAN 2 - This is attributable to a mistake committed while uploading Form GST TRAN 1 - The petitioner claimed to eb unable to avail input tax credit since there is no provision to revise Form GST TRAN 1, without which Form GST TRAN 2 could not be generated.
Held - the petitioner is directed to approach the Nodal Officer concerned & file representation - The authority is directed to tke requisite action to enable availment of credit: HC
2018-TIOL-57-HC-KERALA-GST
Assistant State Tax Officer Vs Alfa Aluminium
GST - the petitioners were transporting some goods to their business premises after process of powder coating - The goods were accompied by purchase invoice & another invoice for the service of powder coating - The goods were detained in transit for not uploading the e-way bill - The Department claimed that only on uploading the e-way bill would it be informed of the movement of goods & in absence of the same, an evasion would be suspected - When the petitioners contested the detention before the Single Judge, it was held that the petitioners were covered by a High Court precedent & so directed furnishing of bond by both petitioners.
Held - There are factual differences between the precedent and the present circumstances - In the precedent case, the petitioner therein was covered under a delivery challan under Rule 55 of the Kerala GST Rules & whose genuineness was undoubted - Following such precedent, the Single Judge assumed that there could not be any tax evasion - However in the present case, the dealer intended to re-sell the goods, due to which suspicion of evasion cannot be brushed aside - Thereby, the furnishing of bond by the petitioners is not sustainable - Hence the goods be released on furnishing of simple bond for the value of goods & furnishing of bank guarantee equivalent to the tax & penalty amount payable - No opinion expressed on merits: HC (Para 2,3,4) - Writ Petition Disposed Of: KERALA HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-56-HC-KERALA-GST
Whispower Generators Sales and Services Pvt Ltd Vs CBEC
GST - the petitioner, a dealer, claimed to be unable to upload Form GST TRAN -1 & consequently was unable to avail input tax credit available to it on migration to GST - The petitioner further claims that its attempts to upload the Form GST TRAN -1 were frustrated by a system error - Hence appropriate directions were sought.
Held - The petitioner is directed to approach the Nodal Officer concerned & place its grievance before said officer - The officer directed to take appropriate decision within a week's time from reciept of petitioner's application for redressal - Where petitioner found unable to upload Form GST TRAN - 1 for reasons beyond its control, then appropriate measures be taken to enable it to avail input tax credit: HC - Writ Petition Disposed Of: KERALA HIGH COURT
AAR CASES
2018-TIOL-89-AAR-GST
Mega Flex Plastics Ltd
GST - the applicant manufactures Polypropylene Leno Bags mainly used for packing of potato, onion, raw mango and other vegetables and citrus fruit in bulk - It also manufactures other woven Polypropylene bags which used for packing of cement, fertiliser and food grain - Hence it approached the applicant seeking to know the classification of both items under CGST & WB GST.
Held - PP Leno Bags', if specifically made from woven Polypropylene fabric using strips or the like of width not exceeding 5 mm and without any impregnation, coating, covering, or lamination with plastics, are to be classified under Tariff Sub Heading 6305 33 00: AAR - Application Disposed Of: AAR
2018-TIOL-88-AAR-GST
M D Mohta
GST - the applicant is manufacturer of 'rakhi' - It approached the authority seeking to know the classification of 'rakhi' and whether exemption under Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) is applicable on it.
Held - considering the use of 'rakhi' and the components used, the applicant has to classify the it as per its constituent materials in accordance with Rule 3(c) of Rules for Interpretation of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as laid down in Explanatory Notes (iv) of Notification No 1/2017-CT(Rate) - Consequently, 'rakhi' will attract GST as per its classification as stated therein - Also held that exemption under Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) is not available on 'rakhi': AAR - Application Disposed Of: AAR
2018-TIOL-87-AAR-GST
Lyophilization Systems India Pvt Ltd
GST - the applicant is engaged in manufacturing Lyophilizers machines - It is used in the drug & pharmaceutical industry for manufacture of vaccines - Although it is classifiable under Chapter heading 8419, the applicant seeks to know the rate of tax applicable on such machines as on November 15, 2017.
Held - Considering the provisions of Sr. No.320 to Schedule - III of the Notification No. 41/2017 dated November 14, 2017, it is held that the rate of tax leviable on supply of Lyophilizers falling under tariff heading 8419 of the GST tariff would be 9% CGST + 9% SGST: AAR - Appliation Disposed Of: AAR
2018-TIOL-86-AAR-GST
Madhucon Sugar and Power Industries Ltd
GST - the applicant company manufactured Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) and Rectified spirits - It sought ruling on the issue as to whether HSN Code 2207 covers both 'denatured Ethyl alcohol and other spirits' (Not fit for human consumption) and also 'Un-denatured alcohol' (Fit for human consumption) - The applicant also sought to know whether Un-denatured ethyl alcohol of any strength of percentage or higher by volume i.e., ENA/RS being sold by it for human consumption to State Distilleries & Manufacturers, in turn who is making liquor for human consumption shall be covered under GST - It also sought to know whether it is within the purview of GST & if so what would be the rate of tax applicable on it - Lastly, the applicant sought to know if Un-denatured alcohol is not under purview of GST, then whether input tax credit was available on the input items used.
Held - the issue of 'Taxation of Rectified Spirit & Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) under GST' is one of the agenda points placed before GST council for deliberation in the 20th meeting of the GST council held on August 05, 2017 - The decision on the 'applicability of GST on ENA' is pending before GST council and even in the 27th GST council meeting held on May 04, 2018 it was decided to defer the agenda point on the 'applicability of GST on ENA' - Since the issue raised by the applicant is pending before GST Council for a decision then Advance Ruling the issues raised cannot be given: AAR - Application Disposed Of: AAR
2018-TIOL-85-AAR-GST
Manjira Machine Builders (P) Ltd
GST - The applicant supplied some goods to DRDO labortories, Satish Dhawan Space Centre and the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre - The applicant sought to know whether the concessional tax rate @ 5% as given under Notification No. 47/2017 dated 14.11.2017 is applicable only for Interstate sales i.e., on IGST or also applicable for sales within the state i.e., on SGST & CGST - If so, whether input tax credit could be availed on raw materials used for such supplies made.
Held - The concessional rate of tax @ 5% as given under Notification No.47/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 is applicable only for Interstate sales i.e., on IGST and concessional rate of tax @ 2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST is applicable for Intrastate supplies as per Notification No. 45/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 - Further the concessional rate of tax @ 5% as given under Notification No.47/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 is applicable only for Interstate sales i.e., on IGST and concessional rate of tax @ 2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST is applicable for Intrastate supplies as per Notification No. 45/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017: AAR - Application Disposed Of: AAR
2018-TIOL-84-AAR-GST
Zaver Shankarlal Bhanushali
Advance Ruling - Act of vacating premises for facilitating the developer implies that the applicant has agreed to do an act and such act, of vacating the premises, by the applicant, squarely falls under clause 5(e) of the Schedule II of the CGST Act, 2017 and, therefore, the amounts received by the applicant for having agreed to do such an act would attract tax liability - GST is applicable on the compensation for alternate accommodation received by applicant and is also applicable on the damages for delayed handover of possession of new premises: AAR - Application disposed of : AAR
2018-TIOL-83-AAR-GST
Five Star Shipping
Advance Ruling - Whether ‘Marine Consultancy Service' provided to foreign ship owners constitute ‘composite supply' with the principal supply of ‘Consultancy service'. Held: Answered in the negative: AAR
Advance Ruling - Consultancy service will not qualify as business consultancy service - Support service qualifies as ‘Intermediary Service' in terms of section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017: AAR - Application disposed of : AAR
2018-TIOL-82-AAR-GST
Basf India Ltd
Advance Ruling - Applicant to purchase goods from overseas related party based on purchase goods received from customers - while the goods are in transit and before they are entered for customs clearance in India, the same would be sold to customers - Ruling sought as to whether such sale effected would be leviable to IGST. Held: In the negative, no IGST leviable: AAR
Advance Ruling - Ruling sought as to whether if IGST is not leviable/treated as exempt supply, the input tax credit will have to be reversed to the extent of inputs, input services and common input services used for the above transaction. Held: I n the affirmative, credit will have to be reversed: AAR - Application disposed of : AAR
JEST GST (By Vijay Kumar)
From Air Conditioners and Hawai Chappals to Milk and Mercedes
ARTICLES
Advance ruling in re: Caltech Polymers Pvt Ltd - A different view
Advance Ruling - Emerging trends
Zero rated supplies - can it be regarded as Intra-State
One Year of GST - High Time for Council to unfold reforms for 2nd Year
One Year Of GST - A Review
Advance Rulings - need to have a national AAR
