2018-TIOL-GST-198 Dated: Wednesday, August 08, 2018

TOP NEWS

GST - FICCI favours fixing of threshold for RCM u/s 9(3)

GST Bills as introduced in Lok Sabha - Dated : August 07, 2018

CGST (Amendment) Bill, 2018 (Bill No. 143 of 2018)

IGST (Amendment) Bill, 2018 (Bill No. 144 of 2018)

UTGST (Amendment) Bill, 2018 (Bill No. 145 of 2018)

Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Amendment Bill, 2018 (Bill No. 146 of 2018)

GST CASELAWS

HC CASES

2018-TIOL-96-HC-KERALA-GST

Vector Surgical And Disposables Vs UoI

GST - the petitioner, a dealer was unable to upload Form GST TRAN-1 within the stipulated time frame, on account of some technical error - Consequently, the petitioner was unable to take credit of input tax available to it upon migration to GST - Hence the present writ, seeking appropriate directions.

Held - the petitioner is directed to approach the jurisdictional Nodal Officer & make representation - The Nodal Officer is directed to look into the matter and enable uploading of Form GST TRAN-1 - Also should the petitioner be found unable to upload the Form GST TRAN-1 due to no fault of its own, then the Nodal Officer is directed to enable the petitioner to avail credit of input tax available on migration to GST: HC (Para 1,5,6)

- Writ petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-95-HC-KERALA-GST

Ting Tong International Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

- Writ petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-94-HC-KERALA-GST

Leo Distributors Vs UoI

- Writ petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT

NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY (NAPA) CASE LAWS

2018-TIOL-04-NAPA-GST + See analysis of the Order

Rishi Gupta Vs Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd

GST - Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Withdrawal of discount does not amount to profiteering as the same was offered from his profit margin by the Supplier and does not form part of the base price and, therefore, also the Supplier cannot be held guilty under Section 171 of the Act-Respondent M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. is not the Supplier/manufacturer of the Almirah and was only an agent who had offered his platform to the Supplier to sell the Almirah by charging commission, and was also not responsible for collection or refund of GST and hence he cannot be held accountable for contravention of Section 171 of the CGST - However, there may be several such cases in which the e-platforms had collected excess GST from the buyers and have not refunded the same after the tax was reduced on various products on 15.11.2017 - Therefore, National Anti-Profiteering Authority had directed the Director General of Audit, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to audit the major e-platforms and submit it's findings to the Authority - Respondent M/s Flipkart informed that there were 7254 cases in which the rate of GST at the time of booking of the orders on their platform was higher than the rate of GST prevalent at the time of delivery and the Respondent had initiated the process of refund of the differential amount as per the instructions of the sellers -allegation of profiteering made by the Applicant against the Respondent as well as the Supplier is not established - application not maintainable and hence dismissed: NAPA [para 7 to 11]

- Application dismissed: NAPA

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: NAPA

2018-TIOL-02-NAPA-GST

Kumar Gandharv Vs KRBL Ltd

CGST Act, 2017 - Section 171 - Anti-profiteering - ITC available to the respondent as a percentage of the total value of taxable supplies was between 2.69% to 3% whereas GST on the outward supply of Basmati Rice was 5% which was not sufficient to discharge the tax liability - moreover, there was an increase in the cost of purchase price of paddy - there has been no net benefit of ITC available to the respondent which could be passed on to the consumers - no case of profiteering made out - application dismissed: National Anti-Profiteering Authority [para 6, 7]

- Application dismissed NAPA

AAAR CASES

2018-TIOL-06-AAAR-GST

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd

2018-TIOL-05-AAAR-GST

Hafele India Pvt Ltd

Caesarstone imported by the appellate merits classification under HSN 6810 in view of rule 1 of the Rules for Interpretation of the Customs Tariff, applicable to classification under GST, read with chapter note 1 of Chapter 25 and terms of heading 6810 - no reason to interfere with the ruling given by the Advance Ruling Authority - Appeal dismissed: AAAR

- Appeal dismissed: AAAR