FLASH NEWS
GSTN introduces offline tool to file GSTR-8 by TCS collectors
GST NEWS
GST Council has taken 918 decisions in 30 meetings so far
CGST RULES NOTIFICATION
cgst_rule_60
GST Rules notified for computer-based test for GST Practitioners; NACIN to conduct exams twice a year
DUES DATES
Due Dates for Various Returns in GST - Updated as on 26th October, 2018
GST (AAR CASES)
2018-TIOL-235-AAR-GST
Italian Edibles Pvt Ltd
GST - "Militry Malai Mithai" identically known as "Rabdi" and recognized as a ‘Mithai' or ‘Misthan' in common parlance is correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading 2106 9099 of GST Tariff as "Sweetmeat" and is chargeable to tax @5% (CGST + SGST) in terms of Sr. no. 101, Schedule I to Notification 1/2017-CTR and corresponding notification under MP GST - classification decided is effective prospectively and this ruling shall not entail any right of the applicant to claim refund of any tax which they may have paid prior to this Ruling: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2018-TIOL-234-AAR-GST
Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd
GST - Applicant is engaged in electrification work in the rural and urban areas and for above purpose also receives work contract services from vendors for supply and erection work under various projects - applicant wishes to know whether clause (vi)(a) of Sr. no. 3 of Table to Notification 11/2017-CTR, tax @12% is applicable on works contract services received by it and determination of liability to pay tax. Held: As per Memorandum of Association of the company, the main object to be pursued is to carry on the business of purchasing, selling, importing, exporting, trading of electrical energy etc. - therefore, the projects under DDUGY, IPDS, ADB, Saubhagya Yojna and all other schemes of the government are carried out for ‘business purpose' and the benefit of concessional rate of 12% as per notification is not available to the applicant - applicant had awarded work to the successful bidder for supply of materials and erection respectively, therefore, contract entered is Works Contract and squarely falls under Entry no. (ii) of Sl. No. 3 of Table to Notification 11/2017-CTR - Tax applicable is 18% (CGST + SGST): AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
GST (HIGH COURT CASES)
2018-TIOL-151-HC-AHM-GST
FC Agrawal Coal Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioners have challenged the vires of the GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 and the notifications issued thereunder.
Held: Identical challenge was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision recently delivered in the case of Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd.- 2018-TIOL-05-SC-GST wherein the vires of the Act were upheld - Petitions are, therefore, disposed of: HC [para 3]
- Petitions disposed of: GUAJRAT HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-150-HC-AHM-GST
Khushiya Industries Pvt Ltd Vs State of Gujarat
GST - Petitioners are challenging the provisional orders of attachment passed in the matter of factory premises, stock and bank accounts on the allegation that petitioner is engaged in large scale bogus billing activities and thus defrauding revenue - respondents have roughly assessed the possible tax and penalty liability under the Gujarat GST Act and CGST Act, 2017 as close to Rs.45 crores - petitioner submits that the goods attached are perishable in nature; that the allegations are untrue and, therefore, some reasonable conditions be laid down for suspension of attachment. Held: Court has to balance the interest of both sides - Prima facie , the department contends that the petitioner has indulged into revenue defalcation - by freezing petitioner's bank accounts and attaching properties, petitioner is temporarily rendered penalized; they cannot operate business, cannot move stock and cannot make payments - High Court permits the petitioner to carry on the legitimate business by suspending provisional attachments subject to fulfillment of conditions viz. maintaining a stock of the goods of a minimum of Rs. 5 crores; giving unconditional bank guarantee to the department to the tune of Rs. 5 crores etc. - Petitions disposed of: High Court [para 4, 6]
- Petitions disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-149-HC-MUM-GST
Apar Industries Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Refund - Petitioner seeks a refund of Rs.52.97 crores along with interest thereon in respect of tax paid on exported goods under section 16 of the IGSt Act - during pendency of the petition, refund of Rs.52.52 crores has already been granted - Petitioner's grievance is now limited to non-payment of interest on the amount of Rs.5.52 crores of refund already granted as well as refund of balance amount along with interest - Counsel for Revenue submits that there is a invoice mismatch/error which resulted in delay in refunding amount of Rs.52.52 crores and hence no interest is payable.
Held : Circulars and FAQ, inter alia, deal with grant of refund in spite of Invoices mismatch/ error, as indicated by SB005 but do not deal with grant of interest even for the period when there is Invoice mismatch/ error - issue of grant of interest for delaying refund does requires factual determination as to the type of Invoices mismatch, who was responsible for the same and who, if any, and how, was the same corrected - As this exercise would be best done by the adjudicating authorities under the Act after hearing the parties, petition is not entertained - Petitioner advised to make a representation to the adjudicating authority who would consider the same and after hearing the Petitioner, pass a speaking order, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from receipt of the Petitioner's representation - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 5 to 7, 11]
- Petition disposed of : BOMBAY HIGH COURT
GST (NAA CASES)
2018-TIOL-11-NAA-GST
Director General Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs Vs Amway India Enterprises Pvt Ltd
GST- Allegation of Profiteering - Applicant in his email without mentioning his name or contact address had alleged profiteering against the respondent Amway India Enterprises Private Limited; inasmuch as that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in GST rates from 28% to 18% on selected items to its customers or Amway Business Owners (ABOs) - applicant was requested to provide the name and address of supplier against whom the complaint was made and to provide the pre and post-GST amount charged by the supplier and the invoices evidencing the same, however, no reply was received - even contact on phone also did not yield any information from the applicant's side - DG, Safeguards informed that in the absence of any details and any specific evidence of profiteering by respondent, no further investigation could be conducted - during hearing, respondent submitted that since DG, Safeguards (now redesignated as DG, Anti-Profiteering) had not recommended initiation of any proceedings against them u/s 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, the present proceeding should be dropped.
Held: Inspite of repeated requests, Applicant had not supplied any details of the products or invoices vide which he had bought items from the resopndent and, therefore, investigation conducted could not establish any evidence of profiteering for want of cogent and reliable evidence - no violation u/s 171 of CGST Act, 2017 has been found in this case - Application is, therefore, not maintainable and hence dismissed: NAA
- Application dismissed: NAA
2018-TIOL-10-NAA-GST
Director General Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs Vs Yum Restaurants India Pvt Ltd
GST - Allegation of Profiteering - Applicant alleged that the Respondent Yum Restaurants had not passed on the benefit of reduction of tax from 18% to 5% to its customers; that respondent was supplying Burger @ 32/- per unit and after adding GST @18% was charging @Rs.40/- per unit before tax was reduced; however w.e.f 15.11.2017, although tax was reduced, he was purchasing the product @Rs.42/- per unit and which indicated profiteering by the respondent - applicant was requested to provide the pre and post GST invoices of the impugned product and details like name and address of the outlet concerned so that the matter could be investigated - however, the applicant failed to furnish the same - DG, Safeguard (now redesignated as DG, Anti-Profiteering)informed that upon a preliminary enquiry from the internet it was revealed that the respondents were operating around 300 stores in northern India and in the absence of any specific evidence of profiteering against a specific supplier, he is not in a position to initiate any investigation in the matter; that it was also not practical to initiate investigation against all the franchisees especially when there was no evidence of profiteering; that the application be rejected as the allegation was not substantiated.
Held: From the report filed by DG, Anti-Profiteering, submission made by the respondent and the facts narrated, it is evident that no case of profiteering could be established for want of credible evidence and hence no violation of provisions of s.171 of CGST Act could be established - Application filed is, therefore, not maintainable and hence is dismissed: NAA
- Application dismissed: NAA
SGST
WEST BENGAL (RULES NOTIFICATIONS)
1514-F.T/2018
55/2018
