GST NEWS
GST has done good to pharma sector; Turnover up by 6%: Minister
GST Council needs to form view on funding of NDRF: NK Singh
GST HIGH COURT CASES
2018-TIOL-167-HC-KERALA-GST
Bosch Ltd Vs Assistant State Tax Officer
GST - Petitioner, a registered dealer, had supplied material to Kollam - consignment note, however, did not contain the details of the vehicle used for transport, therefore, vehicle and goods detained u/s 129(1) of the SGST Act - Petitioner before High Court.
Held: Division Bench has dealt with an identical issue in the case of Renji Lal Damodaran 2018-TIOL-103-HC-KERALA-GST - applying the ratio of the said judgment, respondent authorities directed to release the petitioner's goods and vehicle on its furnishing bank guarantee for tax and penalty found due and a bond for the value of goods in the form as prescribed u/r 140(1) of the CGST Rules - Writ petition disposed of: High Court [para 3, 4]
- Petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-166-HC-KERALA-GST
Mondelez India Foods Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant State Tax Officer
GST - Petitioner had sent goods to its six distributors in Palakkad district - however, the vehicle and goods were detained because, by then, the e-way bills expired - petitioner before High Court. Held: Division Bench has dealt with an identical issue in the case of Renji Lal Damodaran 2018-TIOL-103-HC-KERALA-GST - applying the ratio of the said judgment, respondent authorities directed to release the petitioner's goods and vehicle on its furnishing bank guarantee for tax and penalty found due and a bond for the value of goods in the form as prescribed u/r 140(1) of the CGST Rules - Writ petition disposed of: High Court [para 3, 4]
- Petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-165-HC-MUM-GST
Euro Pratik Le Vs UoI
GST - TRAN-1 - High Court had earlier directed assessee to approach Nodal Officer - Hence writ petition be withdrawn, however with rider that assessee may approach writ court if Nodal Officer or Grievance Redressal Committee fails dispose of assessee's representation: HC
- Writ petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-164-HC-UKHAND-GST
Kundan Singh Vs State and Others
PIL - Persons appointed by the State Government through agency of UPNL are only a camouflage - Something which cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly - moment the veil is lifted, it is evident that the Principal employer is State Government - Salary is the property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India - No GST or Service Tax can be deducted from the salary of the petitioners without any authority of law - State Government is directed to regularize the employees sponsored through UPNL in a phased manner: High Court [para 20, 21, 23, 26, 29, 31, 34]
- Writ Petition is disposed of: UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-163-HC-KERALA-GST + See analysis of the Order
Kun Motor Company Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant State Tax Officer
GST - Law, at times, can be harsh, and the Courts, usually, defer to the legislative wisdom - if the conditions under the CGST Act and Rules are not complied with, definitely Section 129 operates and confiscation would be attracted - Respondents are entitled to adjudication, but they would have to prove that the goods being transported stand exempted from the rigours of the GST regime - either of the petitioners can get the goods released by complying with section 129 and the relevant rules, and seek an early adjudication of the dispute - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 34, 35, 36, 39, 40]
- Petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-162-HC-KERALA-GST
SAJI S Vs Commissioner, State GST Department
GST - Petitioner, a registered dealer, had purchased goods from Chennai - While transporting the goods to Kerala, the same were detained while in transit by the Assistant State Tax Officer - based on the demand made, the consignor paid tax and penalty but the remittance was made under the head 'SGST' ? - since the remittance should have been made under the head IGST, the authorities refused to release the goods, hence this writ petition. Held: Section 77 of the GST Act, 2017 provides for the refund of the tax paid mistakenly under one head instead of another, however, Rule 4 of the GST Refund Rules speaks of adjustment - Where the amount of refund is completely adjusted against any outstanding demand under the Act, an order giving details of the adjustment is to be issued in Part A of FORM GST RFD-07 - Under these circumstances, High Court does not find any difficulty for the respondent officials to allow the petitioner's request and get the amount transferred from the head 'SGST' to 'IGST' - it is inequitable for the authorities to let the petitioner suffer on the count that such transfer may take some time - Second respondent directed to release the goods forthwith along with the vehicle and, then, ensure that the tax and penalty which already stood remitted under the 'SGST' is transferred to the head 'IGST' - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 9 to 11]
- Petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-161-HC-KERALA-GST
K S Agencies Vs Assistant State Tax Officer
GST - Petitioner seeks release of detained goods on execution of Bank Guarantee - petitioner also submits that since the dispute is regarding classification, photographs be taken before release of goods.Held: Writ petition disposed of by directing that photographs and negatives be taken with regard to nature of goods; goods be released on furnishing of bank guarantee, as applicable: High Court
- Petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT
GST AAR CASES
2018-TIOL-262-AAR-GST
Taranjeet Singh Tuteja & Brothers
GST - The applicant company executed an agreement for the cutom milling of Paddy - It sought to know the tax liability for such activity carried out on job work basis, as well as the transportation of rice and the usage charges of gunny bags.
Held - As per the applicant's agreement with the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Co-Operative Federation Limited, the former was given the principal task of Custom Milling of Paddy for producing Rice - The applicant also received payment for transportation of Rice & Paddy and for the gunny bags used to pack such grains - There is a single contract for the supply of such goods & services, which comprises of two more supplies, which includes transportation, packing material & incentives - The principal supply is the Customs Milling of Paddy - Hence such activities must be treated as composite supply u/s 2(30) & u/s 8(a) of the Chhattisgarh GST Act - Thus the tax liability of the composite supply will be decided as per the tax liability of the principal supply @ 5%, as per mandate of Notfn No 31/2017-CT(R) & Notfn No 11/2017-CT(R): AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2018-TIOL-261-AAR-GST
Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd
GST - Applicant seeks a ruling as to whether the services provided by them to the Government and government aided higher secondary schools under the ICT Project are covered under the scope of Entry no. 72 of Notification 12/2017-CTR.
Held: Recipient of service is Odisha Knowledge Corporation Ltd. (OKCL) which is a body corporate and cannot be regarded as Government - Supply undertaken is in the nature of composite supply which includes supply of goods and services which are not naturally bundled - services provided is not exclusively in the nature of training programme - Though the source of funding for the service is the State government and Central government, yet as per the contract, the payment responsibility is vested on OKCL, therefore, activities of the applicant under the Information & Communication Technology (ICT) Project are not covered under Entry no. 72 of 12/2017-CTR so as to be entitled to the benefit of exemption under GST: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2018-TIOL-260-AAR-GST
Nash Industries (I) Pvt Ltd
GST - Applicant has sought advance ruling on the following question - whether the amortised cost of the tool is to be added to arrive at the value of the goods supplied.
Held: Applicant could not have manufactured the components without the tool - cost of tool is borne by the recipient of the supply whereas the same should have been borne by the applicant - facts and circumstances of the transaction invite the play of Section 15(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Therefore, amortised cost of tools which are re-supplied back to the applicant free of cost shall be added to the value of the components while calculating the value of the components supplied as per Section 15 of the CGST/SGST/IGST Act, 2017: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2018-TIOL-259-AAR-GST
Indian Institute of Management
GST - Applicant, Indian Institute of Management, Bengaluru, seeks a ruling on whether the long duration post graduate diploma/ degree granting programmes offered by them other than specifically mentioned at Sl.No.67 of Notification No. 12/2017-CTR as amended by 2/2018-CTR are exempted from the GST output liability on education as a part of a curriculum for obtaining a qualification recognized by any law for the time being in force in the light of enactment of the Indian Institute of Management Act, 2017.
GST - Applicant, IIM, Bengaluru also seeks a ruling on whether supply of online educational journals or periodicals to them is exempted from reverse charge liability of GST under Sl. No.66 of Notification No.12/2017-CTR as amended by Notification No. 2/2018-CTR being education provided as a part of a curriculum for obtaining a qualification recognized by any law for the time being in force in the light of enactment of the Indian Institute of Management Act, 2017.
Held: Both Serial no. 66 and 67 are related to all educational services covered under the same Heading 9992 - This leads us to the inescapable conclusion that Serial Number 67 has been carved out specifically and only for the educational services provided by the Indian Institutes of Management - In other words, the Indian Institutes of Management have been segregated from all other educational institutes and the educational services provided by them are subject to different treatment in terms of exemptions - Therefore insofar as educational services provided by Indian Institutes of Management are concerned, the provisions contained in Serial no. 67 alone shall apply - The constitution of the Notification does not allow selective application of Serial No. 67 in respect of educational programmes like (a) two year full time Post Graduate Programmes in management for the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, to which admissions are made on the basis of Common Admission Test (CAT) conducted by the Indian Institute of Management; (b) fellow programme in Management; (c) five year integrated programme in Management and application of Serial number 66 for the rest of the educational programmes -When Notification 12/2017-CTR provides for a specific entry for the Indian Institutes of Management at serial no. 67, the provisions of serial number 66 shall not apply to them - Answer to both the questions posed by the applicant is answered in the Negative: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
GST AAAR CASES
2018-TIOL-24-AAAR-GST
Mega Flex Plastics Ltd
GST - Appellant has entered into a contract with a company called, say "B Ltd." and "B Ltd." is having its unit in SEZ area (Special Economic Zone) - Supply of food is done by Appellant to the employees of "B Ltd." and the payment for the same is made by the employees of "B Ltd." to the appellant directly - Appellant had sought a ruling as to whether such supply can be considered as supply to SEZ area and hence no GST would be applicable - The Authority for Advance Ruling had held that the question cannot be answered on the ground that there is lack of clarity on the issue in absence of adequate information or details - appeal before Appellate authority.
Held - From the provisions of section 16(1)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017, it is crystal clear that the supply made by the appellant to the employees of the unit located in SEZ cannot be construed as Zero-rated supply by any stretch of imagination as the employees can neither be treated as SEZ developer nor as SEZ unit - GST will, therefore, be applicable as per the classification of the services determined in terms of the scheme of classification of services as provided under Annexure ‘A' to the notification 11/2017-CTR - appellant is presuming and putting a pre-emptive notion before the Appellate authority that they are running the ‘restaurant' in the SEZ area and then asking the authority to decide upon the GST rate applicable on such activities -it is apparent that the food is being cooked at one place and being distributed to various different locations of the companies with whom they have entered into a contract - Thus, this event is not covered under the definition of ‘Restaurant service' - appellant's claim that it is running ‘Restaurant services' in the SEZ area is not tenable and hence the GST rate of 5% envisaged by appellant is not correct: AAAR
- Appeal succeeds: AAAR
2018-TIOL-23-AAAR-GST
Merit Hospitality
GST - Appellant has entered into a contract with a company called, say "B Ltd." and "B Ltd." is having its unit in SEZ area (Special Economic Zone) - Supply of food is done by Appellant to the employees of "B Ltd." and the payment for the same is made by the employees of "B Ltd." to the appellant directly - Appellant had sought a ruling as to whether such supply can be considered as supply to SEZ area and hence no GST would be applicable - The Authority for Advance Ruling had held that the question cannot be answered on the ground that there is lack of clarity on the issue in absence of adequate information or details - appeal before Appellate authority.
Held - From the provisions of section 16(1)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017, it is crystal clear that the supply made by the appellant to the employees of the unit located in SEZ cannot be construed as Zero-rated supply by any stretch of imagination as the employees can neither be treated as SEZ developer nor as SEZ unit - GST will, therefore, be applicable as per the classification of the services determined in terms of the scheme of classification of services as provided under Annexure ‘A' to the notification 11/2017-CTR - appellant is presuming and putting a pre-emptive notion before the Appellate authority that they are running the ‘restaurant' in the SEZ area and then asking the authority to decide upon the GST rate applicable on such activities -it is apparent that the food is being cooked at one place and being distributed to various different locations of the companies with whom they have entered into a contract - Thus, this event is not covered under the definition of ‘Restaurant service' - appellant's claim that it is running ‘Restaurant services' in the SEZ area is not tenable and hence the GST rate of 5% envisaged by appellant is not correct: AAAR
- Appeal disposed of: AAAR
SGST
(MAHARASHTRA TRADE CIRCULARS)
34/2018
Clarification on certain issues related to refund
33/2018
Processing of refund under the GST
32/2018
VAT on natural gas, clarifications regarding
JEST GST by Vijay Kumar
GST on IIM
ARTICLES
DeMo missed Targets with pleasant 'Side Effects'!
Budgetary Support scheme - Ironing out the wrinkles
When Sub-contractor steps into the shoes of a Contractor
Towering relief for telecom companies
GST - Agenda for the second year - Part XI
