2018-TIOL-GST-238 Dated: Wednesday, December 12, 2018

CGST ORDER

GST - Govt inserts Explanation after sub-rule 2 of Sec 44 to extend due dates to March 31, 2019 for GSTR-9 & GSTR-9C

GST AAAR CASE

2018-TIOL-26-AAAR-GST

Opta Cabs Pvt Ltd

CGST - Appellant is in the business of Taxi Aggregation Service and Taxi Service and states that the billing is done in the name of the Taxi Driver who provides the service for the particular trip and the taxi driver would collect the amount from the customer on the completion of the trip - Ruling was sought on whether the money paid by the customer to the driver of the cab for the services of the trip is liable to GST and whether applicant company is liable to pay GST on this amount - Advance Ruling authority had held that applicant, now Appellant, is liable to tax on the amounts billed by him on behalf of the taxi operators for the service provided in the nature of transportation of passengers through it, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 9 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 read with Notification No. 17/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - Appeal to AAAR.

Held: Service of transportation of passengers is supplied by the taxi drivers using the digital application develoaaar_gst_index18_01ped by the appellant - appellant manages the digital application which facilitates the supply of the service of transportation of passengers - appellant owns and operates the IT platform for the supply of service of transportation of passengers over the digital network - customer would book the taxi using the IT platform provided by the appellant and the taxi operator would be intimated about the potential customer through the same IT platform - on completion of service, the appellant sends an invoice to the customer through the digital network facility which is payable by the customer to the taxi driver, therefore, the appellant is an ‘electronic commerce operator' in terms of s.2(45) of the CGST Act - section 9(5) of the CGST Act shifts the liability to pay the tax from the actual supplier of the notified services to the e-commerce operator - electronic commerce operator shall, therefore, be liable to pay tax on the services provided by a motor cab or maxi cab or motor cycle or radio-taxi, by way of transportation of passengers, if such services are supplied through it and it shall be deemed that the electronic commerce operator is the supplier in such cases - Order passed by Advance Ruling authority upheld and the appeal is dismissed: AAAR

- Appeal dismissed: AAAR

GST HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-185-HC-KERALA-GST + Case Story

Kun Motor Co Pvt Ltd Vs ASTO

GST - Incidence of tax is on the supply and not on the nature of transport - When a person residing in one State goes to another State and purchases goods for his own use, the supply with respect to the transaction terminates on the individual taking possession of the goods in that other State - goods have come into the possession of the purchaser and the vehicle having been used, however negligible the distance run, it is a "used personal effect" - there can be alleged no taxable transaction insofar as the movement of goods from Puthuchery to Trivandrum in Kerala, especially since the car had been registered in the name of the purchaser - "personal effects" includes a car - intra-State sale having occasioned and the transport being of used personal effects, the detention was illegal - notice issued and the order passed u/s 129 of the Act being illegal and totally without jurisdiction, same is quashed - judgment of the Single Judge set aside and the appeal is allowed: Division Bench High Court [para 12 to 15, 17, 20 to 25, 27, 29, 30]

- Appeal allowed: KERALA HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-184-HC-ALL-GST

Bengali Lal And Sons Vs State Of UP

GST - Petitioner, a partnership firm, had applied for registration under GST on 27.6.2017 but mistakenly provided the PAN number of one of the partners of the firm - petitioner again applied for registration on 14.8.2017, but the registration could not be activated as two applications were filed - Petitioner has prayed that its application for registration made on 27.6.2017 be corrected and he may be allowed to give the PAN number of the firm, so that the same be activated.

Held: In case the petitioner surrenders the registration dated 14.8.2017, his earlier registration dated 27.6.2017 be corrected and activated and correct I.D. and password be issued in accordance with law - Petition disposed of: High Court

- Petition disposed of: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-183-HC-ALL-GST

Navyug Airconditioning Vs State Of UP

UPGST/IGST/CGST - Petitioner is aggrieved by the seizure of the goods vide impugned order passed under section 129(1) of the U.P.Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [UPGST] - petitioner contending that since the seized goods were in transit from outside the State, the transaction would be covered by the Integrated Goods and Servic es Tax Act, 2017 [IGST] read with Central GST and that the provisions of the UPGST or its Rules or the notifications issued therein would not apply.

Held: Even if the seizure is treated to be under section 129(1) of the Central GST, as there was no provision of E-Way bill on the relevant date under the Central GST, prima facie the seizure appears to be illegal - State of UP to file counter affidavit within three weeks - in the meantime, the goods seized be released along with the vehicle subject to the petitioner furnishing indemnity bond and security (other than cash and bank guarantee) in respect of the proposed tax and penalty on the value of the goods shown in the documents accompanying the same: High Court

- Petition disposed of: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-182-HC-ALL-GST

Metal Handicrafts Vs State Of UP

GST - Petitioner, registered under the U.P.VAT Act, made an application for migration to GST under the signature of one of its Directors, namely Shri Dheeraj Jain, and in support the PAN card was appended - in the registration, the legal name of the petitioner has wrongly been mentioned as Dheeraj Jain - despite repeated requests, reminders and personal meeting, the error was not rectified, hence petition filed.

Held: No reason why the authorities are not opening the portal to enable the petitioner to correct the particulars which are wrongly reported in the registration - Respondents commanded to carry out necessary correction in the form of the petitioner in respect of legal name, constitution of the business, the registration details, user ID and password to match with the PAN No.AACCL0519Q of the petitioner's company and, if necessary, to open the portal for carrying out the correction - necessary steps be taken within 10 days: High Court

- Petition disposed of: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

JEST GST by Vijay Kumar

GST is certainly not a failure but....