TOP NEWS
GST Alternate Composition Scheme - Extension of Last Date
GST CASES
HIGH COURT CASES
2019-TIOL-1469-HC-KAR-GST
Arvind Beauty Brands Retails Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner's grievance is that his attempt to file Form GST TRAN-02 on 28.03.2019 was a futile exercise due to technical error of not filing Form GST-TRAN-01; that Complaints/representations made thereafter with the respondents has not yielded any positive response, hence this writ petition.
Held: Court is of the considered view that Form GST TRAN-2 was not available on the Portal till March 2018 - It may be for various reasons, Form GST TRAN-1 was not submitted by the petitioner well within the extended period provided - Considering the transitional period and to achieve the object of the provisions, Court finds it appropriate to direct the Nodal Officer to consider the request of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 25.09.2018 and 16.11.2018 respectively in accordance with law and take decision in an expedite manner - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 6, 7]
- Petition disposed of: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1468-HC-DEL-GST
Sales Tax Bar Association Vs UoI
GST - The Court requests the ASG to arrange a meeting in her chamber, at least one week prior to the next date of hearing, of the lawyers appearing on behalf of the Petitioner with the Senior Vice President Of GSTN and an officer of the level of Additional Secretary in the Department concerned, so that there could be a meaningful interaction with a view to mitigating/ eliminating the outstanding issues: HC
- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1443-HC-AHM-GST
Amit Cotton Industries Vs PR CC
Refund - IGST - Circular 37/2018-Customs dated 9th October 2018cannot run contrary to the statutory rules, namely rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Circular cannot be said to have any legal force - Bench is not impressed by the stance of the respondents that although the writ-applicant might have returned the differential drawback amount, yet as there is no option available in the system to consider the claim, the writ-applicant is not entitled to the refund of the IGST -circular explains the provisions of the drawback and it has nothing to do with the IGST refund - Rule 96 of the Rules is very clear - shipping bill that the exporter may file is deemed to be an application for refund of the integrated tax paid on the goods exported out of India and the claim for refund can be withheld only in the following contingencies as enumerated in sub-clauses (a) and (b) respectively of clause (4) of Rule 96 of the Rules, 2017 - Writ-application is allowed - respondents are directed to immediately sanction the refund of the IGST paid in regard to the goods exported, i.e. 'zero rated supplies', with 7% simple interest from the date of the shipping bills till the date of actual refund: High Court [para 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36]
- Writ-Application allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1442-HC-AHM-GST
Golden Cotton Industries Vs UoI
GST - Even if the authority has reason to believe that the goods liable to be confiscated are likely to be secreted, the authority will have the power to pass an order of prohibition pursuant to the order of seizure - Bench is not impressed by the submission of petitioner that pending the confiscation proceedings, there could not have been any seizure or prohibition of the goods or documents or books of accounts or other things - such argument runs contrary to the Scheme of the Act - The whole object is to preserve and protect the goods or books or documents pending the determination of the tax liability - However, we find something very unusual in the Form GST-INS-02 issued under Rule 139(2) of the Rules with regard to the order of seizure and Form GST-INS-03 issued under Rule 139(4) of the Rules with regard to the order of prohibition - We are saying so because the order of seizure and prohibition is issued and duly signed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Enforcement) Division-3, Gandhinagar - The Assistant Commissioner is the person who has been authorised by the Proper Officer under section 67 of the Act to carry out the search and seizure - We fail to understand why it has been stated in the Form that he had reason to believe that certain goods were liable to confiscation and are secreted in the place mentioned in the order - The reasonable belief was entertained by the the Proper Officer - The Assistant Commissioner appears to have merely carried out the orders of the superior officer namely the Appropriate Officer not below the rank of the Joint Commissioner - This aspect needs to be looked into by the State Government - It is possible that the Proper Officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner under the Act may himself pass an order of seizure as well as order of prohibition - In such circumstances, the scenario would be altogether different - However, in the case on hand, it appears from the stance of the respondent No.4, as indicated in the Affidavit-inreply that the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax was authorised by the office of the Commissioner of State Tax (Enforcement) to inspect and carry out the search and seizure - To this extent, the orders of prohibition and seizure/Form - GST-INS-02 as well as the Form GST-INS-03 appears to be defective - however, legality and validity of the order of prohibition is in accordance with law - Bench permits the writ applicant to invoke clause (6) of section 67 of the GST Act and prefer an appropriate application before the appropriate authority for release of the seized goods on provisional basis upon execution of a bond and furnishing a security to the satisfaction of the concerned authority - If such an application is filed, the same shall be considered expeditiously, on its own merits and in accordance with law- Writ application disposed of: High Court [para 5.16 to 5.19]
- Writ application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1422-HC-AHM-GST
Aap And Company Vs UoI
GST - Press Release dated 18th October 2018 clarifying that the last date for availing ITC, in relation to invoices or debit notes relating to such invoices and issued by the corresponding supplier(s) during the period from July, 2017 to March, 2018, is the last date for the filing of GSTR-3B return for the month of September, 2018 i.e. 20 th October, 2018 is contrary to Section 16(4) of the CGST Act/GGST Act read with Section 39(1) of the CGST Act/GGST Act read with Rule 61 of the CGST Rules/GGST Rules; paragraph 3 of the Press Release is illegal to the extent of its clarification: HC [para 26 to 34]
- Writ Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
AAR CASE
2019-TIOL-204-AAR-GST
Sri Kanyakaparameshwari Oil Mills
GST - Perfumed Deepam oil (not for cooking) which is prepared by adding perfume to either a mixture of Gingelly oil, palmolein oil and rice bran oil or to any of the above oils is covered under HSN 1518 @12% GST: AAR
GST - Deepam oil (not for cooking) which is prepared by either a mixture of Gingelly oil, Palmolein oil and rice bran oil or any of the above oils and "not for cooking” is classifiable under HSN 1518 @12% GST: AAR
GST - Each of the oils, namely Palmolein oil (HSN 1511), Gingelly oil & Rice Bran oil (HSN 1515) and the mixture of the said edible oils falling under HSN 1517 attract GST @5%: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2019-TIOL-203-AAR-GST
Rotary Club Of Mumbai Queens Necklace
GST - Membership subscription and admission fees collected from members is liable to GST as supply of service: AAR
GST - ITC of tax paid on Banquet and catering services for holding member meetings and various events is not admissible since the applicant has not satisifed the proviso to section 17(5)(b)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2019-TIOL-202-AAR-GST
Tata Marcopolo Motors Ltd
GST - Supply of ready built body and the activity of mere mounting the body on chassis supplied by owner amounts to supply of goods and merits classification under HSN 8707 @28% GST: AAR
GST - Activity of step by step building of body on chassis supplied by owner by using their own inputs and capital goods amounts to supply of service in terms of CBIC Circular 52/26/2018-GST dt. 09.08.2018 meriting classification under SAC 9988 @18% GST: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2019-TIOL-201-AAR-GST
Konkan Lng Pvt Ltd
GST - Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act lays down that ITC shall not be available ‘when goods or services or both are received by a taxable person for construction of an immovable property (other than plant or machinery)' - breakwater is an immovable property, a fact accepted by applicant and cannot be considered as a ‘plant' in view of Explanation to s.17(6) of the Act - To qualify for inclusion in the term ‘plant', it must be established that it is impossible for the re-gasification plant to function without the breakwater wall - however, the re-gasification plant is already functioning without complete breakwater wall in place - Breakwater wall is a civil structure and is not going to be used for rendering outward supply of goods or services or both - ITC not admissible in respect of supplies received of goods/services in relation to the construction of breakwater wall: AAR
GST - Applicant's query as to whether the services of the Works Contract by the contractor is covered under item (vii) of sr. no. 3 of notification 11/2017-CTR is not covered within the purview of the Authority in view of the provisins of section 95 and 97 of the CGST Act, 2017, therefore, this question is not being answered: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
AAAR CASE
2019-TIOL-49-AAAR-GST
Sarj Educational Centre
GST - Applicant is the owner of a private boarding house and is providing services of lodging and food exclusively to the students of a secondary school run by a Charitable Society - they had sought a ruling as to whether the service provided is a composite supply and whether such supply is eligible for exemption under Sl. No. 14 of 12/2017-CTR - AAR had held that the Supply is a mixed supply within the meaning of s.2(74) of the GST Act and is taxable in accordance with s.8(b) of the Act; that being a mixed supply, value of the entire combination of services offered is taxable at the highest applicable rate @18% - AAR had also held that the Lodging facility since being offered at a tariff below Rs.1000/- per day, the same is exempted under sl. no.14 of 12/2017-CTR; food served is taxable @5% ( sl.no . 7(i) of notification 11/2017-CTR); housekeeping services (SAC 9987) taxable @18% ( sl.no . 25(ii) of 11/2017-CTR); laundry services (SAC 9997) taxable @18% (sl. no. 35 of 11/2017-CTR), therefore, in terms of s.8(b) of the Act, highest rate applicable is the tax payable in respect of the mixed services - Applicant is before the AAAR
Held: Appellant is not an ‘Educational Institution' as envisaged in clause 2(y) of the exemption notification since it is not affiliated to any board/university and does not provide any kind of approved or recognised education; also it raises bills directly on the individual students and realizes the consideration from them; therefore, serial no. 66 of the exemption notification is not applicable - furthermore, the applicant is engaged in supplying food, laundry service, housekeeping service etc. which are not naturally bundled with the lodging service and all these components are independent of each other and can be supplied separately, therefore, none of the services are bundled together in a natural way and there appears to be no principal service, services are of ‘mixed supply' - AAR has gone through the matter in a detailed way and passed a well-reasoned order, hence there is no reason to interfere with the same - Appeal dismissed: AAAR
- Appeal dismissed: AAAR
NAA CASE
2019-TIOL-46-NAA-GST
Director General Of Anti-profiteering Vs HP India Sales Pvt Ltd
GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - It is the allegation of the applicant that the respondent had maintained the same selling price of Rs.6,869/- for the product 'HP V202b 19.5 inch Computer Monitor' when the GST rate was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f 01.01.2019 vide notification 24/2018-CTR and thus had profiteered by not passing on the benefit of reduction of GST by way of commensurate reduction in price.
Held: Authority finds that there was no rate reduction in tax on the product 'Computer Monitor of 19.5 inch' as has been alleged by the applicant - Inasmuch as the rate of reduction from 28% to 18% vide the impugned notification was only effective in the case of 'Computer Monitors of size ranging between 20 inches to 32 inches 'which is entirely different from the product in respect of which the applicant has alleged profiteering - Provisions of s.171 of the Act can be invoked only in cases where there was a reduction in the rate of tax or where the additional benefit of ITC was made available to the respondent that needed to be passed on to the recipients - since as per the facts available and mentioned above, there was no reduction in the rate of tax during the relevant period (December 2018 and March 2019) in respect of 'Computer Monitor of 19.5 inch, the allegation of profiteering is not sustainable and hence is dismissed: NAA
- Application dismissed: NAA
ARTICLES
Recent Gujarat HC Decisions Highlight Gaps in GST Law
GST - An agenda for reforms- Part 45 - Budget 2019 - Certain amendments proposed in CGST Act
Seven key things to look out about GST in Economic Survey
Post Supply Discounts under GST - Oh My Dealer !
Budget 2019 leaves a taste of 'malaal' for entire economy!
JEST GST by Vijay Kumar
Of Elephants, Donkeys and Taxation
