TOP NEWS
Govt permits filing Form GST RFD-01A for period between July 2017 - March 2018
GST - CBIC clarifies issues on goods taken abroad for export promotion
KERALA FLOOD CESS
G.O.(P) No.97/2019/TAXES
Kerala Flood Cess (Second Amendment) Rules, 2019
GST CIRCULAR
cgst_circular_109
GST on Resident Welfare Society - CBIC issues detailed clarification
CIRCULAR CORRIGENDUM
cgst circular 45 corrigendum
Corrigendum to Circular No. 45/19/2018-GST dated 30th May, 2018 issued vide F. No. CBEC/20/16/4/2018-GST
CGST RULES
34/2019
Seeks to extend the last date for furnishing FORM GST CMP-08
33/2019
Seeks to carry out changes in the CGST Rules, 2017.
CGST CIRCULAR
108/2019
which seeks to clarify various doubts related to supply of Information Technology enabled Services (ITeS services).
107/2019
which seeks to clarify issues regarding procedure to be followed in respect of goods sent / taken out of India for exhibition or on consignment basis for export promotion.
HIGH COURT CASES
2019-TIOL-1566-HC-KERALA-GST
State Of Kerala Vs West Bengal Lottery Stockists Syndicate Pvt Ltd
GST - First respondent, M/s West Bengal Lottery Stockists Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. had submitted an online application on 16.01.2019 for registration under the CGST Act and in terms of rule 8 of the CGST Rules - they received a notice dated 31.01.2019 from the State Tax Officer seeking additional information viz. documents to prove ownership of business premises and bank details of Directors and documents to prove that they are authorised to deal with the lottery services under the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998; Rules, 2010, Kerala Paper Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2005, Amendment Rules, 2018, direction u/s 10 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, and to submit reply by 08.02.2019; however they received an order dated 02.02.2019 rejecting the application for registration - A writ petition was filed by the respondent seeking relief of declaration that it is a registered dealer and it is entitled to get a certificate of registration; that a direction be issued to the State Tax Officer to issue certificate of registration - in the counter affidavit, it was stated that the petitioner was not entitled to have any deemed registration since they had failed to produce the information as required and which was obligatory under the Act - Single Judge negatived the plea taken that the petitioner is entitled to deemed registration as provided under rule 9(5) on the ground that benefit of such deemed registration is available only if it is proved that there was no action at all taken on the application within three working days from the date of submission of application - Single Judge also held that the writ petitioner will have to satisfy all relevant materials like proving ownership of business through such documents which may be required as also such details which may be required to be furnished under the Act/Rules - Single Judge, therefore, held that the matter should be reconsidered de hors any reasons as stated in the impugned order and a fresh decision shall be taken on submitting the application by the petitioner - State Officials are in appeal against the said order.
Held: Officer concerned is empowered under rule 9(2) to issue notice to a person who has filed application for registration under rule 8 to furnish clarification with regard to any information provided in that application or documents furnished therewith - Such clarification may include information to ascertain the legality of the business proposed to be conducted by the applicant but it does not include furnishing of any documents other than the documents required to be uploaded under Rule 8(4) - Direction contained in the impugned judgment of Single Judge, therefore, requires modification viz. application may be submitted by the first respondent afresh and which shall be considered by the appellants de hors the documents mentioned under Item no. 2 in Ext. P8 notice - however, on verification of such application, if it is found to be deficient in terms of any documents required to be furnished under rule 9(4), the proper officer is entitled to require the first respondent to furnish such document - authority concerned is also entitled to seek clarification with regard to any information provided in the application or documents furnished therewith but such clarification shall not be required to be furnished in the form of any document - Ordered accordingly: High Court [para 26, 27]
- Appeal disposed of : KERALA HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1564-HC-DEL-GST
Blue Bird Pure Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner states that it filled and filed online the GST TRAN-1 Form on 27th December, 2017 - The specific averment is that it committed an inadvertent error in showing the available stock of goods as on 30th June, 2017 in column 7(d) of the Form instead of column 7(a) of the Form - It is stated that as a result of this error, the Petitioner has been unable to avail of the Central GST Credit in respect thereof - It is further averred in the petition that after the due date for filing of the TRAN-1 Form was crossed, the system got locked down at the portal and no taxpayer was able to view/amend their TRAN-1 forms; that the portal opened up on 15th March, 2018 for filing the TRAN-2 Returns; that it was at that stage that the Petitioner realised that it had committed an inadvertent error in the TRAN-1 Form - however, since the system did not permit the Petitioner to revise the TRAN-1 Form, they addressed a representation to Officer, Single Point of Contact (SPOC) Delhi, GST-ITO, admitting to having committed the abovementioned inadvertent error and seeking permission to rectify the mistake - The credit amount involved was Rs.20,34,807/- and consequently on account of inability to avail of the above credit amount, Petitioner was not in a position to file the GSTR-3B returns - Petitioner further states that on the said representation, the GSTO stated that it will be forwarded to the GST Council for further action, however, nothing happened - Petitioner addressed further letters on 19th September, 2018 to SPOC and 24th September, 2018 to the Commissioner, Delhi GST, but was not permitted to rectify the TRAN-1 Form already filed online - An e-mail was addressed to the GSTN Nodal Officer on 22nd October, 2018 explaining the Petitioner's difficulty - since these representations bore no results, the present petition was filed.
Held: Court is unable to find any distinguishing feature that should deny the Petitioner a relief similar to the one granted in the cases of Bhargava Motors - 2019-TIOL-1060-HC-DEL-GST and Kusum Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.- 2019-TIOL-1509-HC-DEL-GST, where, in similar circumstances, the Court issued directions to the Respondents to either open the portal to enable the Petitioner to rectify the TRAN-1 Form electronically or permit the Petitioner to do it manually - Court is satisfied that, although the failure was on the part of the Petitioner to fill up the data concerning its stock in Column 7(d) of Form TRAN-1instead of Column 7(a), the error was inadvertent and, therefore, the Respondents ought to have provided in the system itself a facility for rectification of such errors which are clearly bona fide - Court also notes with some concern that the representations repeatedly made by the Petitioner were not attended to by the Respondents which resulted in the Petitioner having to approach this Court for relief - apprehension of the Respondents that orders of the kind in Bhargava Motors (supra) and Kusum Enterprises(supra) can open the 'flood gates' can easily be allayed by the Respondents themselves if they provide a robust Grievance Redressal Mechanism that can address such genuine grievances of the traders instead of compelling every trader to approach this Court for relief - Court, therefore, directs the Respondents to either open the online portal so as to enable the Petitioner to again file the rectified TRAN-1 Form electronically or accept the manually filed TRAN-1 Form with the correction on or before 31st July, 2019 - Petitioner will correspondingly be permitted to thereafter file the return in TRAN-2 - The penalty and interest for the late filing of GSTR-3B will be waived off in view of the above directions, subject, of course, to the Petitioner being permitted to and in fact filing the rectified TRAN-1 Form as directed - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1563-HC-MAD-GST
Parekh Integrated Services Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE
GST - Writ petitioner filed 'TRAN-01' on 28.9.2017 and received credit amounting to little over Rs.13.21 lakhs in their State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) e-Credit Ledger - aforesaid TRAN-01 was reopened, petitioner re-filed TRAN-01 and they received credit of only Rs.5,17,558/- this time in their SGST e- Credit Ledger - petitioner's say is that they are entitled to a credit of Rs.83,20,469/- - owing to a lesser amount being credited in SGST e-Credit Ledger of writ petitioner, efforts were taken by writ petitioner i.e., correctional measures, but in vain, hence the writ petition - writ petitioner submits that they had entered the details of stock in Column No.10 of TRAN-01 instead of Column No.7.
Held: Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to direct the second respondent now to hear out writ petitioner's authorised representative and pass orders within a fortnight there from on writ petitioner's grievance qua short credit - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 13, 19]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1529-HC-AHM-GST
Dhirendra Singh Vs CCGST
GST - No coercive action to be taken against the writ applicant as they have made out a strong prima facie case - applicant to appear before the authority concerned and make good his stance as regards discharge of entire liability towards the tax: HC
- Interim order passed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1528-HC-AHM-GST
Vishal Steels Vs State Of Gujarat
GST - Truck and the goods came to be seized on 15/05/2019 - authorities concerned straightway invoked section 130 of the GST Act and have initiated confiscation proceedings - Larger issue as regards sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 are being looked into by the High Court - taking into consideration the fact that the amount towards the tax and penalty has been deposited, Court directs the authorities to immediately release the goods in question owned by the writ applicant: HC
- Interim order passed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1527-HC-AHM-GST
Krishna Oleo Chemical India Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Writ applicants have been able to make out a strong prima facie case - respondents shall not take any action as regards cancelling the GST registration of the writ applicants - Interim relief granted: High Court
- Interim relief granted: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1509-HC-DEL-GST
Kusum Enterprises Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - The petitioner company is registered with the VAT and Excise Department - During the relevant period, it claimed to have been unable to carry forward the credit of eligible CGST & SGST duties, claimed by it to be available as on 30.06.2017 - Such discrepancy arose due to technical glitches in the GSTN system.
Held - Directions issued to the Revenue authorities concerned to either open the portal or else enable the petitioners to file Form TRAN-1 electronically, failing which the Revenue must accept manually-filed TRAN-1 forms on or before July 31, 2019: HC
- Writ petitions disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
AAR CASES
2019-TIOL-230-AAR-GST
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation
GST - Online tendering as well as Offline tendering is to be considered as supply of services classifiable under residual services SAC 9997: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2019-TIOL-229-AAR-GST
Mayank Jain
GST - Applicant is a retail chain of digital labs and studios and seeks a ruling as to whether the marketing services to be supplied under the Foreign Immigration Advisor Agreement to the Consultant Manager constitutes a supply of ‘Support services' under SAC 9985 or 'Intermediary service' under SAC 9961/9962; whether handholding services supplied constitute 'Support Services'; whether the Marketing/handholding services will be an export of services.
Held: Marketing Services and Handholding services supplied under Foreign Immigration Advisor Agreement to the Consultant Manager constitutes supply of ‘Intermediary services' SAC 9985 as it satisfies the definition contained in s.2(13) of the IGST Act; such services cannot be considered to be an export of service under s.2(6) of the IGST Act since the place of supply is in within India: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2019-TIOL-228-AAR-GST
Kabra Galaxy Star 3 Co-Op Housing Society
GST - Applicant has sought a ruling as to whether individuals who own flat/s in the society but have opted not to become members of the society, would they be at par with the other individual flat owners who have opted for the membership of the society, for GST exemption of Rs.7500/- or will they be treated as outsider and shall be liable for GST without exemption of Rs.7500/-.
Held: Question posed before the Authority is not in respect of which an advance ruling can be sought under s.97(2) of the GST Act - hence application is not maintainable and rejected: AAR
- Application rejected: AAR
2019-TIOL-227-AAR-GST
Imperial Motor Stores
GST - Electronic cluster is a distinct product having distinct name, use from its components - It is manufactured using various components such as Speedometer, Fuel Gauge, Pointer, Illumination and warning indicator-lamps, temperature gauge, clock, battery voltage level indicator, service or maintenance indication, mean and maximum speed, warning indicators-LED etc. - Cluster is purely a different manufactured product resulted by way of assembling and connecting various components on single electronic platform and which are solely used in vehicles - Classification of Instrument Cluster is covered under HSN 8708 as parts of Motor Vehicles; liable to tax @28% GST: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2019-TIOL-226-AAR-GST
TVH Lumbini Square Owners Association
GST - Applicant, a resident welfare Association registered under the Societies Act has sought a ruling on the question as to whether ‘if the monthly charges payable by a Member of the Association exceeds Rs.7500/- per month, in the context of exemption as per Sl. no. 77 of 12/2017-CTR, the applicant is liable to pay GST only on the amount in excess of Rs.7500/- (effective 25.01.2018)(previously Rs.5000/-) or on the entire amount' - Applicant has also sought to place reliance on the FAQ GST Flyer on Co-operative Societies wherein it is clarified that - "Further, the question would then arise that if the monthly bill is say Rs. 6,000/- (and the same is on account of services for common use of its members), will GST be applicable on Rs. 6,000/- or Rs.1,000/-. In such cases, exemption is available up to an amount of Rs. 5,000/ and GST would be applicable on the amount in excess of Rs.5,000/-".
Held: There is no such clarification in the letter of TRU F.No.332/04/2017 dated 05.09.2017; further, this is an incorrect way of reading the notification - Only services which match the description given in the introduction to 12/2017-CTR are covered under Sl. no. 77(c) of the notification - in the instant case, the exemption is applicable only if the service by the applicant, resident welfare association/housing society to its members by way of reimbursement of charges or share of contribution for sourcing of goods or services from a third person for the common use of its members is up to an amount of Rs.7500 per month per member - In the event, the charges or share of contribution goes above Rs.7500 per month per member, such service will not fit the above description and, hence, such service is not exempt - such services are fully chargeable to GST at the applicable rate - There is no option to the taxpayer to pick and choose from the description of the services mentioned in column (3) to make any service partly applicable to the notification and partly chargeable - Any service either falls within the scope of the description in column (3) or it does not - Therefore, if a service by the applicant to its members by way of reimbursement of charges or share of contribution for sourcing of goods or services from a third person for the common use of its members is such that it is above 7500 rupees per month (earlier Rs.5000 up to 24.01.2018), it squarely falls outside the description of Sl. no. 77(c) of 12/2017-CTR and GST at appropriate rates are to be charged on the full amount of reimbursement of charges or share of contribution: AAR
- Application disposed of :AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING
2019-TIOL-225-AAR-GST
Chowgule Industries Pvt Ltd
GST - Applicant is an authorised dealer for Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. for sale of motor vehicles and spares and for servicing - Applicant seeks a ruling as to whether ITC on the motor vehicle purchased for demonstration purpose can be availed as credit on Capital goods and set off against Output tax payable under GST.
Held: Applicant has purchased the demo vehicles against tax invoices from the supplier after paying taxes - demo vehicle is an indispensable tool for promotion for sale by providing trial runs to the customer - applicant also capitalises the purchase of such vehicles in the books of accounts - such capital goods which are used in the course or furtherance of business is entitled for Input Tax credit and can be set off against Output tax payable under GST: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2019-TIOL-224-AAR-GST
Chowgule And Company Pvt Ltd
GST - Applicant seeks an advance ruling as to whether IGST @5% is applicable on import of iron ore for conversion into pellets and export the resultant product (Iron Ore Pellets) back to the same supplier in view of the fact that import duty is not applicable in view of exemption notification 32/97-Cus for job work; ruling also sought in the matter of entitlement of ITC and entitlement of refund of un-utilized credit.
Held: Applicant is liable to pay IGST on Iron Ore imported into India in accordance with s.3 of the CTA, 1975 on the value as determined and at the point when duties of Customs are levied on the goods under the Customs Act, 1962 - Insofar as applicability of exemption notification 32/1997-Cus is concerned, the same is not issued under the CGST Act, 2017 or the Goa GST Act, 2017 or under the IGST Act, 2017 therefore, Authority has no jurisdiction to decide on the same - As regards the rate of 5% IGST indicated by the applicant, Authority in the absence of any relevant notification quoted by the applicant is unable to give its ruling on the same - On the question of entitlement of Input Tax credit of IGST paid at the time of import, since the imported goods are used in furtherance of business, applicant is eligible to take ITC of the IGST paid - As far as refund of un-utilized ITC, GOI has vide notification 1/2016-Cus dated 04.01.2018 reduced the rate of export duty on Iron Ore Pellets from 5% to Nil - It is a settled law that NIL rate of tax is also a rate of tax - since the goods exported are covered under the Second Schedule of the Export Tariff appended to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the said goods are to be considered as subjected to tax - Exclusion clause provided u/s 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act, 2017 is applicable in the instant case, hence applicant is not eligible for refund of un-utilised Input Tax Credit: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
JEST GST by Vijay Kumar
Who owns GSTN?
ARTICLES
GST - An Agenda for Reforms - Part 47 - Interest Subvention - Subjecting All Receipts to GST
Refund under GST- Interplay of Glitches and Glory
Discounts under GST - Gain with a Pain?
Mandatory pre-deposit for filing of tax appeals: recent SC decision
Implications of GSTR-3B not being a return
Sabka Vishwas - Kuch Clarity Chahiye
ST - An agenda for reforms - Part 46 - Amnesty season - Time to bring Settlement Commission for GST disputes
Post sale discounts (PSD) - Plethora of possible litigation
GST 2 - As I See It - Issues in GST - Points for consideration
