CGST RULE NOTIFICATION

37/2019

Seeks to extend the due date for furnishing FORM GSTR-3B for the month of July, 2019.

36/2019

Seeks to extend the date from which the facility of blocking and unblocking of e-way bill facility as per the provision of Rule 138E of CGST Rules, 2017 shall be brought into force to 21.11.2019

 

GST CASES

HIGH COURT CASES

2019-TIOL-1894-HC-KERALA-GST

Subramania Industries Vs ASTO

CGST - Petitioner challenges the notices issued by the respondent u/s 129(3) of the Act, that the order of detention made u/s 129(1) of the Act is illegal and without jurisdiction - Counsel for the Revenue objects to the maintainability of the writ petition; that admittedly at the time of inspection or detention of goods the transporter could not produce all the documents required for establishing that the goods is under valid transit; that detention order cannot and could not be treated as final, for section 129 deals with and provides for not only detention but also for release of goods, subject to the petitioner complying with the mandate of Section 129 of the Act; that if the petitioner insists for the release of goods, the petitioner should furnish the bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount demanded and the authority does not have difficulty in releasing the detained goods forthwith - Petitioner submits that they have no difficulty in furnishing the bank guarantee.

Held: Issues raised are at preliminary stage and Court is not convinced to entertain the writ petition and adjudicate upon merits at this stage - To conform to the scheme under the Act, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit bank guarantee for the tax and penalty and apply for release of goods by enclosing a copy of this order within two days - The 2nd respondent shall release the goods detained and subjected to enquiry within twelve hours from the date and time of receipt of bank guarantee; that the bank guarantee shall be kept valid for six weeks; that the 2nd respondent shall complete the enquiry, afford fair and reasonable opportunity as envisaged under the Act to petitioner and pass and communicate this order within four weeks; that if the 2nd respondent fails to pass the order as directed, the petitioner is not under obligation to keep the bank guarantee alive beyond six weeks: High Court [para 5]

- Petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-1893-HC-AHM-GST

Valerius Industries Vs UoI

GST - Order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer dated 17.6.2019 in Form GST DRC-07 - Bench is of the view that the writ applicant has been able to make out a strong prima facie case to have an interim order in his favour - therefore, order passed in Form GST DRC-07 shall remain stayed from its operation, implementation and execution: High Court

- Interim order passed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-1892-HC-AHM-GST

Navkar Ispat Pvt Ltd Vs State Of Gujarat

GST - Writ applicant seeks to challenge the action of the respondent in collecting the amount of Rs.10,14,035/- allegedly under coercion - During the course of spot visit carried out by the Department on 04/04/2019 under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, the amount referred to above was recovered on the premise that certain Input Tax Credit was not allowable and that there was some difference in the stock - It is the case of the writ applicant that the amount, which came to be recovered from him, is without any authority of law or without following any due procedure in that regard - Petitioner requests for a direction to the department to frame the assessment or the provisional assessment at the earliest.

Held: Bench is of the view that the respondents should, at the earliest, frame the assessment in accordance with law - exercise to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order and once the assessment is framed, it would be open for the writ applicant to thereafter proceed further in accordance with law - writ application disposed of: High Court [para 6, 7]

- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-1891-HC-AHM-GST

Adani Wilmar Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner seeking a declaration that the Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as amended vide Notification No.21/2018 Central Tax, dated 18.4.2018 and Notification No. 26/2018 Central Tax, dated 13.6.2018 to the extent that the said provision denies grant of the refund of the unutilized tax credit in respect of the tax paid on input services is ultra vires to the Constitution of India and provisions of the Central and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Prima facie, Bench is inclined to issue a Notice returnable on 21.08.2019: High Court

- Notice issued: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-1881-HC-RAJ-GST

Bharat Raj Punj Vs CCGST

GST - The present application was filed seeking rectification of errors in an order passed by this court - The applicant claimed that in the relevant portion of the order, certain contentions raised by the cousel for the Department, have been mentioned as having been raised by the applicant's counsel.

Held - The Department's case was that ITC was claimed by the applicant, by means of fake invoices - Such allegations made by the Department were not controverted by the applicant - Hence the remaining portion of the High Court's judgment needs no correction: HC

- Application partly allowed: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-1862-HC-MUM-GST

GM Syntex Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And CE

GST - Petitioner challenges the rejection of refund claim on the basis of an explanation to Rule 93 of the CGST Rules and MGST Rules.

Held: Since Respondents had not appeared despite intimation, matter adjourned by a period of two weeks - if Revenue remains unrepresented, Bench would consider the petition on its own merits and on the basis of submissions made in support - petitioner to serve order upon respondents - stand over to 29 August 2019: High Court

- Matter adjourned: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 

AAAR CASES

2019-TIOL-66-AAAR-GST

GST - AAR held that a ctivity of supply, design, installation, commissioning and testing of solar energy based water pumping systems and O&M work is a Works Contract of Composite supply; that predominant supply being a supply of services, the supply proposed to be undertaken for a Government department (P.H.E.D) is taxable under  HSN Code 99544,   Entry no. 3(iii), 11/2017-CTR, @ 12% - appeal to AAAR.

Held:  Solar energy based  bore well  water pumping system  deserves classification under entry no. 234 of 1/2017-CTR as 'Solar Power based devices'; activities of supply, design, installation, commissioning and testing of solar energy based water pumping systems, whose time of supply falls after 31.12.2018 are both, supply of goods and supply of services in terms of Entry no. 234 (1/2017-CTR) and read with Entry no. 38 (11/2017-CTR) with rate of GST as prescribed under these entries - AAR ruling dated 31.01.2019 is accordingly modified: AAAR

- Appeal disposed of: AAAR

2019-TIOL-65-AAAR-GST

GST - AAR held that i n the GST regime, SGST and CGST charged for the services provided and availed in a State would be eligible for ITC within that particular state where such services are provided and consumed - that in the application made, since the supplier of services and place of supply both are outside the state of Rajasthan, Input Tax credit of Central Tax paid in Haryana is not available to the applicant who is registered in the State of Rajasthan - appeal to AAAR.

Held:  Appellant is asking for the ITC of only Central tax paid in Haryana which means that they are sure that ITC of the State GST paid in Haryana is not admissible to them - If any event attracts Central GST, it would also  attract  State GST and from this it naturally flows that if ITC of State GST is not admissible, ITC of Central GST should also not be admissible - Crux of the matter is that for a person registered in Rajasthan, Central GST or Central tax is a tax levied u/s 9 of CGST Act on supplies having both location of the supplier and place of supply in Rajasthan - it, therefore, becomes absolutely clear that ITC of the Central GST or Central tax would be available to a person registered in Rajasthan if the location of the supplier and place of supply of the services are in Rajasthan - that is, ITC of the Central tax charged from the appellant (registered in Rajasthan) in Haryana for procuring services of short term accommodation (hotel) is not available to them as in this case both the location of the supplier and place of supply of the services are in the State of Haryana - AAR ruling upheld and appeal dismissed: AAAR

- Appeal dismissed: AAAR

2019-TIOL-64-AAAR-GST

GST - Applicant is engaged in the business of mining of soapstone and dolomite and royalty on behalf of the State government is collected by M/s Shivganga Minerals P Ltd. from applicant - AAR held that the activity undertaken is leasing or rental services classifiable under SAC 9973 37, Sr. no. 17(viii) of 11/2017-CTR, @18% GST under reverse charge mechanism - appeal to AAAR.

Held:  Appellant is not sure as to which sub-entry of Entry no. 17 of notification 11/2017-CTR is applicable in their case and are pursuing each and every sub-entry which prescribes minimum rate of tax i.e. rate of tax equal to the rate on supply of soapstone and dolomite which is 5% - AAAR has no hitch in determining that the impugned service is covered under the revised entry no. (viii) of 11/2017-CTR with the service description 'Leasing or rental services, with or without operator, other than (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) and (visa) above” attracting GST @18%: AAAR

- Appeal dismissed: AAAR

2019-TIOL-63-AAAR-GST

Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd

GST - AAR had held that Power bank traded by the applicant/appellant is correctly classifiable under heading 8507 as Accumulator [@28% GST] and not as a Static Converter [Heading 8504] - Appeal to AAAR.

Held: Power banks consists of not only the Lithium-ion Polymer battery but also the circuitry such as 'charge management system' and 'voltage boost converter' - admittedly, it is not the battery alone that makes up a Power bank - mere fact that there is a converter in the Power bank will not make it a Static converter - primary difference between the Static converter and the Accumulator is the fact of storage of electrical energy - it is not the function of converting the direct current from its input supply to its output device by stepping up the voltage which characterises an accumulator - critical aspect of storage of electrical energy is what distinguishes an accumulator from a static converter and, therefore, power bank traded by the appellant is classifiable as an accumulator under chapter heading 85.07 - from the changes to the GST rates by virtue of notification 24/2018-ITR, it is seen that the goods "Lithium-ion battery" and "Lithium-ion accumulator including Lithium-ion power bank" were carved out from the original category "Electrical accumulators" - Li-ion battery was classified under 8507 60 00 while Li-ion Power bank was classified under 85.07 and which corroborates the finding that Power Bank was always considered as an accumulator and never a Static Converter: AAAR

- Appeal dismissed: AAAR

2019-TIOL-62-AAAR-GST

Nuetech Solar Systems Pvt Ltd

GST - Appeal against order dated 31.12.2018 passed by AAR - Appeal filed on 29.05.2019.

Held: Appellate authority being a creature of statute is empowered to condone a delay of only a period of 30 days after the expiry of the initial period of thirty days for filing appeal - to hold that the Appellate authority could entertain an appeal beyond the extended period mentioned in the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 100 of the CGST Act would render the phrase "not exceeding thirty days" wholly otiose - as Authority is not empowered to condone the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal, the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal is rejected - consequently, the appeal cannot be allowed to be presented on account of time limitation and the question of discussing the merits of the case also does not arise - appeal dismissed: AAAR

- COD application/Appeal dismissed: AAAR

 

AAR CASE

2019-TIOL-257-AAR-GST

Emmbi Industries Ltd

GST - Applicant is manufacturing and supplying products for water conservation and other water preserving products which are predominantly used for agricultural sector - applicant seeks classification of the product namely 'Geo-membrane for water proof lining Type-II" [IS 15351:2015] which is used for water proof lining of ponds, canals and other water storage places - said products are also called as Pond liners and are specific laminated high density polyethylene woven geo-membrane for water proof lining - in the States with scanty rainfall, the said pond liners are primarily used by agricultural sector for water preservation.

Held: While deciding classification of composite articles of plastics made out of a combination of plastic and non-plastic materials, according to Bombay-I Collectorate Trade notice no. 128/88 dated 06.09.1988, classification would depend on the predominance of such composite articles of plastics, keeping in view the Rules of Interpretation to the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 - while deciding the classification of such products, due regard is also to be given of the trade identity of the produce i.e. how the same is known in the commercial/trade parlance - in view thereof, the Laminated High Density Poly Ethylene HDPE Woven Geo-membrane for water proof lining - IS: 15351:2015 made from HDPE Tapes/Strips of less than 5 mm and specially woven fabrics from the said HDPE Tapes/Strips and subjected to LDPE coating and lamination referred as Sandwich lamination and further fit for using as Pond liner are laminated textile products and is correctly classifiable under HSN Code 5911: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

 

GST NOTIFICATION

Govt notifies GSTAT benches for all States & UTs

Govt notifies Rules for appointment & service conditions of GSTAT President & Members

 

ARTICLES

GST - An agenda for reforms - Part 51 - Adjudication - Jurisdiction and circular on monetary limits

DTC leveraging Tax Technology - Idea whose Time has come!

JEST GST by Vijay Kumar

GST Inspector Jest with Amitabh Bachchan in KBC