HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-1937-HC-AHM-GST

Super Powder Coating Anodizing And Trading Vs UoI

GST - The petitioner is a dealer registered under the CGST Act 2017 - During the relevant period, it purchased Aluminum section classifiable under Heading 7604 of TGST Tariff - While the goods were in transit, the vehicle was intercepted - The driver of the vehicle was unable to furnish the e-way bill - Hence the vehicle was detained along with the goods - SCN was issued u/s 129(3) of the Act, raising duty demand - Immediately upon the seizure of the vehicle and the goods, SCN was issued proposing confiscation of the goods and imposing penalty u/s 130 of the Act - Hence the present writ was filed.

Held - Identical petitions were filed before this court, claiming that penalty could not have been imposed straightaway, without conduct proper enquiry - All such petitions have been heard & judgment was reserved - This petition too would finally be disposed off in terms of the judgment that may be delivered by this court - Nonetheless, the present circumstances warrant passing of interim orders for releasing the vehicles and the goods as well - Hence, the petitioner is directed to furnish bank guarantee of a certain amount, whereupon the authority concerned shall release the goods and the vehicle - The authority concerned is also directed to not proceed with the SCN issued for confiscation of the vehicles and the goods: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-1936-HC-MUM-GST

Sterlite Technologies Ltd Vs UoI

GST - The present petition was filed to challenge the non-disposal of the petitioner's application for amendment of registration under the CGST Act - It had filed such an application as per Rule 9 of the CGST Rules in November 2017, but the same had not been acted upon yet.

Held - The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the order to the authorities concerned, informing that the petition is fixed for hearing on September 05, 2019 - Should the respondent remain unpresented on such date, the matter would be disposed of after hearing the petitioner: HC

- Case deferred: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-1925-HC-MAD-GST

Nitesh Jain Mangal Chand Vs DGST

GST - The petitioner's premioses were searched during the relevant period, whereupon various documents and electronic devices were seized - The petitioner himself was taken into custody & was later released on bail - The petitioner had sought a copy of the statements recorded from him and also requested access to copies of documents seized from his premises during the search proceedings - However, the same was not allowed, hence leading to the present writ petition.

Held - There is a provision regarding copies of documents seized, contained in Section 67(5) of the CGST Act - Considering such provisions, the officer concerned is directed to dispose of the petitioner's request on merits and within a fortnight's time, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Contentions raised by the petitioner are left open without any opinion being expressed on merits: HC

- Assessee's writ petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-1903-HC-DEL-GST

Sikka Motors Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & ST

GST - The assessee-company claimed to have uploaded its claim for ITC on account of unsold stock as on June 30, 2017 in Form TRAN-1 - The assessee then claimed to have adjusted tax credit against its output tax liability in Form GSTR-3B for the relevant month - The assessee then received an email alleging that it had availed excess ITC and that the same was recoverable from the assessee with interest & penalty - The assessee then reversed the ITC claimed in the returns for the months of July & August 2018 - The assessee claimed to have later received an email mentioning that the issue had been resolved - However, the ITC claimed by the assessee was not reflected in the electronic credit ledger maintained by the Revenue - Hence the assessee made a representation to such end, but received no response - Hence the present writ.

Held - As pointed out in earlier orders of this court, there are technical errors or glitches in the GST system, which is in the 'trial and error' phase - There is merit in the assessee's contention that even if it is unable to connect with the server, then at the end of the Revenue, the fact of a failed attempt at filing return may not even be registered on the system - Besides, the assessee's eligibility to claim ITC is not disputed by the Revenue - It stands settled from several orders of this court that as the entire GST system is still in trial and error phase, it would be too much of a burden to place on the assessee by expecting them to comply with the requirements of law, more so where the assessee is unable to even connect with the system on account of network failures - Hence the Revenue is directed to immediately process the assessee's representation and then either reflect the assessee's ITC claim in the electronic credit ledger or communicate to the assessee the reasons for the inability to do so - The assessee is at liberty to seek legal remedies available to it, if it is aggrieved by any decision taken by the Revenue: HC

Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-1902-HC-DEL-GST

Tyre Plaza Vs UoI

GST - The petitioner herein is a dealer, who was unable to claim transitional credit under the DVAT Act and ITC in Form TRAN-1 - The petitioner claimed that its eligibility to claim ITC was not in doubt, however, despite repeated attempts, it was unable to fule Form TRAN-1 claiming the tax credit - It was also stated that after Dec 27, 2017, the GSTN disallowed any request for online submission of Form TRAN-1 on the GST portal, owing to which some amount of ITC was still outstanding and TRAN-2 could not be submitted - The petitioner further stated that pursuant to certain decision of this court involving similar facts & circumstances, the petitioner too filed Form TRAN-1 manually, claiming an amount of ITC and also duly disclosed the same in the TRAN-1 form - The petitioner also carried forward some amount of ITC and disclosed the same in the TRAN-1 form.

Held - There are various kinds of technical errors or glitches in the GST system, which itself is still in the 'trial and error' phase - There is merit in the petitioner's contentions that it it was unable to even connect with the serverm, then at the Revenue's end, the fact of a failed attempt at filing a return may not even be registered on the system - Besides, the eligiblity of the petitioner to claim ITC is not disputed by the Revenue - Moreover, it has been held in many orders of this court that since the GST system is in a trial and error phase, it would be too much of a burden to place on the petitioner, the burden of complying with the requirement of law, when the petitioner is unable to even connect with the system on account of network failures - The Court urges the ITGRC to review the policy adopted in suchy cases and acknowledge instances such as those in the present case, where the petitioner is unable to connect with the portal, owing to which the fact of a technical glitch is not accounted for in the system - Hence the Revenue is directed to either open the portal to enable the petitioner to file form TRAN-1 again, failing which the Revenue would accept the Form TRAN-1 already filed manually by the petitioner: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-1900-HC-MUM-GST

Raymond UCO Denim Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner challenges the vires of Rule 89 (5) of the CGST Rules on the ground that it runs contrary to the provisions of Section 54 (3) of the Act, 2017 - Petitioner contends that sub-rule (5) of Rule 89 gives the formula for computation of refund of input tax credit and explanation (a) therein excludes input tax service credit from the definition of Net ITC, though it is shown under the turn over of inverted rated supply of goods and services therein.

Held: Notice to be issued to the respondents for final disposal of the matter, returnable on 09.10.2019: High Court [para 4, 5]

- Notice issued: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-1877-HC-MAD-GST

Kwangjin India Authosystems Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissione

GST - It is the case of the writ petitioner that when the writ petitioner became liable to pay GST from July 2017 it choose to pay the tax by way of ITC which stood to its credit as of 30.06.2017 - When the writ petitioner attempted to do so, there was a technical glitch and, therefore, the writ petitioner encountered enormous difficulty having the payments made in such a manner - In support of this submission, writ petitioner drew the attention of the Court to two documents, one is a complaint given by the writ petitioner to the GST Seva Kendra on 18.09.2017 and other is the screen shots of the aborted attempts made by the writ petitioner to pay GST - writ petitioner's case is that the writ petitioner has neither avoided nor evaded payment of GST but could not pay GST solely owing to technical glitch in Department's portal and the writ petitioner took all efforts to have the same redressed/rectified, but in vain - writ petitioner has been called upon to pay interest of little over Rs.1.64 crores (Rs.1,64,49,541 to be precise) towards delay in payment of GST for seven months from July 2017 to January 2018 (both months inclusive).

Held: There is no disputation or disagreement that post January 2018, the technical glitch of Tax Department's portal stood rectified and the writ petitioner has been paying GST through the relevant portal - Therefore, this entire writ petition is confined to payment of interest, for what according to the first respondent is, delayed payment of GST for seven months i.e., July 2017 to January 2018 - It is nobody's case that the writ petitioner did not have enough ITC credit as of 30.06.2017 and it equally nobody's case that the technical glitch is now being used as an excuse for late-payment - Therefore, the whole issue boils down to one question as to whether the writ petitioner encountered technical glitch in payment of monthly GST for the aforesaid seven months i.e., from July 2017 to January 2018 - Prima facie, the aforesaid complaint made by the writ petitioner to the GST Seva Kendra as well as the screen shots which have been reproduced show that the writ petitioner had encountered difficulty, but in the light of the disputation, Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to leave it to the technical body concerned to decide whether there was a technical glitch at all - Petition disposed by directing the Writ petitioner to provide a bank guarantee for Rs.25 lakhs etc. - writ petitioner directed to send a detailed communication addressed to the Principal Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, North Commissionerate, Chennai 34, within one week therefrom setting out details of the technical glitch encountered - the Jurisdictional Principal Commissioner is directed to do the needful in this regard as expeditiously as possible to ensure that the same is reached to the I.T.Grievance Redressal Committee via GSTN, so that the I.T. Grievance Redressal Committee can take a decision on the technical glitch within one week from the date of submission of the representation to the Principal Commissioner - On deposit of 25 lakhs and production of bank guarantee in manner mentioned, the attachment of the writ petitioner's account in second respondent (bank) will stand lifted/raised and the impugned communication dated 03.05.2019 bearing C.No.IV/16/22/2019-GST shall be in kept in abeyance till a decision is taken by the I.T. Grievance Redressal Committee and communicated to the Writ Petitioner in the aforesaid manner and within the aforesaid time frame - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 15, 16, 19, 20]

- Petition disposed of : MADRAS HIGH COURT

 

AAR CASES

2019-TIOL-275-AAR-GST

Rajkot Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd

GST - The applicant is a multi-state Schedule Co-operative Bank - It provides various services under the category of Financial and Related Services classifiable under SAC 997112, 997113, 997119, 997139, 997159 & 997161 and pays duty accordingly - The applicant also provides service of operation of Demat a/c to various account holder as well as to the persons who intends to operate only their Demat a/c - The applicant is running three schemes for the Demat a/c holder, namely Basic Service Demate Account, Rajkot Nagarik Investor Scheme and Rajkot Nagarik Free Scheme - The applicant approached the AAR seeking to know whether Refundable Interest Free Deposit received is to be treated as Supply under the CGST Act & whether the same is taxable in the hands of the applicant - It also seeks to know whether the sum of Rs 2500/- being refundable interest free deposit, which allows the same benefits to the depositor, would attract GST - It also sought to know whether the first 10 free transactions subject to maximum of Rs 5 lakhs allowed to the Demat a/c holder depositing refundable interest free deposit would attract GST.

Held - Regarding the issue of whether Refundable Interest Free Deposit could be treated as supply under the CGST Act, it is held that the monetary value of the act of providing refundable interest free deposit is the consideration for the services provided by the applicant - Hence the sevices provided by the applicant can be treated as supply and taxable in the hands of the applicant: AAR

Held - Regarding the issue as to whether the amount of Rs 2500/- being refundable interest free deposit which allows same benefits to the depositor, would attract GST, it is hels that such amount would not attract GST but the monetary value of the act providing this deposit, will attract GST: AAR

Held - Regarding the issue of GST on first 10 free transactions of maximum of Rs 5 lakhs allowed to Demat a/c holders depositing refundable interest free deposit, it is held that the first 10 free transactions allowed are in the nature of discount - Hence they will not attract GST, conditional upon the fulfilment of the conditions prescribed u/s 15(3) of the CGST Act 2017: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2019-TIOL-274-AAR-GST

East Hooghly Agro Plantatron Pvt Ltd

GST - The applicant-company manufactures Tarpaulin made from High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) woven fabrics - Tarpaulins made from HDPE woven fabric, according to the Applicant, are different from plastic tarpaulins - The former is derived by weaving method using power looms after textile processing and the latter are hot-pressed plastic sheets, cut to shapes and stitched - It approached the AAR seeking to know whether HDPE Woven Tarpaulin classifies as a textile under Section XI of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act 1975 - If so, the applicant sought to know whether such item is classifiable under HSN 6306, 6301 or 5903 of the Tariff Act.

Held - The HDPE fabric coated/covered with LDPE or LLDPE melt, used for manufacturing the tarpaulin, is not textile material classifiable under Heading 5903 - Therefore, Tarpaulin made from such fabrics of the variety supplied by the applicant, does not qualify as Tarpaulin made from textile material - Hence it is not be to be classified under Heading 6306 - Besides, as the fabric is not textile material, the issue of classifying the Tarpaulin made from it as a made-up textile article under Heading 6301 does not arise: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2019-TIOL-273-AAR-GST

Sai Fertilizers Pvt Ltd

GST - The applicant herein is a manufacturer of chemical fertilizers, namely Single Super Phosphate (SSP) classified under HSN 3103 - Such SSP is used for both agricultural as well as industrial purposes - The applicant intends to export such SSP and pay IGST at the applicable rate u/s 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act - Hence it approached the AAR seeking to know the applicable rate of IGST as per Notfn No 1/2017-IT(R) dated 28.06.2017 as amended, in light of Circular No 54/28/2018-GST dated 09.08.2018.

Held - The applicant while exporting Single Super Phosphate shall pay IGST @ 18% as per Sr No 43 of the Schedule III to the Notfn No 1/2017-IT(R) dated 28.06.2017, if it opts for refund in terms of Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2019-TIOL-272-AAR-GST

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd

GST - Applicant is declared, under the Electricity Act, 2003, as a State Transmission Utility by Government of Rajasthan - services of transmission of power by an electricity transmission utility are subject to Nil rate of GST - Applicant is also providing services in the form of Deposit Works for various consumers/intending agencies, which comprise deposit works to the existing transmission of the applicant - sometimes, additions are Mae to the existing transmission system of the applicant or the existing system is modified/augmented/shifted on the specific request of the consumer/intending agency and which is termed as ‘deposit works' - the deposit work to the applicant's transmission system is carried out on the request of the consumer/intending agency under two methods/options i.e. either the whole work is executed by the applicant or the whole work is executed by the consumer/intending agency under the supervision of the applicant - under both options, the ownership of the transmission system after execution of deposit works shall remain with the applicant in the capacity of a State transmission licensee as per the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 - for facilitating such deposit work to the transmission system on the specific request of the consumers/agencies, applicant charges various amounts as a consideration - Facilitating the execution of work (deposit work) by the applicant to the consumer/intending agency is covered under the scope of supply (SAC 998631) in terms of s.7 of the Act - value shall be the transaction value, that is the price actually paid or payable in terms of s.15 of the Act - rate of tax is @18%, 11/2017-CTR: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2019-TIOL-271-AAR-GST

Sanjay Kumar Jain

GST - Applicant is engaged in trading of Cotton seed oil cake (HSN 2306), commonly known as 'khal' in trade parlance - Cotton seed oil cake is not exempted under the GST Act, in general, and is also not covered under 12/2017-CTR, thus being recipient of GTA services, Applicant is liable to pay GST under reverse charge mechanism - contention of applicant that since transportation of food grains, milk and agricultural produce are exempted from GST, therefore, cattle feed and other articles of animal consumption might also be exempt is a purely hypothetical proposition: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2019-TIOL-270-AAR-GST

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd

GST - Supply of principal goods/services along with freight and insurance is a composite supply u/s 2(30) of the Act; GST is chargeable on freight and insurance portion even if shown separately in invoice since there cannot be different types of treatment of tax liability on supply of different goods/services naturally bundled together; where the value of freight as per pre-contracted fixed freight per unit of product is different from the actual cost, higher of the two shall be included in the value of composite supply: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2019-TIOL-269-AAR-GST

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd

GST - Fanta Fruity Orange manufactured and supplied by applicant is classifiable under Tariff Item 2202 99 90 (as Other non-alcoholic beverages, other than tender coconut water) and attracts GST @18% as per Sl. no. 24A of Schedule III of 1/2017-CTR - Fanta Fruity Orange would not fall for classification under 2202 10 as Aerated waters (since Carbon dioxide is added only as a preservative) but under 2202 99; is not a 'Fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks' and would, therefore, not fall under Tariff Item 2202 9920 or under 2202 9910 or 2202 9930 - Even by applying 'common parlance test', the product "Fanta Fruity Orange" would not fall under TI 2202 9920 since the industry refers to the same as 'fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks' differently than the 'fruit juice concentrate based drinks': AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2019-TIOL-268-AAR-GST

Jayesh Anilkumar Dalal

GST - Services provided by applicant can be termed as 'pure services' provided they fulfil the following conditions viz. it excludes WCS, it excludes other composite supplies involving supply of any goods; it is supply of services without involving any supply of goods - service provided is eligible for exemption as per sl. no. 3 of 12/2017-CTR if they are 'pure services' and are provided to Central government, State government or Union territory or local authority or a governmental authority by way of any activity to a Panchayat/Municipality covered under Article 243G/243W of the Constitution: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2019-TIOL-267-AAR-GST

Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd

GST - M/s Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd. (GSFS) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Government of Gujarat and is registered with RBI as a NBFC - It has been given the mandate by the State government to manage the surplus funds of various state owned entities - State government has directed all the State government owned entities to park all their surplus funds with M/s GSFS, applicant - funds received by GSFS from the government entities are provided to the other Gujarat State owned entities who are in need of funds, as loans - Applicant GSFS seeks an advance ruling as to whether in such circumstances, all such Gujarat State owned entities and GSFS become related persons under GST; that since the applicant is not charging any processing fees/any other charges for providing loan to Government of Gujarat State owned entities and interest being charged as full consideration, then as to whether GST will be chargeable on notional processing fees/notional charges.

Held: Relationship between Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd. and Government or Government entities is that of related person as defined u/s 15 of the Act - as there is no other consideration except interest, the services by way of extending deposits, loans or advances provided by M/s GSFS is covered under sub-entry (a) of Entry no. 27 of 12/2017-CTR, attracts Nil GST: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2019-TIOL-266-AAR-GST

Dholera Industrial City Development Project Ltd

GST - Since the applicant is constituted by the participation share of 51% of State Government and 49% of Central Government, they are covered under the definition of government entity - clause (c) of s.17(5) of the Act provides eligibility of ITC in case of WCS where it is an input service for further supply of WCS and, therefore, eligibility can be decided only on case to case basis - As violation charges (for breach of conditions specified in contract) are payable by the contractors, same are required to be treated as consideration and charged to GST - liquidated damages (for not achieving milestone) are also to be treated as consideration and liable to GST in view of clause (e) of Paragraph 5 of Schedule II of the Act - since interest amount received for deferring the liquidated damages recovered from contractors is a part of liquidated damages, therefore, interest is also liable to tax: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2019-TIOL-265-AAR-GST

Chennai Port Trust

GST - Applicant, engaged in supply of port services, seeks a ruling on the question - Whether the amount received on or after 01.07.2017 towards interest, late fee, penalty relating to the services other than continuous supply of services (CSS) rendered by the applicant before 01.07.2017 are liable to GST?

Held: Applicant has collected an amount as interest/late fee/ penalty for the delayed payment of consideration for the original service - This amount was received after 1st July 2017 and separate invoices Rent Claim Advance (RCA) Receipt are raised by the applicant - There is a payment of a separate consideration for this tolerance of delayed payment of lease /rent - This payment is a part of the contract for supply of services of the applicant to the port user in the course of their business - It can be said that as the applicant has tolerated the delayed payment of consideration of lease/rent which the recipients should have paid much before, therefore, this tolerance on the part of the applicant for the delayed payment of lease/rent by collecting an interest/late fee /penalty is a separate supply of service as covered under Section 7(1)(a) of the Acts - this service is squarely covered under the classification scheme of the services [999794: Agreeing to tolerate an act] - Further, the consideration for this was received and the invoice (RCA) raised both only after 1st July 2017 - Accordingly, the time of supply for this supply will be determined by Section 13(2) depending on the facts in each case - In any case, it would be after 1st July 2017 and hence, this supply is liable to GST: AAR [para 8.3, 9]

- Application disposed of: AAR

2019-TIOL-264-AAR-GST

Chennai Port Trust

GST - Applicant is engaged in supply of port services and seeks a ruling on whether they are entitled to take credit of Input Tax charged on inward supply of Medical and diagnostic equipment, Medical apparatus & instruments, medical consumables & disposable items and other machinery installed in the in-house hospital, Spares for medical and diagnostic equipment, medical apparatus & instruments and other machinery installed in the in-house hospital and Repairing Services of medical and diagnostic equipment, medical apparatus & instruments and other machinery installed in the in-house hospital. Held:  Applicant has their own in-house hospital for use by the employees, retirees and their dependents - same is a free center where all the services and medicines are provided free to the employees and no consideration is charged from the employees for these services - such provision of free medical care is mandatory as per the Regulations made under Major Ports Act - Such treatments includes the use of medical, diagnostic equipment, apparatus, instruments, consumables, disposables, spares and repairing services for these - since such medical facilities are provided by the applicant to its employees for their personal use, therefore, as per Section 17(5)(g) of the Act, input tax credit is not available for the medical, diagnostic equipment, apparatus, instruments, consumables, disposables, spares and repairing services that the applicant is procuring: AAR ITC - Applicant states that these are not "goods or services for personal consumption" as the applicant pays for the same - However, this argument does not hold any water since the fact of who pays for the goods & facilities here is irrelevant to the usage of the same - Inasmuch as such medical, diagnostic equipment, apparatus, instruments, consumables, disposables, spares and repairing services are used by the employees and dependents and hence are for personal consumption and the applicant is ineligible to take input tax credit on the inward supply of such goods and services: AAR [para 8.2, 9] - Application disposed of: AAR

2019-TIOL-263-AAR-GST

Chennai Port Trust

GST - Applicant is engaged in supply of port services and seeks a ruling on whether they are entitled to take credit of Input Tax charged on inward supply of medicines. Held: Applicant has their own in-house hospital for use by the employees, retirees and their dependents - same is a free center where all the services and medicines are provided free to the employees and no consideration is charged from the employees for these services - such provision of free medical care is mandatory as per the Regulations made under Major Ports Act - Such medicines and medical facilities are provided by the applicant to its employees for their personal use, therefore, as per Section 17(5)(g) of the Act, input tax credit is not available for the medicines that the applicant is procuring: AAR ITC - Applicant states that these are not "goods for personal consumption" as the applicant pays for the same - However, this argument does not hold any water since the fact of who pays for the medicines here is irrelevant to the usage of the said medicines - Inasmuch as such medicines are used by the employees and dependents and hence are for personal consumption and the applicant is ineligible to take input tax credit on the inward supply of medicines: AAR [para 8.2] - Application disposed of: AAR

2019-TIOL-262-AAR-GST

Prism Fluids LLP

GST - Applicant seeks a ruling on the rate of tax on ‘Oil Lubrication Systems' and its HSN code. Held: To arrive at the classification and the applicable rate of tax, the applicant during the hearing undertook to submit the technical write-up, along with usage, drawings, description of each component for each of the categories option that a buyer can buy - The said details are necessary to arrive at the proper classification and the rate of tax - However, the applicant after being extended enough opportunities has not furnished the required documents and in these circumstances, the Ruling sought for by the applicant cannot be given for want of the necessary technical details - Application rejected: AAR [para 5, 6]

- Application rejected: AAR

2019-TIOL-261-AAR-GST

Macro Media Digital Lmaging Pvt Ltd

GST - Applicant is engaged in the business of printing of trade advertisement material using printing ink and base material and the content of which is provided by the recipient - applicant seeks to know the classification of the Trade advertisement material.

Held: Applicant being a printer of trade advertising material classifiable under heading 4911 of the Tariff Act is making a composite supply, where the service of printing is the principal supply - goods supplied having no use other than displaying the printed matter is ancillary to the principal supply of printing - service of printing is classifiable under SAC 9989 and taxable under Sl. No. 27(i) of 11/2017-CTR: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2019-TIOL-260-AAR-GST

Siemens Ltd

GST - Applicant received Rs. 16.33 crores on 24.06.2011 as mobilisation advance which was 10% of the original contract value for design, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of the power supply and distribution system, third rail system and SCADA system for the entire line and depot of the Kolkata East-West Metro Rail Project - the lump-sum mobilisation amount so received is recoverable as adjustment towards the payment due for the tax invoices that the applicant raises on attaining contract progress milestones - of the total lump-sum, an amount of Rs.13.80 crores is stated to be outstanding as on 30.06.2017 and applicant wishes to know the GST implication on the lump-sum so received before the implementation of GST and its recovery by KMRCL against the applicant's sales invoices issued post introduction of GST - more specifically, the applicant wants to know whether GST shall be charged on the gross amount of the invoice or the net amount after adjusting the Lum-sum amount outstanding as on 30.06.2017.

Held: Since the question touches upon the issue of time and value of supply, questions raised are admissible u/s 97(2)(c) of the Act - Applicant is deemed to have supplied Works Contract Service to KMRCL on 01.07.2017 to the extent covered by the lump-sum amount that stood credited to its account on that date as mobilisation advance and GST is leviable thereon accordingly - Value of the supply of Works Contract service in the subsequent invoices as and when raised should, therefore, be reduced to the extent of the advance adjusted in such invoices - GST should, therefore, be charged on the net amount that remains after such adjustment: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2019-TIOL-259-AAR-GST

TP Roy Chowdhury And Company Pvt Ltd

GST - Applicant is stated to be acting as a Stevedore and handles imported raw whole yellow peas and seeks a ruling as to whether such imported yellow peas are 'agricultural produce' and services by way of handling of the same is eligible for exemption under Sl. N o. 54(e) of 12/2017-CTR.

Held: Applicant supplies the service of loading, unloading etc. after the cargo of yellow peas imported from a foreign land, reaches the port of entry - produce has been procured from the farmers in foreign land and exported to India - CBIC Circular 16/16/2017 clarifies that the process of de-husking or selling of pulses is usually not carried out by farmers or at the farm level but by the pulse millers and, therefore, such products are not to be considered as 'agricultural produce' - the emphasis, therefore, is on the processes and services that are applied till the goods are at the farmer's hand - as soon as they leave the farmer's hand and the primary market, the services rendered thereafter are not to be considered related to cultivation of plant and classifiable under SAC 9986 - clearly, it is, whether processed in a mill is no longer in the domain of the primary market or at the farmer's hand - exemption under Sl. N o. 54(e) of 12/2017-CTR is not available to applicant's services: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2019-TIOL-258-AAR-GST

Novel Engineering And Technical Works Pvt Ltd

GST - West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. has awarded to Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad the work of evacuation and disposal of settled ash from the ash ponds/decantation ponds of Kolaghat Thermal Power Station - PMZP is in the process of engaging agencies for execution of the aforesaid work which the applicant intends to execute - Applicant seeks to know the classification of the supply and whether it is exempt under Sl. no. 3 or 3A of 12/2017-CTR and whether it has any liability to pay GST when WBPDCL is paying tax on reverse charge basis in terms of Sl. no. 5 of 13/2017-CTR.

Held: Execution of above work is an activity in relation to the functions entrusted to a Panchayat under Article 243G of the Constitution - Supply of goods, if any, is incidental to the main supply and does not constitute any significant percentage - Applicant's supply is a composite supply classifiable under SAC 995433 and is exempt under Sl. no. 3A of 12/2017-CTR: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

 

AAAR CASE

2019-TIOL-67-AAAR-GST

GST - Delay of 13 days in filing appeal - Section 100(2) of the Act - Considering the fact that the appellant is a registered society by MPEDA, an autonomous body created by an Act of Parliament and following the decision of Hon'ble S.C. in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs. Subrata Borah Chowlek = 2010-TIOL-134-SC-CUS, Appellate authority condones the delay: AAAR [para 9]

GST - Counsel for the appellant in his written submissions at paragraph 4 has cast aspersions and alleges 'clear bias towards revenue' by the AAR - It is found that the allegation is baseless and uncalled for - It is hoped that better counsel would prevail in future and decorum of language will be maintained: AAAR [para 15]

GST  - Fish seeds, prawn/shrimp seeds are classifiable under 0301 and exempted in terms of sl. No. 18 of 2/2017-CTR - AAR order upheld: AAAR

GST  - Live fish is classifiable under 0301 and exempted in terms of sl. No. 19 of 2/2017-CTR - AAR order upheld: AAAR

GST  - Artemia cysts are classifiable under 0511 and taxable @2.5% CGST, sl. No. 21 of 1/2017-CTR - AAR order upheld: AAAR

GST - Research and development activities of applicant towards breeding, developing new species, genetic testing of seeds and adults of diversified aquaculture species, gene sequencing for confirmation of species is classifiable under SAC 9981, taxable at 9% CGST, sl. No.18 of 11/2017-CTR - AAR order upheld: AAAR

GST  - Consultancy services provided by applicant towards nursery technology, cage farming hatching etc. which are support services for rearing of fish, crab, prawn etc. are classifiable under SAC 9986 and exempted from GST by sl. No. 54 of 12/2017-CTR - AAR order upheld: AAAR

GST - Testing for pathogens in soil, water, feed etc. and chemical analysis of water and soil and gene sequencing of pathogens is classifiable under SAC 9983, attracts 9% CGST, sl. No. 21 of 11/2017-CTR - AAR order upheld: AAAR

GST - Training services provided to farmers, hatcheries are support services for rearing of fish, crab, prawn etc. and are agricultural extension services covered under SAC 9986 and exempted under sl. No. 54 of 12/2017-CTR - AAR order upheld: AAAR

GST -  Training of students, academia who are not directly involved in rearing of fish, aquaculture etc. is classifiable under SAC 9992 and taxable @9% CGST, sl. No. 30 of 11/2017-CTR - AAR order upheld: AAAR

GST -  Applicant is liable to be registered u/s 22 of the Act and shall obtain registration in every such State or Union Territory in which he is so liable: AAAR

- Appeal rejected: AAAR

 

 

NOTIFICATION

ROD-07/2019

GIC extends due date for filing GSTR-9 & 9C from Aug 31 to Nov 30 by issuing Removal of Difficulty order

 

ARTICLES

GSTR 9 & 9C Extension of due date - A cause to rejoice?

GST - An agenda for reforms - Part 52 - Immunizing GST from overreach & tax terrorism

Need for expansive definition of 'ASSESSMENT' in GST laws

Does ' Sabka Vishwas Scheme' provide solution to Sabka problems?