FLASH NEWS
GST Council may grant waiver of penalty and interest in Advance Authorisation Scheme related cases + issues relating to GSTR-9 & 9C + several amendments in Acts & Rules
GST Council may extend due date for GSTR-3B for Jan month till March 31 + may extend present return format of GSTR-3B & GSTR-1 till September 2020
GST - Taxability of economic surplus earned by brand owners of alcoholic liquor for human consumption may be taken up by Council at March 14 meeting
GST Council may decide State & Area Benches of GST Appellate Tribunal for UP
GST Council all set to defer e-Wallet Scheme and extend duty exemption for exporters
TOP NEWS
GST - ITC fraud - 30 fake firms busted
DGGI books fraudulent IGST refund case
Registration for GST, PF & ESI for New Companies - MCA Portal completes integration
HIGH COURT CASES
2020-TIOL-562-HC-DEL-GST
RR India Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents, in pursuance of the search operation which was conducted between 01.11.2019 and 30.11.2019, at various places of the petitioner, under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, proceeded to issue provisional attachment orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act dated 02.12.2019 and 03.12.2019, which have also been impugned in the present petition - petitioner states that bank accounts have been attached under Section 83 of the Act; that they had filed objections to the original attachment, which have been rejected vide order No. 01/2020 dated 06.02.2020, only on the ground that the petitioner had not moved under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules within a period of 7 days of attachment - Petitioner further submits that under the CGST Act or Rules, there is no provision which mandates the filing of objections to provisional attachment within 7 days and that no consequence of delay in filing objections is provided; that the respondent does not suffer any adverse consequence on account of delay on the part of the objector in moving the objections which is beyond the period of 7 days of the date of the provisional attachment - Counsel for Respondent Revenue submitted that petitioners are bound to comply with the letter of the law and since sub-Rule 5 of Rule 159 stipulates that the person whose property is attached, may within 7 days of attachment under sub-Rule (1), file an objection, the petitioner ought to have filed the same within the aforesaid stipulated period, however, since, admittedly, the objections were preferred beyond the period of 7 days, respondent were bound to reject the same.
Held: It is clear that the period of 7 days prescribed in Rule 159(5) of CGST Rules, 2017 is a directory and not a mandatory period, therefore, on account of delay on the part of the objector, if he prefers his objections beyond the period of 7 days, the objections cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation - No consequence is prescribed either in the Act or in the Rules to say that if the objections are not preferred within 7 days, they shall not be entertained - Moreover, it is the objector who would suffer adverse consequence on account of delay on his part in raising the objections - The respondents do not suffer any adverse consequence on account of delay, if any, in moving the objections - Bench, therefore, holds that the period of 7 days prescribed in Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules for moving the objections to the provisional attachment is merely directory and not mandatory - Objections raised by the petitioner, therefore, could not be rejected on that ground alone - Order No. 1/2020 dated 06.02.2020 is accordingly set aside and the proceedings are remanded to the authority concerned for passing a fresh order on the merits of the objections - Officer concerned is directed to pass a fresh reasoned order within two weeks - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 9 to 11]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-561-HC-KOL-GST
Rishi Graphics Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Though the time-limit for uploading of TRAN-1 is extended till March 31, 2020, sub-rule 1A of Rule 117 extends this benefit only to those registered persons who could not upload the form in time on account of technical difficulties on the common portal and in respect of whom, the GST Council forwards a recommendation for extension - In the present case, the request of the petitioners has not been accepted by the respondent authorities and, therefore, the benefit of the extension till March 31, 2020 is not available to these petitioners - Therefore, the petitioners have filed Writ petitions with a prayer for allowing them to file/upload GST TRAN-1.
Held: Request of the petitioners before the authorities along with the averments made in the writ petitions to the effect that they faced technical glitches are sufficient - Bench is of the view that assessees transitioning into a new procedure set out under the GST regime are bound to face complications and in some cases may be completely unable to carry out the new procedure - Bench, therefore, finds no reason to take a different view from that of the judgments cited by the petitioners - A procedural law should not take away the vested rights of persons that are provided to them by statute - Needless to mention, this vested right is subject to scrutiny by the Department, therefore, the petitioners should be allowed to upload the TRAN-1/revised TRAN-1 so that their claim of transfer of available credit may be considered by the authorities in accordance with law - GSTN authorities (Authority that manages the portal) are directed to open the portal for the petitioners till March 31, 2020 - Writ petitions are disposed of: High Court [para 4, 11, 12, 13]
- Petitions disposed of: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-554-HC-KERALA-GST
Phoenix Rubbers Vs CTO
GST - 4th respondent had issued notice dated 13.1.2019 to the petitioner proposing to cancel the registration under Sec. 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act on account of the alleged non filing of the returns for a continuous six months' period - Thereafter, the 4th respondent has passed the impugned order ordering the cancellation of registration of the petitioner firm under Sec. 29(2) (c) of the CGST Act – Petitioner submits that there was only 5 months' continuous default and not the mandatory six months' continuous default in filing the returns as envisaged in Sec. 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act and, therefore, the impugned order is illegal and ultra vires and is liable to be interdicted by this Court; that order directing cancellation of the registration of the petitioner was rendered on 10.12.2019 and that on 10.12.2019, the petitioner had filed returns for the month of May, 2019.
Held : Court would certainly say that the 4th respondent cannot be faulted for having passed an order in the nature of Ext.P-3 on 10.12.2019, because he was totally unaware that the petitioner would indeed file return for the month of May, 2019 on 10.12.2019, etc. - Sec. 29(2)(c) mandates power for the cancellation of registration in a case where there is continuous six months' default on the part of the assessee in filing the returns - Since the competent official is obliged to issue a notice in the nature of Ext.P-1 before he passes final orders, it goes without saying that the requirement of 6 months' continuous period should be fulfilled both at the time of issuance of the abovesaid notice in terms of the proviso to Sec. 29(2) of the CGST Act read with Rule 22 of the CGST Act, but also at the stage of passing the final order cancelling the registration as per Sec. 29(2)(c) - In the instant case, the jurisdictional fact regarding the six months' continuous default on the part of the assessee is certainly fulfilled at the time of issuance of Ext.P-1 show cause notice dated 13.11.2019 - Whereas, the said vital requirement of jurisdictional fact is non-existent as on the date of issuance of the impugned Ext.P-3 cancellation order dated 10.12.2019 - If that be so, it is only to be held that the impugned order as per Ext.P-3 is illegal and ultra vires and is liable to be interdicted by this Court - Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P-3 order will stand quashed - Writ Petition (Civil) stands disposed of: High Court [para 9, 11, 12]
- Petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-535-HC-KERALA-GST
Daily Fresh Fruits India Pvt Ltd Vs ASST STO
GST - According to the petitioner, the carbonated fruit drinks manufactured by them was classified under HSN 2202 9920 and they were discharging GST @ 12% on all intra State and inter-State supplies - On earlier occasions, the petitioner had also brought the aforementioned drinks within the jurisdiction of Kerala and the vehicles carrying the aforementioned goods were intercepted on the premise that the aforementioned goods were wrongly classified, in fact they would be falling under the head 2202 10, for which the GST rate is 28% - Though against the aforementioned detention, the petitioner after paying the tax and penalties, obtained the release of the vehicles, this time again on 31st January 2020, the goods of similar nature being brought within the jurisdiction of the Kerala State were intercepted and detained on the same premise - action of the authorities in detention has been assailed in the present writ petition.
Held: Transit of goods from Tamil Nadu to Kerala, reflecting the payment of Goods and Services Tax as 12% in categorizing drink under the code 2202 9920 are not in dispute - The only point to be pondered is whether the Officers of Kerala would have a jurisdiction to detain and seize the goods or at the best could have intimated the jurisdictional Officer in Tamil Nadu to initiate proper proceedings against the petitioner in view of the report - It is evident that Section 129 opens with a non obstante clause empowering the Officers to detain and seize the goods, if it found to be in contravention of any of the any of the provisions of the Act and release of the vehicles, as per the conditions, enumerated, therein - In case of a bonafide dispute with regard to the classification between a transitor of the goods and the squad officer, the squad officer may intercept the goods and detain them for the purpose of preparing the relevant papers for effective transmission to the jurisdictional assessing officers and nothing beyond - In the present case, it is a case of bonafide miscalculation as to whether the goods would be exigible to 12% or 28% - the charging provisions must be construed strictly but not the machinery provisions which would be construed like any other statute - The upshot of the reasoning aforementioned is that the impugned order of detention and consequential notice in Form GST MOV-07 are not sustainable and hereby quashed - The goods are directed to be released to the petitioner with a further direction that the inspecting authority of Kerala would prepare a report and submit the same to the assessing authority, Tamil Nadu for taking action, if deem it appropriate, in accordance with law: High Court [para 5, 6, 7, 8]
- Petition allowed: KERALA HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-534-HC-KERALA-GST
Joint Commissioner Vs Alpha Trading Company
GST - Challenge is by Revenue against a common interim order passed by Single Judge observing that the respondent officers need to take steps to facilitate the writ petitioners for uploading 'FORM GST TRAN-1', in compliance with the directions contained in the earlier judgments - appellants contend that the direction in the earlier judgments was only to the extent of permitting the respective writ petitioners therein to approach the Nodal Officer appointed on the basis of Circular No.39/13/2018-GST, dated 03.04.2018 and, therefore, the observations made in the interim order impugned in these appeals, that the 'FORM GST TRAN-1' should be permitted to be uploaded by the petitioners herein, cannot be legally sustainable.
Held: Division Bench notes that the challenge in these appeals are against an interim order which does not contain any specific directions - There is nothing to presume that the Single Judge will not consider such submissions of the appellants, if made with supporting materials - Of course, contention of the appellants will be subject to what the respondents have to say on the issue, before the Single Judge - At any rate, Bench does not think an interference with the impugned order is warranted in these appeals - Writ appeals are dismissed by reserving liberty to the appellants to raise all the contentions raised herein before the Single Judge, in seeking modification of the impugned interim order, if found necessary: High Court [para 3]
- Appeals dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT
NAA CASES
2020-TIOL-13-NAA-GST
Director General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs Mcnroe Consumer Products Pvt Ltd
GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant has alleged profiteering by the respondent in respect of supply of Deodorant 'Wild Stone Deo Chrome BX 120ml' - applicant alleges that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in GST rate from 28% to 18% w.e.f 15.11.2017 (41/2017-CTR) inasmuch as they had increased the base price of the said deodorant to maintain the same MRP of Rs.250/- - DGAP had in its first report computed the profiteered amount as Rs.21,94,96,828/- but in their supplementary report dated 27.02.2020 revised the same to Rs.21,84,79,790/- after re-examining some of the contentions of the respondent.
Held: DGAP has not acted as a price regulator but only computed the profiteered amount, the benefit of which the respondent has not passed on to his customers - DGAP has neither examined the process of price fixation adopted by the respondent nor asked him to fix his prices as per his directions and hence there has been no infringement of fundamental right of the respondent to decide his selling price - respondent has full freedom to fix his prices, however, he cannot appropriate the benefit of tax reduction or refuse to pass on the benefit of tax reduction - uncanny increase by the respondent of the base prices on the intervening night of 14/15.11.2017 was made with the sole intention of denying the benefit of tax reduction to the buyers - loss making concerns are also legally bound to pass on the benefit of tax reduction and they cannot appropriate the same against their losses - objective of the anti-profiteering provisions is to protect the interest of the customers, therefore, it is the responsibility of the anti-profiteering mechanism to ensure that the benefits of tax reduction and ITC are passed on to the unorganised, voiceless and vulnerable customers and the suppliers are not allowed to misappropriate them - respondent cannot deny the benefit of tax reduction by taking shelter of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as DGAP has not interfered with the right of the respondent to fix the prices of his products - Mere charging of GST @18% post rate reduction does not amount to passing on the benefit of rate reduction when the base price has been increased to offset the benefit - comparison of the base prices made by the DGAP is correct - investigation shows that the respondent had increased his base prices and, therefore, any reduction in the MRPs which was not commensurate with the rate reduction does not amount to passing on of the benefit of such reduction - realignment of margins cannot be compared with the discounts as no dealer was bound to offer discounts from his margins - no netting off can be applied in the cases of profiteering as the benefit has to be passed on to each customer which has to be computed on each SKU - since the respondent has not reduced his prices commensurately even once after the rate reduction was announced on 15.11.2017, sales made by the respondent till the date of 15.03.2019 have been rightly considered by the DGAP for computing the profiteered amount - respondent was legally not required to collect the excess GST and, therefore, he has not only violated the provisions of the CGST Act but has also acted in contravention of the provisions of s.171(1) of the Act as he has denied the benefit of tax reduction to his customers by charging excess GST and had he not charged the excess GST the customers would have paid less price while purchasing goods from the respondent and hence the above amount has been rightly included in the profiteered amount - DGAP has excluded the sales returns of various products and has revised the profiteered amount quantum, therefore, no grievance of respondent remains - In conclusion, the profiteered amount is determined as Rs.21,84,79,790/- as computed by the DGAP - Authority orders the respondent to reduce his prices commensurately in terms of rule 133(3(a) of the Rules and also directs the respondent to deposit the amount of Rs.21,84,79,790/- in the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Central and the State government concerned as the recipients are not identifiable, as per the provisions of rule 133(3)(c) of the Rules along with interest @18% within a period of three months - penalty is imposable in terms of s.171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the above contravention and SCN in this regard is required to be issued - Commissioners of CGST/SGST are directed in terms of rule 136 of the Rules to monitor this order and submit report within four months: NAA
- Application disposed of: NAA
2020-TIOL-11-NAA-GST
Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Bajaj Electricals Ltd
GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant alleges profiteering by the respondent in the supply of 'Bajaj Majesty MX20 Steam Iron' inasmuch as it is contended that the respondent increased the MRP of the product from Rs.1099/- to Rs.1405/- or Rs.1520/- when the GST rate was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f 27.07.2018 by notification 18/2018-CTR; that since the respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate, the respondent had profiteered - screen shots captured on the website 'shop.bajajelectricals.com and Amazon were also submitted - Respondent in their reply to the DGAP submitted that the applicant had only taken screenshots from the website and there was no other evidence like tax invoice to substantiate the applicant's claim; that notwithstanding the screenshot that showed MRP as Rs.1099/- it is fact that the MRP of the impugned product had changed from Rs.1099/- from June 2015 itself; that some old stock of the product carrying MRP of Rs.1099/- was lying unsold; that once the old stock was liquidated the MRP of Rs.1520/- was updated on their website; that the MRP on the website sometimes took time to be updated as majority of the sale was done through distributors and website sale was negligible - DGAP in its report has observed that the respondent had not increased the base prices of the product when the GST rate was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f 27.07.2018, however, the respondent had increased the base price of the product from Rs.676/- to Rs.696/- in the month of October 2018 as was the respondent's business practice of revising base price of the product twice a year, once at the start of the year and the second generally near October - November being the festival season; that, therefore, since there was no profiteering in the complained product, the allegation of profiteering by applicant was not sustainable.
Held: Authority has perused the invoices of the product dated 06.07.2018 and 03.08.2018 and it is observed that the base price of the product was kept unchanged by the respondents despite the reduction in the rate of tax - Authority does not find the present case to be a case of profiteering as had been alleged by the applicant - applicant has also agreed with the DGAP's conclusion recorded in their report dated 06.09.2019 as evident from his email dated 30.09.2019 - Application is, therefore, dismissed: NAA
- Application dismissed: NAA
2020-TIOL-10-NAA-GST
Director General Of Anti Profiteering Vs Garg Kitchen Collection
GST - Applicants allege profiteering by the respondent in the supply of Sujata Mixer Grinder 900W - applicant alleges that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST on the impugned product supplied by him although the rate of GST was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f 27.07.2018 vide notification 18/2018-CTR and by way of commensurate reduction in the price in terms of s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - DGAP in its report has stated that the total profiteered amount during the period 27.07.2018 to 28.02.2019 was Rs.30,153/- since the respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the tax rate to his recipients.
Held: It is evident that the respondent had increased the base prices of the goods when the rate of GST was reduced fro 28% to 18% w.e.f 27.07.2018 so that the commensurate benefit of GST rate reduction was not passed on to his recipients and thus by increasing the base price of the product the benefit of reduction in the tax rate was not passed on to the recipients thus contravening the provisions of s.171 of the Act; that the DGAP had correctly arrived at the profiteered amount of Rs.30,153/- - respondent is directed to deposit the same along with interest to be calculated @18% in terms of Rule 133(3)(b) of the CGST Rules - as the rest of the recipients are not identifiable, the respondent is directed to deposit the profiteered amount along with interest in the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Central and State governments as per the provisions of rule 133(3)(c) of CGST Rules, 2017 in the ratio of 50:50 - amount to be deposited within three months and the Commissioners concerned to submit their report within four months - penalty is liable to be imposed u/s 171(3A) of the Act for which reason SCN to be issued: NAA
- Application allowed: NAA
2020-TIOL-09-NAA-GST
Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs Paribar Estates Pvt Ltd
GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant alleges that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC to him by way of commensurate reduction in the price on introduction of GST w.e.f 01.07.2017 in respect of the flat purchased by him in the project Kishalay Abasan - DGAP in its report has stated that the rate of tax on construction services has increased w.e.f 01.07.2017; that, therefore, the instant case is not covered under the criteria of ‘reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services'; that no benefit has been availed by the respondent on account of any Input Tax Credit (ITC) post GST, therefore, the instant case was also not covered under the criteria 'the benefit of input tax credit shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices' - inasmuch as the provisions of s.171 of the Act are not applicable in the present case.
Held: It is established that there was no rate reduction w.e.f 01.07.2017 in the case of construction service for low cost affordable houses which the above applicant has purchased, hence no benefit of tax reduction was required to be passed on to him; that during the pre-GST era the respondent was eligible to avail CENVAT credit of Service Tax paid on the input services and post GST the respondent was eligible to avail ITC of GST paid on all the inputs and input service including the sub-contracts, however, the respondent has not availed any benefit of CENVAT or ITC in the pre and post-GST era and hence, there was no additional benefit available to the respondent which was to be passed on to his buyers - since the respondent has not availed the benefit of ITC after coming into force of GST and he has charged GST @18% which was required to be charged as per the notification dated 01.07.2017, it is established that the respondent was not liable to pass on the benefit of ITC to the applicant and thus he has not contravened the provisions of s.171 of the Act - no merit in the application filed, hence same is dismissed: NAA
- Application dismissed : NAA
AAAR CASES
GST - AAR had noted that s ection 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act laid 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)'; that since “breakwater wall" is an immovable property, a fact accepted by applicant and, therefore, cannot be considered as a 'plant' in view of Explanation to s.17(6) of the Act; that 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; that since the "Breakwater wall" is a civil structure and is not going to be used for rendering outward supply of goods or services or both, AAR held that ITC is not admissible in respect of supplies received of goods/services in relation to the construction of breakwater wall - Appeal filed against this ruling.
Held: Term 'plant and machinery' should be interpreted to mean a place where certain commercial/manufacturing activities/processes of production are carried out with the help of inputs - In the present case the 'breakwater wall' or the Accropodes that are an essential part of it certainly does not qualify as 'plant and machinery' since as per explanation to s.17(5)(d) of the Act the term 'plant and machinery' covers apparatus, equipment and machinery - Breakwater wall constructed on the sea to protect the ship from high waves can hardly be called machinery or apparatus or equipment, therefore, since the 'breakwater wall' does not come under the definition of plant and machinery, there seems to be no purpose in examining whether it is used for making outward supplies - from the scope of the work documents it is evident that 'breakwater wall' not only comprises piling of Accropodes on top of each other but involves extensive civil work and foundation laying in order to build the breakwater wall and the accropodes is only a part of it and, therefore, it is an immovable structure though not plant and machinery - Therefore, even assuming that the structure is a plant and machinery (which it is not) it will be excluded by virtue of it being a civil structure - the terminology itself says that it is a wall - Therefore, the order passed by AAR is confirmed: AAAR
- Appeal dismissed: AAAR
AAR CASES
2020-TIOL-49-AAR-GST
Vihan Enterprises
GST - Applicant has posted the following questions before the Authority for Advance Ruling viz. whether the explanation to Entry no. 234 of Schedule I to 01/2017-CTR shall apply to construction of new 33/220KV Pooling Substation at Badwar, REWA along with associated 220KV DCDS Transmission line and associated feeder bay work on total turnkey basis against bid identification under World Bank Financing for Rewa Ultra Mega Solar Limited; whether value of all the goods supplied under the contract, independent of the Works Contract being executed in the contract shall form part of the Works Contract and taxed as service.
Held: In case of Works Contract, the explanation to Entry no. 234 shall apply if and only if the goods, the title in which is/are being transferred during the execution of Works Contract find a place in Entry no. 234 - Works Contract in relation to any of the goods listed in Entry no. 234 where such goods are not part of the Works Contract shall not merit taxation under Entry no. 234 - Separate activities in aggregate form the turnkey contract, but the contract is divisible into independent activities and values of such independent activities are also ascertainable under the contract - Each independent activity has a value assigned to it with detailed list of equipment and materials which form part of the independent contract within the contract: AAR
- Application disposed of : AAR
2020-TIOL-48-AAR-GST
Vippy Industries Ltd
GST - Applicant has sought advance ruling on the confirmation of classification of the product ‘Preparation of a kind used in animal feeding - Bio Processed Meal' - No evidences in support of the applicant's claim that the said product falls under Chapter heading 2309 9090 - as the applicant has failed to submit any evidence to support their claim, they are not entitled to the benefit of Nil rate of duty under 2/2017-CTR: AAR
- Application disposed of : AAR
2020-TIOL-47-AAR-GST
Vidit Builders
GST - Applicant is engaged in the business of real estate developers and is developing a colony by executing Joint Development Agreement with the landowner - after development, local municipal corporation will review and provide completion certificate to the developer who will hand over the colony to the municipal corporation for further maintenance - applicant seeks to know as to whether the said service is covered in paragraph 5 of the Schedule III or classified as Works Contract and its valuation etc.
Held: Service provided by the applicant is regarding development of the site which includes civil construction and amenities regarding the site in order to make it for the purpose of residence - Therefore, activities performed by the applicant cannot be classified under Paragraph 5 of Schedule III as the same amounts to supply of services under Works Contract and is liable to be taxed accordingly - rule 31 of the CGST Rules applies in this case and the value of supply is equal to the amount received/receivable by the applicant which is equal to 40% of the amount on which the plots are sold: AAR
- Application disposed if : AAR
2020-TIOL-46-AAR-GST
Unity Traders
GST - Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 - No ITC of GST paid on Vitrified tiles, marble, granite, ACP sheet, Sheet plates, TMT Tor(saria), bricks, cement, paint and other construction material is admissible when used for the purpose of construction and maintenance of Warehouse - similarly, no credit of ITC is available in respect of GST paid on WCS received from registered and unregistered contractor for the construction and maintenance of the building and so also no credit of ITC is available in respect of GST paid on goods purchased and WCS received during FY 2017-2018 for the purpose of construction and maintenance of warehouse: AAR
- Application disposed of : AAR
2020-TIOL-45-AAR-GST
Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran
GST - Services received by the applicant (who is engaged in supply and distribution of electricity) from M/s Primeone Work Force P Ltd. of supply of unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled manpower fulfils the requisite criteria mentioned in Sr. no. 3 of notification 12/2017-CTR and is entitled for availing the benefit under the said entry - however, the benefit can be availed only in case where the services mentioned in Sr. no. 3 is received in an area covered under Panchayat limits as the entrusted work is covered under Article 243G of the Constitution and not under Article 243W: AAR
- Application disposed of : AAR
2020-TIOL-44-AAR-GST
Innovative Clad Solutions
GST - Applicant has manufactured and cleared the goods viz. Re-rolled Bimetal Strip 108SP from SEZ unit vide Bill of Entry for home consumption by classifying under HSN 8111 0010 and paying duty as leviable on it - applicant has filed the application before the Authority for clarification in the matter of the classification of the subject goods.
Held: Submission of the applicant that their BE is being assessed by the department under CH 8111 0010 and they are paying the Customs duty and IGST as per the rate applicable indicates that the question raised in the present application has already been decided by the department by assessing the goods under HSN 8111 0010, hence as per the provisions to section 98(2) of the CGST Act, the application cannot be entertained as the question raised is already decided in the proceedings in the case of the applicant - application is, therefore, rejected: AAR
- Application rejected : AAR
2020-TIOL-43-AAR-GST
Swapna Printing Works Pvt Ltd
GST - Applicant is engaged primarily in the business of printing seeks a ruling as to whether the activities undertaken by procuring orders from a foreign buyer to print texts and thereafter deliver them to various places in India is a taxable service.
Held: Applicant's supply of the composite printing service is taxable under Sl. no. 27(i) of 11/2017-CTR - Circular 11/11/2017-GST dated 20.10.2017 relied upon - ‘recipient' is so defined in s.2(93) of the Act so as to make separation impossible between the person to whom the supply is made and the one liable to pay the consideration - when no consideration is involved, as under clause (c) of the said section 2(93), the recipient can only be the person to whom the service is rendered - the person who receives the supply in India should, therefore, be considered as the recipient, being inseparable from the foreign buyer as far as the applicant's supply is concerned - such supplies cannot be termed as export of services within the meaning of section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2020-TIOL-42-AAR-GST
Newtown Kolkata Development Authority
GST - Applicant, a statutory authority constituted under the New Town Kolkata Development Authority Act, 2007 for providing various civic services and amenities within the local area of New Town, Kolkata seeks a ruling as to whether the services it supplies viz. water supply, drainage, sewage, collection, removal and disposal of solid waste etc. is exempt under notification 12/2017-CTR and whether it is liable to be registered.
Held: Applicant, NKDA, a statutory authority discharging municipal functions (although not a municipality as required to be constituted under Article 243Q of the Constitution) within the territorial jurisdiction of New Town, Kolkata, is legally entitled to and entrusted by the State Government with the control or management of a local fund as defined in Treasury Rule 6.29 of West Bengal Treasury Rules, 2005 - It is, therefore, a local authority under section 2(69)(c) of the GST Act and entitled to the exemptions available under the exemption notification on the services it supplies - question of liability for registration is not taken up as applicant has not pursued the matter: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2020-TIOL-41-AAR-GST
Dolphin Techno Waste Management Pvt Ltd
GST - Applicant's supply of solid waste management service to the Conservancy department of Howrah Municipal Corporation and sewer cleaning service to the Sewerage and Drainage department of the Howrah Municipal Corporation is exempt from payment of GST under Sl. no. 3 of 12/2017-CTR - since the supply is exempt, the provisions of s.51 and for that matter notification 50/2018-CT dealing with the mechanism of TDS does not apply: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2020-TIOL-40-AAR-GST
Dipak Kanti Mazumder Dynamic Engineers
GST - Applicant's supply of providing conservancy/solid waste management service to Howrah Municipal Corporation is exempt from payment of GST under Sl. no. 3 of 12/2017-CTR - since the supply is exempt, the provisions of s.51 and for that matter notification 50/2018-CT dealing with the mechanism of TDS does not apply: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2020-TIOL-39-AAR-GST
Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd
GST - Applicant undertakes contracts for construction of head works, sumps, pump rooms, laying, jointing of pipeline and commissioning and maintenance of entire work for water supply projects/sewage projects - the operation and maintenance undertaken as per the contracts (2) and (3) are supplies which are 'Composite supplies' as per section 2(30) of the CGST Act and taxable - M/s Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board is a 'Governmental Authority' as defined under 2(zf) of notification 12/2017-CTR and the supply is made by the applicant to a government authority - read with the Twelfth Schedule of Article 243W and Eleventh Schedule of Article 243G of the Constitution, the supplies as per the contracts are works received by TWAD and are in relation to functions entrusted to Panchayat or Municipality - exemption provided at Sl. no. 3A of 12/2017-CTR is applicable subject to the conditions mentioned in the description of services against the entry: AAR
- Application disposed of : AAR
2020-TIOL-38-AAR-GST
Padmavathi Hospitality And Facilities Management Service
GST - Applicant has filed the application on 18.09.2019 with the office of the respective State Authority for advance ruling - Jurisdictional state officer has informed that the applicant had already filed a Writ Petition no. 24412 dated 19.08.2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, wherein the Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation (TNMSC), Director of Medical Education (DME), Assistant Commissioner, GST and M/s Krystal Integrated Services Ltd. are the respondents - This Writ petition is filed praying an order of Interim injunction restraining TNMSC from initiating or taking any steps in finalising the tender pending disposal of the main application - Applicant's contention that the issue pending before the Hon'ble High Court is regarding the incorrect tender process and procedure adopted by TNMSC and that they had never asked for clarification of the applicability of GST on the services provided is not correct - Inasmuch as the applicant has stated in the petition that they would have been the lowest bidder if GST is held applicable since M/s KRYSTAL had quoted their bid without GST and which was wrongly accepted by TNSMCL; that the decision of the High Court on the writ will be applicable on the GST authorities who are also the respondents in the writ - application, therefore, cannot be admitted as per provisions to section 98(2) of the CGST/TNGST Act as the question raised is already pending in the Hon'ble Madras High Court - Application rejected: AAR
- Application rejected: AAR
2020-TIOL-37-AAR-GST
Ponraj
GST - Non-woven fabric bags called as ‘Rice bags' are correctly classifiable under HSN 6305 3300 and are chargeable to tax in terms of notification 01/2017-CTR as per the rates prevalent from time to time: AAR
- Application disposed of : AAR
ARTICLES
Job worked imported goods and their return - the GST implication
GST - An agenda for reforms - Part - 76 - Pre-GST exemptions - No vested right under GST
The misuse and abuse of powers in GST
Interest on delayed payment of tax - Section 50 riddle
JEST GST by Vijay Kumar
GSTN Disaster - Who is to blame?
The Cob(Web) by Shailendra Kumar
Macabre COVID-19 - Should GST Council brace up for Relief Package?
