2020-TIOL-GST-353, Dated: Thursday, October 01, 2020

GST - Petitioners are brothers and are facing criminal proceedings on the basis of a Complaint registered by the Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence alleging evasion of GST - Petitioners were granted bail by the court concerned – Counsel refers to the proceedings dated 20.03.2020 of the ACJM, Gurugram, to point out that the complaint against the two accused relates to matters outside the jurisdiction of the Gurugram court and, therefore, the proceedings should be transferred to a competent court at Delhi; that all the referable 16 firms/companies, their Bank Accounts and Registered Offices are in Delhi and that is how, the Gurugram court gave a prima facie view on the jurisdictional aspect, in its order dated 20.03.2020.

Held: Notice to be issued returnable in three weeks - Petitioners to service notice to the respondents: Supreme Court

GST - Circular Trading - Allegation is that applicant's firm after availing the ITC of Rs.53.50 crores without any actual receipt of goods has also passed on the said ITC of Rs.53.50 crores to six firms, out of which five firms, namely M/s. Chandan Enterprises, M/s. Sheela Sales Private Limited, M/s. Chandan Sagar Sales Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Chandan Sagar Constructions Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Structeco Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd are closely held entities of M/s. Sheela Sales Corporation, inasmuch as proprietor or partner or a Director are common and are related to each other - Investigation also revealed that above referred five firms have availed and passed on the said credit of Rs.63.50 crores to 360 other firms located in various parts of the country - applicant no.1 in his statement dated 9th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 admitted that none of his firms had received goods from M/s. Bajrang Traders on which invoices they have availed ITC of Rs.53.63 crores; and that none of his firms has made payment to M/s. Jai Bajrang Traders - Apprehending arrest on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in terms of Section 132(1)(b) and (c) read with Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 ), applicants had sought directions under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, that in the event of their arrest they shall be released on bail - Bombay High Court observed that on perusal of file notings and statements of applicant, it prima-facie suggested that applicants' complicity/involvement in availing fake input tax credit without movement of goods on forged invoices Rs.63.50 crores is in breach of provisions of Section 16 of CGST Act, which is cognizable offence under Section under Section 132(1)(b)(c) read with Section 132(5) of the CGST Act; that the applicants had failed to produce unique E-way bill number (EBN) particulars, transporter's details, proof of receipt of goods either by himself or his agent or warehouse keeper and payment proof either by himself or by agent or otherwise - That the contention of respondents that fraudulent ITC claim of Rs.63.53 crores is a matter of grave concern and requires thorough investigation for which applicants' presence is absolutely necessary is well-founded; that many of the vehicle numbers are bogus and vehicle's registration date is latter then the lorry receipt dates - that in view of the facts of the case and in the larger interest of the public and the State, in serious cases like this, Bench is not inclined to exercise discretion under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code in favour of applicant no.1; that applicant's detention in custody is necessary to prevent him from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering such evidence is well founded - accordingly, the pre-arrest bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Bombay High Court - aggrieved, the applicant filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

Held: SLP is dismissed and as a sequel to the same, pending interlocutoory applications stand disposed of: Supreme Court Larger Bench.

GST - National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) has filed this Transfer Petition for transfer of the writ petitions pending in the High Courts of Bombay, Gujarat and Karnataka, to the Delhi High Court - in their writ petitions, respondents have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 , relating to Anti Profiteering, the benefit not being passed to the eventual customers – Counsel refers to the Court's order dated 19.02.2020 to point out that similar writ petitions pending in the Delhi, Bombay, Punjab and Haryana High Courts, were ordered to be transferred, at the instance of the NAA.

Held: Notice, returnable within two weeks, be issued to respondent-writ petitioners: Supreme Court

GST - Prevention of Corruption Act - Petition is filed being aggrieved of order dated 11th September, 2020 rejecting the prayer of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 8, dated 21st August, 2020 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7, 7(a) and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Phase-1, Mohali - Petitioner is Ravi Nandan, Excise and Taxation Officer (ETO), Fazilka - FIR was result of information received by the vigilance bureau that person namely Vijay Kumar had been indulging in the tax evasion in connivance with the officers/ officials of Excise and Taxation Department; that the tax was being evaded by ensuring that there is no checking or verification of the documents or the goods while being transported to and from State of Punjab; that heavy monthly amounts were being paid as bribe to the officers and officials of taxation department; mobile/telephonic conversations were gathered after getting permission from the competent authority.

Held: Allegations in the present case are very serious - There is alleged connivance of the transporters, passers and the officials to facilitate the evasion of tax - The investigation is going on, it appears that the officials were being paid bribe on monthly basis - during the investigation, Sukhwinder Singh @ Shinda (passer) stated that Rs.12,00,000/- per month was paid to the Mobile Wing Bathinda and Fazilka, the petitioner remained posted there - The nature of allegation in present case of evasion of GST requires a deeper probe - There are far reaching ramifications which may vary from allowing of input credit/ MODVAT of tax not paid to the Government to an eventuality that the credit of tax paid on some other product is used for something else - With the introduction of GST regime, one of the objects worked upon was free movement of goods, by removal of barriers and Information Collection Centres - The responsibility was shifted upon the Excise and Taxation Officers/ officials and more so on the mobile wing of the department - Under GST, there is an inter-connected chain of sellers and purchasers as the purchaser gets the credit of tax paid or suffered by seller - The chain can be within the State or PAN-India - One link in the chain being in genuine, doctored or non-existent, would impact the entire chain - Not only this, someone later in chain in spite of being bonafide purchaser being not aware of the earlier misdeed in the chain will have to suffer the consequences - At this stage, it would not be appropriate to go into the evidentiary value of the material collected during the investigation - The transcript and the call recording pose serious allegations that the petitioner was being paid amount regularly as is evident from discussion between Vijay Kumar and other person - The fact that the petitioner had 30 years of spotless service or his telephone was not recorded, would not be a reason to conclude that custodial interrogation is not required - The information with investigating agency may be a tip of an ice berg - Fact remains that there is prima facie evidence against the petitioner of his involvement in the connivance for evasion of tax, which needs to be looked into - There is no quibble that the liberty of a person is of utmost importance - But when personal liberty is pitted against a sovereign function i.e. collection of tax which is life blood of the economy, the latter would prevail - Present is a case where arrest is imperative for fair and full investigation - The petitioner being an ex-officer of the department can influence the witness or tamper with the evidence - Considering the complexity of the issue, the tax impact on chain of sellers and purchasers, the material as on date with the investigating agency, the multi- dimensional aspects involved which needs a deeper probe, no case is made out for grant of pre-arrest bail - Petition is dismissed: High Court [para 11 to 15]

Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd Vs Addtional Assistant Director DGGI

GST - Writ petitions filed challenging communications issued by the Additional Assistant Director DGGI /R1 dated 15.07.2020 & 18.07.2020.

Held: It is clear that the impugned communication only solicits certain particulars from the petitioner and any further action in continuance thereof will be taken in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner - This is recorded - There is thus no basis for the apprehension expressed by the petitioner to the effect that demands would be raised on the basis of the impugned communication itself - Writ Petitions are closed: High Court [para 3, 4]

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner challenges the order dated 14 th February 2020 of the National Anti-Profiteering Authority [ 2020-TIOL-04-NAA-GST ] wherein it is held that the petitioner has profiteered to the extent of Rs.35,28,744/- during the period 1st July 2017 to 31 st December 2018 - Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 17th January, 2020 passed by respondent no. 3-NAPA whereby it had decided the issue of jurisdiction in terms of this Court's order in WP(C) 12847/2019 - In the petition, it is averred that the petitioner has already passed on the benefit amounting to Rs.30,57,775/- to the flat buyers and the balance amount has been deposited in the bank account specifically opened for the said purpose and the cheques and credit notes for the entire profiteered amount have been drawn but have remained uncleared - Petitioner further assures and undertakes that post introduction of CGST and SGST, the petitioner has passed on the benefit of reduction of input tax credit to all its flat buyers in all other projects in the State of Haryana; that they have also emailed an undertaking dated 08th September, 2020 in this regard.

Held: Notice issued - Respondent no.3 is directed to verify the claims made by the petitioner with respect to passing on the commensurate benefit amounting to Rs. 35,28,744/- - Direction to pay penalty and investigation with regard to other projects of the petitioner as well as the notices and summons issued by the respondent no. 4-DGAP are stayed till further orders - Matter to be listed on 3rd November, 2020 along with connected matters: High Court

GST - Applicant had submitted an undertaking before the court that they had not filed GSTR-3B for the period from May 2018 to December 2018 on account of financial stress due to past losses of the company; that since form GSTR-3B cannot be uploaded without payment of tax and hence the forms are yet to be uploaded; that the net tax liability (net of ITC) payable for the impugned period is Rs.42,63,031/- and they undertake to pay the same in installments – Bench had by its order dated 6 th February 2020 [2020-TIOL-324-HC-AHM-GST], therefore, directed issuance of notice to the respondents returnable on 05.03.2020 by which date the writ-applicant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.42,63,031/- - Civil Application was taken up for hearing when the applicant submitted that they have not been able to comply with the terms of the undertaking filed in the Court on the earlier occasion – Noting that there is no further scope of examining the main matter, the Civil Application is dismissed: High Court [para 4, 5]

GST - Challenge has been laid to orders whereby prayer for refund of the Input Tax Credit ('ITC') has been rejected - petitioners have referred to an order of the Bombay High Court rendered in Sandeep Patil and others Vs. Union of India and others = 2019-TIOL-2348-HC-MUM-GST wherein a similar controversy raised i.e. refund of ITC pursuant to sale of duty free goods from Duty Free Shops(DFSs) at the departure area of airport, had been declined and GST towards the minimum guaranteed fees/concession fees for grant of rights and use of licensed premises of duty free in the departure or arrival area of international airport had been made accessible - question raised in the afore cited judgment has been answered in favour of the assessee whereby by referring to a unanimous decision of Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court of India rendered in J.V. Gokal and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Collector of Sales Tax (Inspection) and others AIR 1960 SC 595 and judgment rendered in Hotal Ashoka (Indian Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. VS. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax and others = 2012-TIOL-08-SC-VAT holding that owners are not liable to pay customs duty nor IGST and show cause notices with regard to accessibility of GST under concession agreement had been quashed - It has, further, been held that the assessee would be entitled for refund of ITC as it would not cause any prejudice, for, first, would, pay the GST on the services provided to DFSs by respondent No.4 and then take ITC of the entire tax amount and thereafter claim refund of the same by following the procedure contained in Rule 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 . Held : It is worthwhile to mention that both the parties are ad idem that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs vide communication dated 25.06.2020 on the subject of proposal for filing SLP against the judgment of Bombay High Court dated 07.10.2019 in Writ Petition No.1511 of 2019 and 1535 of 2019 preferred by M/s Flemingo Travel Retail Ltd. has not chosen to file SLP - It is a matter of record that the petitioner(s) sell goods to the international passengers i.e. departing passengers or passengers arriving into India (arriving passengers) like cigarettes, alcohol, perfumes, chocolates and cosmetics etc. - The expressions 'import' and 'export' defined under Customs Act, 1962 have been identically defined in IGST Act, 2017 - If the transaction of sale or purchase takes place when the goods are imported in India or they are being exported from India, no State can impose any tax thereon - It is also not in dispute that all the DFSs are situated at international airports i.e. at Cochin and Calicut, which are beyond the customs frontiers of India and would not be within the customs frontiers of India - When any transaction takes place outside the customs frontiers of India, of course the transaction is said to have taken place outside India, though the transaction might take place within India - Impugned orders in all the writ petitions are set aside and accordingly allowed - As per the reasoning assigned in para 37 of the judgment referred to in Sandeep Patil, the petitioner shall pay the GST on input services including Concession Fee to respondent No.4 and claim ITC of the entire tax amount and thereafter claim refund of the same by following the procedure prescribed under Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 89 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 – Petitions allowed: High Court [para 28, 29, 33, 34]

GST - Petition has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein - Counsel for the respondents pray for and are permitted to file their counter-affidavits within six weeks - To Tag the present matter with W.P.(C) No.6293/2019 and W.P.(C) No.13097/2019 and list on 11th January, 2021: High Court

GST - Petition has been filed challenging impugned orders dated 24th July, 2020 and 27th August, 2020 passed by the respondents for the Financial Year 2017-2018 whereby the refund claim for the month of February 2018 was rejected on the ground that same was filed beyond limitation - Petitioner also prays for directions to the respondents to issue a refund of unutilized input tax credit of Rs. 66,07,432/- for the month of February, 2018 to the petitioner as well as for a declaration that Paragraph 12 of Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18th November 2019 is ultra vires Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 .

Held: Issue notice - Respondent is permitted to file a counter-affidavit within three weeks - Matter to be listed on 09th December, 2020 along with W.P.(C) 6486/2020: High Court

GST - Blocking of Input Tax Credit in the petitioner's electronic credit ledger - mismatch in the ITC, notice dated 28th January, 2020 - Petitioner challenges this blocking of credit and seeks a direction to respondents nos.1, 2 & 3 to open the GST portal so that respondent no.4 and petitioner can make necessary modifications and remove the mismatch on account of respondent no.4's failure to mention petitioner's GST registration number - In the alternative, petitioner seeks directions to respondents nos.1 and 2 to pass a speaking order on its representation dated 20th August, 2020 or direction to respondents nos.1 and 2 to provide "reasons to believe" recorded in the petitioner's case prior to the credit block and to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to file objections thereon and seek their disposal by way of a speaking order.

Held : Issue notice - Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents and states that he has no objection if the present writ petition is directed to be treated as a representation to respondent no.1 and the same is directed to be disposed of by way of a reasoned order - present writ petition is directed to be treated as a representation to respondent no.1, who is directed to decide the same by way of a reasoned order within four weeks, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and/or its authorized representative - Till the said representation is decided by respondent no.1, the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the impugned notice dated 28th January, 2020 - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 9, 10]

GST - Petitioners have sought inter alia a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Central Government ("Respondent No. 1") as well as the Government of NCT of Delhi ("Respondent No. 2") to notify the GST rate of 5% for all varieties of fabrics falling under Chapters 50 to 63 of the Customs Tariff in furtherance of the recommendations made by the Goods and Service Tax Council ("Respondent No. 3").

+ During the course of preliminary hearing, Bench had taken a prima facie view of the matter on the basis of the record shown to the Court and it was felt appropriate and necessary to have the matter referred to Respondent No. 3 to have its view - Directions to this effect were issued vide order dated 11.10.2019 = 2019-TIOL-2388-HC-DEL-GST - In terms of the aforesaid directions, Respondent No. 3 in the 38th GST Council Meeting held on 18.12.2019, took up the matter pertaining to notification of the tax rate relating to fabrics and articles of textiles falling in Chapters 56 to 59 - Respondent No. 3 examined the matter and passed a detailed resolution/decision wherein inter alia Council did not recommend any change in the tax structure on these goods i.e. technical textiles and specialized fabrics of chapters 56 to 59 - Council in its 38th meeting on 18.12.2019 has deliberated on the matter and has unequivocally confirmed that it had indeed recommended the GST rate of 12% for the fabrics falling under Chapters 56 to 59 of the Customs Tariff - This ratifies the stand taken in the counter affidavit of 09.10.2019 of Respondent No.3.

+ Petitioners is not satisfied and persists that the Respondent No. 3 has recommended tax at the rate of 5% for all fabrics and to buttress his contention, he relies upon the reply given by the Union Minister for Finance in response to a starred question raised on 18.07.2017 in the Rajya Sabha - Bench finds the aforesaid contention to be unconvincing and meritless - A perusal of the response reveals that the Union Minister for Finance while responding to a question raised in connection with organized traders and unorganized sellers in textile sectors, stated that the GST rate structure for textile sector was discussed in detail in the GST Council Meeting held on 03.06.2017, and that the Council recommended the detailed rate structure for textile sector - The tabulation which form part of the response reflects the notified GST rates as 5%.

+ This response of the Union Minister for Finance to a query, cannot prevail over the decision of the GST Council - It can also not form the basis for impugning the decision of GST Council or the notification notifying the tax rate - The Respondent No. 3 is a Constitutional body chaired by the Union Minister for Finance and all other members are the Union Minister of State for Finance, and Ministers for Revenue or Finance of all the states - The 101st Amendment to the Constitution had brought into existence the GST framework and created Respondent No. 3 as the highest deliberative forum to resolve the issues arising out of the implementation of the GST.

+ The rate of taxes is jointly decided by the Centre and States on the recommendations of the Council - The Council has the power and prerogative to issue recommendations on issues in terms of Article 279A (4) of the Constitution - The composition of Respondent No. 3 and the constitutional scheme of taxation is a clear indication that the functioning of the GST Council is based on collaborative efforts that embody the spirit of cooperative federalism - The only aspect that required introspection, now stands concluded in view of the emphatic response of the Respondent No. 3 in its 38th Meeting, wherein they have reiterated that the recommendation for rate of tax was indeed 12% - The impression of contradiction that appeared on comparison between the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 3 and the minutes of meeting has been resolved and conclusively settled - Bench cannot sit in appeal and postulate that the decision of the Council is not what they have unwaveringly held it to be - Therefore, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed: High Court [para 8 to 10]

GST - Writ application filed praying inter alia for direction quashing and setting aside detention order dated 13.08.2020 in Form GST MOV-6 and confiscation notice dated 13.08.2020 in Form GST MOV-10; release of truck with goods [arecanut] etc.

Held: It appears that initially at the time of detention, an order under Section 129 of the Act, 2017 came to be passed determining the amount of tax and penalty to be paid by the writ applicant - Simultaneously, a notice was issued under Section 130 of the Act calling upon the writ applicant to show cause as to why the goods and conveyance should not be confiscated - Thereafter a final order came to be passed of confiscation of the goods and vehicle under Section 130 of the Act - As the final order of confiscation was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the writ applicant, the same came to be quashed by this Court and the matter was remanded to the authority to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ applicant - Matter, as on date, is at the stage of passing appropriate order under Section 130 of the Act - In other words, the adjudication of the confiscation proceedings is going on - Bench is of the view that it should not interfere at the stage of adjudication of the confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the Act and which shall proceed in accordance with law - However, Bench is inclined to grant some relief to the writ applicant so as to protect the goods from getting damaged, but at the same time keeping in mind the interest of the State also - Writ applicant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,70,787/- towards tax and penalty with the authority concerned - With a view to protect the interest of the writ applicant as well as the State, Bench directs the writ applicant to furnish bank guarantee of any Nationalized bank equivalent to 50% of the value of the goods, which comes to Rs.17,07,876/- - On deposit of Rs.1,70,787/- towards tax and penalty along with the bank guarantee of Rs.17,07,876/- of any Nationalized bank, the authority concerned shall release the goods and the vehicle at the earliest - Application disposed of: High Court [para 4, 5, 9, 10]

GST - Writ application filed praying for inter alia direction to respondent no 7 to revoke the cancellation of registration.

Held: It appears from the materials on record that the GST registration of the writ applicant has been cancelled for failure to file appropriate returns - Entire issue has been brought to the notice of the Commissioner of SGST by way of representation dated 26th August 2020 - Writ application is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner, SGST, Ahmedabad to immediately look into the representation dated 26th August 2020 and take appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of 15 days: High Court [para 3, 4]

GST - Writ applicant is once again before the Bench by way of the present writ application redressing the grievance that the authority while issuing fresh GST DRC-01A has simultaneously issued GST DRC-01 - According to the writ applicant, they are yet to reply to the notice issued in Form-01A and it is only thereafter that the further proceedings under GST DRC-01 could have been initiated - Applicant also brings to the notice of the Bench their representation to the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax-04 (Enforcement), Surat, bringing this fact to his notice.

Held: Writ application is disposed of with a direction to the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax-04 (Enforcement), Surat respondent No.4 to immediately look into the representation dated 26th August 2020 and take appropriate decision in accordance with law within the period of 15 days - Application disposed of: High Court [para 3, 4]

GST - Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to refund an amount of Rs.4,73,26,512/- alongwith appropriate interest following encashment of eight bank guarantees - Pursuant to issuance of demand notices, orders were passed by respondent no. 4 wherein total IGST demand levied was Rs.2,36,63,256.00 and equivalent amount of penalty imposed - Petitioner paid IGST amounting to Rs.2,36,63,256.00 on 20th November, 2018 under self assessment returns - At the same time, petitioner filed four appeals against the original orders dated 29th October, 2018 before the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner of State Appeal, Solapur under Section 107 of the CGST Act - As a pre-condition for filing the appeals, petitioner deposited 10% of the IGST levied which amounted to Rs.23,66,326.00 - However, the appellate authority vide the orders dated 26th March, 2019 dismissed the appeals of the petitioner and confirmed the levy of tax and imposition of penalty - Apprehending that the bank guarantees would be encashed, petitioner sent email dated 28th March, 2019 to respondent No.4 stating that the bank guarantees would be renewed and that petitioner was in the process of filing further appeals under Section 112 of the CGST Act and, therefore, it was requested of respondent No.4 not to encash the bank guarantees - notwithstanding the above, all the the eight bank guarantees were encashed - Petitioner further submits that the appellate tribunal under Section 112 of the CGST Act has not yet been constituted in the State of Maharashtra - However, as a pre-condition for filing of appeals, petitioner made payment of 20% of the IGST amount [of Rs.47,32,651/-] as pre-deposit under Section 112(8) of the CGST Act - Since no appellate tribunal under Section 112 of the CGST Act has been constituted in the State of Maharashtra and being aggrieved by the encashment of the bank guarantees as above, petitioner has approached this court by filing the present writ petition seeking reliefs as above.

Held: Without entering into the controversy as to whether respondent No.4 received request of the petitioner for extension of the bank guarantees before encashment, Bench is of the view that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the following directions will meet the ends of justice - Directed that (a) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall refund the amount of Rs.4,73,26,512.00 covered by the eight encashed bank guarantees with applicable statutory interest thereon to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (b) Petitioner to furnish fresh bank guarantee(s) from nationalized bank to respondent No.4 for an amount of Rs.1,65,64,279.00 covering the balance amount of penalty imposed on the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 29 to 31]

GST - Petitioner had applied for refund of ITC under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 but the same came to be rejected, hence these petitions - Petitioner predominantly stresses upon the ground that the rejection orders do not give reasons for inadmissibility of refund and, therefore, they are non-speaking orders.

Held: Petitioner has rightly contended that the respondent had, in a cryptic manner, rejected some of the proposals by stating that, as per Section 54 (8)(a), the ineligible goods or services are not directly used for making zero-rated supply - Apart from this, there is absolutely no other reasons adduced in the order - It is a settled proposition of law that whenever an application of this nature is made, the statutory authority are bound to consider the claim made and pass a reasoned order - In the present case, the petitioner had made an application for refund under Section 54 of the Act and when the respondent had issued notice to them for rejection of the ineligible goods and services of SGST, CGST and IGST, they have given a detailed reply, objecting to the notices - All these objections were required to be dealt with by the authority, before taking a final call, which is conspicuously absent - As such, the order itself can be termed to be "a non speaking order" and, therefore, are liable to be set aside - However, if the respondent is granted an opportunity to pass fresh orders, after considering the objections of the petitioner, the ends of justice could be secured - impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded - orders to be passed within a period of 60 days - Petitions disposed of: High Court [para 4 to 6]

GST - Technical glitches on GST portal - TRAN-1 - By the impugned order dated 16.07.2018, Single Judge has only relegated the appellant to appear before the Assessing Officer and submit their application and the Assessing Officer was directed to forward such application to the Nodal Officer, who in turn would forward it to the concerned Grievance Committee - In appeal, Appellant submits that the case of the Assessee was slightly different, in the sense that the Superintendent of GST and Central Excise has already passed an order on 7.2.2018 which was against the assessee; that after that event, the Adjudicating Authority has passed an order, against which the appeal filed by the assessee is pending before the Commissioner of Appeals. He therefore submitted that the Appellate Authority may be allowed to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law.

Held: Bench is of the opinion that since the Single Judge has only directed the appellant to raise their grievance before the Nodal Officer/Nodal Committee, there is nothing to interfere with the said order by the Division Bench in the present intra court appeal - The case of the Assessee is admittedly pending before the Commissioner of Appeals as of now - Therefore, Bench is of the considered opinion that any observation on the merits of the case is likely to prejudice the case of the parties before the Bench, either the assessee or the Revenue - Therefore, Bench declines to make any observation on the merits of the case - In the circumstances of the case, writ appeal is disposed of by relegating the appellant before the Commissioner of Appeals, where the appeal is pending and it is expected that the said Authority decides the appeal in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the sides, as expeditiously as possible: High Court [para 6, 7]

GST - Refund of Tax - Inverted Duty Structure - Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 - Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017 - Whether s.54(3)(ii) is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution - Whether Rule 89(5) is in conformity with s.54(3)(ii) - Whether it is necessary to interpret Rule 89(5) and,in particular, the definition of Net ITC therein so as to include the words input services.

+ We observe that the proviso to Section 54(3) of the CGST Act and, more significantly, its import and implications do not appear to have been taken into consideration in VKC Footsteps -- 2020-TIOL-1273-HC-AHM-GST except for the brief reference in paragraph 23… In any event, we intend to independently analyse the relevant provisions before concluding as to whether we subscribe to the view in VKC Footsteps - 2020-TIOL-1273-HC-AHM-GST.

+ In our opinion, in connection with the interpretation of any statute and more so a tax statute, the first step in the interpretive process is to carefully examine the text of the statute while bearing in mind the context.

+ If such approach is adopted as regards Section 54 of the CGST Act, it is evident that Section 54 is a generic refund provision. Section 54(3) is specific to refund of unutilised input tax credit. The proviso thereto qualifies Section 54(3) by confining the benefit of refund to the two cases specified in sub clauses (i) and (ii).

+ In H.E.H. Nizam, the Supreme Court held that a proviso performs the function of qualifying the substantive clause. In S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591(Sundaram Pillai), the Supreme Court delineated the multiple roles that a proviso could play and held that a proviso could even acquire the tenor and colour of a substantive enactment.

+ We find that Section 54(3) undoubtedly enables a registered person to claim refund of any unutilised input tax credit. However, the principal or enacting clause is qualified by the proviso which states that "provided that no refund of unutilised input tax credit shall be allowed in cases other than ".

+ Parliament has used a double negative in this proviso thereby making it abundantly clear that unless a registered person meets the requirements of clause (i) or (ii) of Sub-section 3, no refund would be allowed. On further examining sub-clause (ii), we find that it uses the phrase "where the credit accumulated on account of rate of tax on inputs being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies".

+ If the interpretation canvassed by Mr.Parthasarathy and Mr.P.B.Harish is to be accepted, the words "credit accumulated on account of " would be rendered otiose or redundant.

+ While interpreting any statute, one of the cardinal rules of interpretation is that every word of the statute should be given meaning and one should not construe a statute in such a way as to render certain words redundant. As explained above, sub-clause (ii) would have merely stated "where the rate of tax on inputs being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies" and the words "credit has accumulated on account of" would not have been introduced if the intention was not to identify the source from which - i.e. input goods and the rate of tax thereon - unutilised input tax credit should accumulate for entitlement to refund, if the intention was to provide a refund of the entire unutilised input tax credit.

+ We conclude that Section 54(3)(ii) qualifies the enacting clause by also limiting the source/type and, consequently, quantity of unutilised input tax credit in respect of which refund is permissible. Hence, the proviso to Section 54(3) does not merely set out the two cases in which registered persons become eligible for a refund of unutilised input tax credit.

+ The proviso performs the larger function of also limiting the entitlement of refund to credit that accumulates as a result of the rate of tax on input goods being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies.?

+ When Rule 89(5), as it stands today, is analysed in the context of Section 54(3)(ii), it is clear that Net ITC has been re-defined in the amended Rule 89(5) so as to provide for a refund only on unutilised input tax credit that accumulates on account of input goods, whereas, as per the un-amended Rule 89(5), Net ITC covered not only input tax credit availed on input goods but also on input services. In light of the conclusion that a refund is permitted only in respect of unutilised input tax credit that accrues or accumulates as a result of the higher rate of tax on input goods vis-a-vis output supplies, we are of the view that the amended Rule 89(5) is in conformity with the statute.

+ On the other hand, the unamended Rule 89(5) exceeded the scope of Section 54(3)(ii) and extended the benefit of refund to the credit that accumulates both on account of the rate of tax on "inputs" and "input services" being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies.

+ Consequently, Bench concludes that Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, as amended, is intra vires both the general rule making power and Section 54(3) of the CGST Act. There is no dispute as regards the power to amend with retrospective effect either as such power is conferred under Section 164 of the CGST Act, albeit subject to the limitation that it cannot pre-date the date of entry into force of the CGST Act.

+ In our view, Rule 89(5), as amended, is fully in line with Section 54(3)(ii). Therefore, there is no necessity to read into Rule 89(5). In fact, if the words "input services" are read into Rule 89(5), in our opinion, Rule 89(5) becomes ultra vires Section 54(3)(ii) .

+ For all the above reasons, we are unable to subscribe to the conclusions in VKC Footsteps - 2020-TIOL-1273-HC-AHM-GST. In our view, the Gujarat High Court failed to take into consideration the scope, function and impact of the proviso to Section 54(3).

+ Even in the context of non-tax legislation, while interpreting a defined term, the first port of call is the statutory definition and one turns to the trade or common parlance meaning if the context clearly points away from the statutory definition. In a tax statute context, the requirement to stay true to the statutory definition is more compelling.

+ The correct meaning of the word "inputs", as used in Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act should be gleaned by applying the afore-stated principles. The text uses the word "inputs" and this word is defined in Section 2(59) as "any goods other than capital goods used or intended to be used by a supplier in the course or furtherance of business".

+ Section 54(8)(a) uses the words "inputs" and "input services" separately and distinctively in the context of refund of tax paid to exporters. Similarly, the Explanation to Section 54 uses the terms "inputs" and "input services" separately and distinctively, thereby indicating the legislative intent to distinguish one from the other.

+ Keeping in mind the aforesaid factors, we are unable to countenance Mr.Ghosh's submission that the word ''inputs'' should be read so as to include ''input services'' merely because the undefined word ''output supplies'' is used in Section 54(3)(ii). Hence, we conclude that both the statutory definition and the context point in the same direction, namely, that the word "inputs" encompasses all input goods, other than capital goods, and excludes input services.

+ The refund of input tax credit cannot be equated with a discount or abatement either. In the context of a registered person being subject to an inverted duty structure and, therefore, not being in a position to set-off the entire input tax credit, instead of a set-off, Parliament has enabled a sub-class of such registered person to claim and receive a refund of unutilised input tax credit.

+ This is clearly in the nature of a benefit or concession and cannot be equated with a refund claim for excessive taxes that were paid inadvertently or any other claim for a debt due to the registered person from the tax authorities.

+ This issue can be approached from another perspective: would a registered person be entitled to such refund but for the statutory prescription in Section 54(3)(i) & (ii)? The answer is a resounding 'no'.

+ Question that arises for consideration is whether the classification for purposes of refund is liable to be struck down as being in violation of Article 14. Before proceeding to analyse this issue, it is pertinent to bear in mind that the Court is required to begin with the presumption that the statute is constitutionally valid. No doubt, this a rebuttable presumption. One should also bear in mind that economiclegislations are interpreted on a different benchmark especially when it comes to classification.

+ It should also be borne in mind that the refund of unutilised input tax credit entails the outflow of cash from the Government's coffers. We concluded earlier that a right of refund is purely statutory and, therefore, cannot be availed of except strictly in accordance with the conditions prescribed for the same.

+ Counsel for Revenue had relied upon the judgment in Satnam Overseas Exports and, in particular, paragraphs 60 & 61 thereof, wherein the court held that the right to refund is a statutory right and that the legislature may decide to include or omit classes of persons who would be entitled to such refund.

+ In the case at hand also, Bench finds that there is a classification of sources of unutilised input tax credit into sources that give rise to a right to refund, i.e. input goods, and those that do not, i.e. input services. As a corollary, registered persons may be entitled to full, partial or nil refund as regards unutilised input tax credit accumulating on account of being subject to an inverted duty structure. As correctly contended by Revenue Counsel, the latitude to make classification in matters related to taxation is wider than in other forms of legislation.

+ In the context of the CGST Act, Bench notes that the legislation is intended to consolidate the indirect taxes on goods and services under a common umbrella. There is no doubt that the object and purpose of the present GST laws is to avoid the cascading of taxes and to impose a tax on consumption, be it goods or services. Thus, the long-term objective appears to be to treat goods and services, as far as possible, similarly. Nonetheless, it must be borne in mind that this is an evolutionary process.

+ By way of illustration, we may draw reference to the fact that the concept of input tax credit was not originally available under sales tax law and central excise law. It was first introduced in the form of MODVAT credit. MODVAT credit was initially available only in respect of goods. After the introduction of service tax through the Finance Act, CENVAT credit was introduced and made available both in respect of goods and services. However, refund of unutilised input tax credit was not provided.

+ Thereafter, the GST laws have been introduced which enable registered persons to avail input tax credit both on goods and services but there are restrictions as regards refund. When viewed objectively and holistically, we find that, under the GST laws, goods and services are treated similarly in certain respects but differently in other respects. Even with regard to rate of tax, almost all services attract a uniform rate of 18%, whereas goods are taxed at rates that vary considerably.

+ The subject matter of controversy is the entitlement to refund of unutilised input tax credit and not the availing of input tax credit. Under Section 54(3)(ii), Parliament has provided the right of refund only in respect of unutilised credit that accumulates on account of the rate of tax on input goods being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies.

+ Goods and services have been treated differently from time immemorial, as reflected in the use of the expressions, quantum valebant, as regards the measure of payment for goods, and quantum meruit, as regards the measure of payment for services, supplied non-gratuitously and without a formal contract.

+ While there has been a legislative trend towards a more uniform treatment as between goods and services, the distinction has certainly not been obliterated as is evident on perusal of the CGST Act, including provisions such as Sections 12 & 13, etc., which are specifically targeted at goods and services. Keeping in mind the following factors: the inherent differences between goods and services, notwithstanding the trend towards similar treatment; the subject matter of classification, namely, curtailment of entitlement to refund of input tax credit to credit accumulated from the procurement of input goods; the equal treatment meted out to registered persons who avail input services inter se and those who procure input goods inter se; the wide Parliamentary latitude as regards classification qua tax and economic legislations, which is recognised and affirmed by the Supreme Court; and the nature and character of refund as a creation of statute and subject to statutory eligibility conditions, Benchis unable to countenance the contention of petitioner that the non-conferment of the right of refund to the unutilised input tax credit from the procurement of input services violates Article 14.

+ On the contrary, we conclude that the classification is valid, non- arbitrary and far from invidious.

+ Given the fact that Bench has concluded that Section 54(3)(ii), on a plain reading, does not violate Article 14, it is not necessary to draw definitive conclusions on the scope of reading down or to examine if the casus omissus rule should be deviated from in this case.

+ The ambit of reading down and the exceptions to the casus omissus rule would have to await an appropriate case that warrants a finding on these issues.

+ Refund is a statutory right and the extension of the benefit of refund only to the unutilised credit that accumulates on account of the rate of tax on input goods being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies by excluding unutilised input tax credit that accumulated on account of input services is a valid classification and a valid exercise of legislative power.

+ Therefore, there is no necessity to adopt the interpretive device of reading down so as to save the constitutionality of Section 54(3)(ii).

+ Section 54(3)(ii) curtails a refund claim to the unutilised credit that accumulates only on account of the rate of tax on input goods being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies. In other words, it qualifies and curtails not only the class of registered persons who are entitled to refund but also the imposes a source-based restriction on refund entitlement and, consequently, the quantum thereof.

+ As a corollary, Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules,as amended, is in conformity with Section 54(3)(ii). Consequently, it is not necessary to interpret Rule 89(5) and, in particular, the definition of Net ITC therein so as to include the words input services.

++ Writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 54(3)(ii) are dismissed.

++ All the writ petitions challenging the validity of Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules on the ground that it is ultra vires Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act and/or the Constitution are dismissed.

GST - Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 detention notice issued to him - It is the case of the petitioner that the transportation was of a consignment of watches that had been supplied to him by the seller in Delhi at a discounted rate of Rs.8.99 - Transportation of the goods was accompanied by Ext.P4 tax invoice, where the supplier in Delhi had shown the actual price of the consignment of watches, which was Rs.4,49,550/- and had given a discount of almost the entire amount save to the extent of Rs.8.99, and had paid IGST at the rate of 18% on the actual value of the watches - Consignment was detained by the respondent, on the ground that, although the consignment was covered by a valid invoice, it was not accompanied by a valid e-way bill - It is the case of the petitioner that since the discounted value of the goods was less than Rs.50,000/-, there was no requirement for the consignment to be accompanied by an e-way bill.

Held: There is force in the contention of the petitioner that inasmuch as the effective value of the goods that was transported was only Rs.8.99 as evident from Ext.P4 invoice, and the provisions of the Act and Rules mandate that an e-way bill is required only for consignments whose value exceeds Rs.50,000/-, the detention at the instance of the respondent cannot be said to be justified - Petition allowed by quashing the Ex.P7 detention notice/order and directing the respondent to forthwith release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner: High Court [para 3]

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Petition has been filed challenging the final order dated 16th July, 2020 = 2020-TIOL-41-NAA-GST passed by NAPA whereby it has been held that the petitioner profiteered Rs.7,53,854/- (including GST) during the period 15th November, 2017 to 30th June, 2019 as well as the report dated 31st December, 2019 issued by the DGAP/Respondent No. 3 - Petitioner also prays for a declaration that Section 171 of CGST Act and Chapter XV of the CGST Rules are arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional for being in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 50, 256 and 300A of the Constitution of India as well as for a declaration that Rule 123, 129 and 133(3) of the CGST Rules are ultra vires the provisions of the CGST Act itself; that the aforesaid provisions are inapplicable to the post transition period (i.e. after 01st July, 2017) for being contrary to the very purpose with which these provisions were introduced under the CGST Act and rules thereunder; that due to COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner be allowed to deposit the aforesaid amount in installments.

Held: Issue notice - Counter-affidavits be filed within a period of four weeks and Rejoinder-affidavits be filed before the next date of hearing - Court directs the petitioner to deposit the principal profiteered amount (i.e. Rs.7,53,854/- and Rs.35,898/-) in six equated monthly installments commencing 30th September, 2020 - However, the interest amount directed to be paid by the respondents as well as penalty proceedings are stayed till further orders – Matter to be listed on 03rd November, 2020: High Court

GST - Petitioner is assailing the tax liability alongwith interest and penalty of different assessment years (2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) as contained in the impugned order (Annexure-P/1), dated 11/8/2020 passed by respondent No.4-Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Shivpuri (M.P.).

Held: It is evident that due and sufficient opportunity was afforded to petitioner to produce the remaining relevant documents which had not been recovered during search - The explanation given by petitioner for not producing documents sought by Revenue was that the same are maintained in soft copy in computer while in regard to other documents sought by the Revenue, there was no explanation - This obviously gives an impression that the remaining relevant documents which could not be seized during search are still in possession of petitioner and, therefore, supply of copies or extracts of the seized documents to petitioner can enable the petitioner to carry out interpolations for reducing or depressing tax liability and with corresponding loss to the Revenue - The formation of this opinion is founded upon reasonable apprehension in the mind of the competent authority that supply of copies/extracts of seized documents can lead to adversely affecting the investigation - The discretion available to the competent authority u/s 67(5) of the CGST Act while withholding supply of copies/extracts of documents seized appears to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority for reasons which prima facie appear to be cogent and convincing - Once it is held that discretion available to the competent authority u/S. 67(5) of the CGST Act had been reasonably exercised while refusing to accede to the request for supply of copies/extracts of seized documents, it cannot be said that the competent authority has travelled beyond it's jurisdictional purviews prescribed by law and, therefore, in the absence of jurisdictional error in the order impugned, no interference is called for, especially in the face of unavailed alternative statutory remedy of appeal - Court does not find any substance in all the three petitions (WP 12679/20, WP 12690/20 & WP 12687/20) which accordingly stand dismissed in limine at the admission stage itself: High Court [para 4.1 to 4.3, 5]

GST - Petitioner challenges the provisional attachment order dated 14th August, 2020 issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioner's bankers - It is submitted that in the present case the sine qua non for exercise of power under Section 83 of CGST Act is absent as there is no proceeding pending under Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 and 74 of CGST Act.

Held : Court is of the view that Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case - Keeping in view the similarity of circumstances as in the cases of Pranit Hem Desai 2019-TIOL-831-HC-AHM-GST , Watermelon Management Services Private Limited 2020-TIOL-984-HC-DEL-GST , Bench deems it appropriate to direct the respondent No.1 to treat the present writ petition as an objection under Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and decide the same within a week by way of a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Writ petition stands disposed of: High Court [para 8, 10]

GST - Petition has been filed challenging the Second Deficiency Memo dated 23rd July, 2020 passed by respondent no. 3 under Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules for the Financial Year 2019-2020 and for directions to the respondents to refund the excess tax of Rs.1,05,39,480 inadvertently paid by the petitioner along with applicable interest with effect from 17th February, 2020 as well as for a declaration that Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules is ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, or alternatively for Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules to be read down to the effect that the rectification of deficiencies shall not be treated as submission of fresh application for the purpose of computing limitation of applying for refund and grant of interest on delayed refund under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Petitioner submits that the refund procedure in Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules is arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires for the reason that issuance of a deficiency memo effectively results in rejection of the refund application without giving any opportunity of hearing to the applicant - further submits that a refund application under Section 54 of the CGST Act read with Rule 89 and Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules is automatically treated as rejected and the second refund application is treated as a fresh application and the interest amount is calculated only from the date of the second refund application or subsequent applications which are filed after receiving the deficiency memos. Thus, according to the petitioner, the applicants are deprived of their right to claim interest on refund from the date of the initial application - Respondents are permitted to file their counter-affidavits within four weeks - Matter listed on 9 th December 2020: High Court [para 5, 7]

GST - Carbonated fruit drinks manufactured by petitioners was classified under HSN 2202 9920 and they were discharging GST @ 12% on all intra State and inter-State supplies - During the course of Business of supplying the goods inter-state, the aforementioned drinks were brought within the jurisdiction of Kerala from Karnataka manufacturing Plant and the vehicles carrying the aforementioned goods were intercepted at Walayar, Palakkad on the premise that the aforementioned goods were wrongly classified and in fact they would be falling under the head 2202 10, for which the GST rate is 28% - Against the aforementioned detention, the petitioner vide reply to Ext.P3(d) notice submitted that, the allegation of misclassification is without merit, and petitioner has already applied for an advance ruling pertaining to same matter in Gujarat and the said matter is pending in the Gujarat High Court with an interim stay favouring petitioner.

Held: 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 Karnataka 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 is 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 - A similar question also arose for consideration before the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd.'s case - 2020-TIOL-445-HC-AHM-GST wherein in paragraph 158 and 159 and 160 it is irresistibly concluded that 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 misclassification as to whether the goods would be exigible to 12% or 28% - Upshot of the reasoning aforementioned is that the impugned order of detention Ext.P3(c) and consequential notices 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, Karnataka for taking action, if deem it appropriate, in accordance with law: High Court [para 6 to 8]

GST - Petition is filed by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence challenging the order dated 26.8.2020 passed by the Additional Session's Judge, Rohini District Courts in the matter of the bail application filed by Harish Kumar Baid - It is submitted by the counsel for the Revenue that not only the bail application is allowed without issuing any notice to the Department but the Court which granted anticipatory bail had no jurisdiction to grant the same as such application could have been listed either before the CMM or before the ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi - It is further stated that the investigation is still continuing and probably the amount of tax to be recovered may run in to crores of rupees; that even the Delhi Courts has no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail since the respondent hails from Indore, Madhya Pradesh and the cause of action also arose at the same place.

Held: Directions issued to issue notice to respondents through all modes including email returnable on 20.10.2020: High Court

GST - Petition is filed by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence challenging the order dated 26.8.2020 passed by the Additional Session's Judge, Rohini District Courts in the matter of the bail application filed by Prakash Chand Golcha - It is submitted by the counsel for the Revenue that not only the bail application is allowed without issuing any notice to the Department but the Court which granted anticipatory bail had no jurisdiction to grant the same as such application could have been listed either before the CMM or before the ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi - It is further stated that the investigation is still continuing and probably the amount of tax to be recovered may run in to crores of rupees; that even the Delhi Courts has no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail since the respondent hails from Indore, Madhya Pradesh and the cause of action also arose at the same place.

Held: Directions issued to issue notice to respondents through all modes including email returnable on 20.10.2020: High Court

GST - The petitioner company purchased 120 car tyres in the relevant period, from a consignor in New Delhi - The goods were unloaded at the business place of the assessee at Aluva, which was also the place of destination as per the invoice - Subsequently, the consignment was detained, the vehicle driver was questioned and Form GST MOV-1 was issued - The petitioner filed the present petition, stating that proceedings had stalled, with no inspection being conducted and no order being passed - The petitioner claimed to have complied with the applicable provisions of the CGST and SGST Act - It claimed that it would face immense losses, should the goods be detained based upon an oral order.

Held - The petitioner has not been issued a detention order so far - Hence in order to meet the interests of justice, the petitioner can have the goods and vehicle released, subject to payment of bank guarantee for the amount in question - Upon payment of the same, the Revenue would complete and conclude the adjudication proceedings in a weeks' time: HC

GST - The petitioner was transporting certain perishable goods, whereupon such consignment was intercepted and detained by the Revenue - The goods were later confiscated and penalty was imposed on the petitioner - The petitioner approached the writ court, seeking that the order confiscating the goods be quashed and the penalty imposed be set aside - The petitioner also sought that the goods detained were perishable in nature and so sought for their provisional release.

Held - The petitioner should file statutory appeal u/s 107 against the order of confiscation passed u/s 130 of the Act - In respect of the application for provisional release of the goods, such an application can be made only after filing appeal u/s 107 of te Act - If an appeal is filed, then the authority concerned is to immediately take up the application for provisional release of the goods and conveyance u/s 67(6) - Petition is disposed of with such observations: HC

GST - The petitioner sought that the Rule 86A of the CGST Rules be struck down as being ultra vires of Section 16 of the CGST Act, since it enabled the Revenue to block the Input Tax Credit at no fault of the registered recipient - The petitioner also sought that directions be issued to the Revenue to allowed utilisation of ITC, until it was proven that the supplier did not pay tax on the relevant items.

Held - Considering the submissions of both parties, notice is issued to the Revenue in respect of the reliefs being claimed by the petitioner - Comments sought from the Revenue on as to whether omission on part of third party in filing GSTR 3B for the relevant period, is sufficient grounds to block ITC availed by the purchaser of the relevant goods, in this case, the petitioner herein: HC

GST - Petitioner no.2 is a proprietor of Petitioner no.1 firm - It is the case of the petitioners that their bank accounts have been provisionally attached without considering the provisions of section 83 of the GGST Act, as in the case of the petitioners no proceedings are pending under any of the sections mentioned therein.

+ Prima facie, it appears that the petitioners have issued very large number of EWay bills within a short period of time between their associate concern without movement of goods like cement, iron, tiles, brass etc. From the report, submitted to the Enforcement department of the respondent authorities, it is also revealed that the petitioners were involved in carrying out the transactions on paper without actual physical movement of goods. It is also pertinent to note that petitioner no.2 has shown total ignorance with regard to the transactions which were reported to be fictitious, more particularly, when the petitioner no.2 is the owner of the petitioner no.1 firm having GST No.

+ Prima facie, there is reasonable apprehension that the petitioners may default in the ultimate collection of the demand that is likely to be raised on completion of the assessment. It appears that prima facie there is sufficient material on record to justify the satisfaction in view of denial of the petitioner no. 2 with regard to the transactions carried out by the petitioner no.1 which is a proprietary concern of petitioner no.2.

+ It also emerges from the materials on record that this is a fit case to invoke the provisions of section 83 of the GGST Act as apparently the petitioners seem to have been indulging in bogus billing causing loss to the Revenue and as such it cannot be said that passing of the impugned order under section 83 of the GGST Act is for recovery of dues but it is only for the purpose of protecting the Government revenue as the petitioner has failed to produce on record to show as to the capacity to pay the tax dues which may be levied upon the petitioners on completion of the assessment proceedings.

+ It is also not in dispute that as per the returns filed by the petitioner no.1, there is an outward supply of Rs.10,68,24,458/- and generation of EWay bill amounting to Rs.8,44,26,683/- of which the petitioner no.2 has no knowledge. Petitioner no.2 has also replied to question no.17 in his statement that he is not aware about email ID used for the purpose of obtaining GST number. Petitioner no.2 has raised his hands in ignorance with regard to the benefits received by him out of the transactions carried out in the account of petitioner no.1.

+ Petitioner no.2 has also stated that the entire transactions were carried out by one Sandipbhai Maganbhai Chaniyara and petitioner no.2 was not aware about such transactions. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent authorities have no reason to form an opinion as required by section 83 of the GGST Act for passing the impugned order of provisional attachment.

+ It is clear that once an opinion is formed by the competent authority as stipulated in section 83 that there is a reasonable apprehension that the petitioners may default in ultimate collection of demand that is likely to be raised on completion of the assessment, then it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to exercise powers under section 83 of the GGST Act.

+ It has prima facie emerged from the material on the record that the petitioners were involved in bogus billing to defraud the Revenue by generating EWay bills without physical movement of the goods. Therefore, the power exercised by the respondent authorities cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.

+ As prima facie it appears from the record that the petitioners were involved in the activity of bogus billing and generation of EWay bill without physical movement of the goods, it cannot be said that the impugned orders passed for provisional attachment are used as tool to harass the petitioners or it would have irreversible detrimental effect on the business of the petitioners. In the facts of the case, prima facie it appears that the petitioners have misused the provisions of the GGST Act by generating EWay bills so as to claim input tax credit by indulging in bogus billing without physical movement of the goods from remote villages in Jamnagar district.

+ No interference is required to be made in exercise of powers under section 83 of the GGST Act by the respondent authorities while exercising extraordinary powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

GST - Refund claim - Rejection order - Petition filed seeking refund along with interest @2% per month - Aforesaid order is appealable under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Act, 2017 - As there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, Bench is not inclined to entertain the prayer qua order dated 17th June, 2020 - The petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal in accordance with law before the appropriate forum - Insofar as the second claim of refund of Rs.7,68,938/- is concerned, which was made on 23rd January, 2020, the same is yet to be decided by the respondents - Bench directs the respondent-authorities concerned to decide the refund application dated 23rd January, 2020 in accordance with law within a period of three weeks, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 6 to 8]

GST - Petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 29.07.2020, provisionally attaching the bank account.

Held: Account of the petitioner maintained with the HDFC Bank was attached by the impugned order dated 29.07.2020 while exercising powers under Section 83 of the Act on the ground that the proceedings have been launched under Section 67 of the Act - It is also an admitted fact that the proceedings under Section 67 have already been over and no proceedings under any other provisions much less under Section 63 or 74 have been initiated so far - The bare reading of Section 83 of the Act would show that the Commissioner has to form an opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue, it is necessary to provisionally attach either the property or the bank account belonging to the taxable person by passing an order in writing but this exercise can be made by the Commissioner when any proceedings under Sections 62 or 63 or 64 or 67 or 73 or 74 is pending - The Legislature has cautiously used the word "or" for each and every Section of the Act for the purpose of giving powers to the Commissioner to initiate proceedings to provisionally attach the property or the bank account of the taxable person but it is not provided anywhere that the property or the bank account can remain attached under the order passed under Section 83 of the Act if the proceedings initiated under Section 67 is culminated into the proceedings under Section 63 or Section 74 - In our considered opinion, the effect of Section 83 of the Act shall come to an end as soon as the proceedings pending in any of the aforesaid Sections i.e. 63 or 64 or 67 or 73 or 74 are over because pendency of the proceedings is the sine qua non and in case the Commissioner still feels or is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do in the interest of protecting the Government revenue, it still can pass an order in writing to attach any property or even the bank account of the taxable person if the proceedings are initiated in any of the aforesaid provisions and are pending but for the provisions in which the proceedings have earlier been initiated and are over - impugned orders passed by the respondents are patently illegal specially when the proceedings initiated under Section 67 of the Act has already been over - impugned orders Annexures P-1 to P-3 are hereby set aside with a direction to the respondents to release the aforesaid bank account of the petitioners forthwith which has been provisionally attached vide order dated 29.07.2020: High Court

GST - Aggrieved by the action of respondent nos.3 to 5 in issuing show cause notice and subsequently cancelling the registration of the petitioner under the CGST Act and thereafter refusing to revoke the cancellation of registration, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

Held: It is not in dispute that the show cause notices, the order of cancellation and the order rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation are passed by proper officer - The show cause notice dated 18.03.2020 and the order of cancellation of registration dated 06.06.2020 have already been challenged before this Court in W.P.No.8167/2020 and cannot be challenged in the present writ petition - Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.8167/2020, respondent no.4 has issued the notice dated 03.07.2020 to the petitioner - There is no jurisdictional error in the said notice - The petitioner has made his representation on 06.07.2020 and has been given a personal hearing by respondent no.4 and thereafter, he has passed the order dated 10.07.2020 - Thus, the said order is a speaking order and it records the reasons for rejecting the application of the petitioner for revocation of cancellation of registration - The intimation to the petitioner dated 21.07.2020 is pursuant to the order dated 10.07.2020 and it has to be construed as an intimation of the decision taken on 10.07.2020 by respondent no.4, though the reason assigned in the said intimation and the manner in which the same is styled may be erroneous - Even otherwise, the order dated 10.07.2020 is a reasoned order and the same cannot be held as without jurisdiction and in violation of any principles of natural justice - If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, it ought to have filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act and the petitioner cannot challenge the same by way of a writ petition - However, it is noticed that the petitioner has filed the writ petition because it initially challenged certain provisions of the CGST Act and the CGST Rules which could not have been done by way of an appeal – Further, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, it has given up the said prayer and has confined its arguments to erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the respondents which this Court finds untenable for the aforementioned reasons - However, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be bereft of its right of appeal as contemplated under the CGST Act - The writ petition is hereby dismissed - The petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal as contemplated under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 , if it so desires, within thirty days from today – And, if the petitioner prefers an appeal, it is for the appropriate authority to take a decision: High Court [para 18, 19]

GST - Petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to grant a refund of IGST/ITC in compliance with the directions of this Court given in order dated 14th November 2019 [2019-TIOL-2611-HC-DEL-GST] - Court had directed the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioner and release the refund amount within four weeks positively, if the same or any part whereof was found to be payable - Petitioner further submits that on 06th February, 2020 respondent No. 3 filed a short affidavit praying for some time to make the computer software operational in order to grant a refund to the petitioner; however, despite lapse of nine months, nothing has been heard from the respondents - Notice issued - returnable for 23rd September, 2020: High Court

GST - Challenge is to three orders of assessment, all dated 14.02.2020 - main ground agitated and argued by petitioner is the violation of the principles of natural justice - Counsel for Revenue fairly states that effective opportunity, as urged, does not appear to have been extended to the petitioner insofar as personal hearing notice was issued on 13.02.2020 listing the matter for hearing on 14.02.2020, the very next day and the impugned orders have been passed on the same day.

Held: Assessing Officer, in all fairness, should wait till the end of the working day when personal hearing was fixed, before finalizing the assessment - Finalization of assessment on the same day when the matter was listed for hearing would militate against the requirement of natural justice - impugned orders are set aside - Notice be issued afresh to the petitioner to enable them to appear and make its submissions and let orders be passed within a period of eight (8) weeks from date of first hearing, in accordance with law – Petitions disposed of: High Court [para 4, 5]

GST - Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2019 of provisional attachment of the property under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 purportedly in order to protect the interest of the Revenue - Submission is that on a spot inspection of the business premises of the petitioner, some dispute was raised by the department with regard to the registration of the place of business which was changed during the course of time - It appears that after registration of the changed premises, on an application moved by the petitioner, the competent officer passed an order dated 24.12.2019 revoking the cancellation of registration - Petitioner, therefore, contends that despite revocation of the order of cancellation, the bank account provisionally attached by the order dated 06.09.2019 has not been released - provisional attachment order survives only for a period of one year in view of Section 83(2) of the Act of 2017 - In view of the provisions in Section 83(2), Bench observes that the provisional attachment order dated 06.09.2019 has outlived its life after a period of one year - failure of the respondents to provide the necessary instructions reflects very poorly on the functioning of the Revenue - Such conduct can have an adverse impact on the business environment of the country - competent authority is directed to consider the grievances of the petitioner and pass a fresh order - Petition disposed of: High Court

GST - It is apparent that the appeal is required to be filed in electronic mode only and if any other mode is to be prescribed then the same is required to be notified by way of a notification - There is nothing on record to show that any notification has been issued for manual filing of an appeal - In such circumstances, though the physical copy of the adjudication order was handed over to the petitioner, the time period to file appeal would start only when the order is uploaded on the GST portal - Without the order being uploaded, the petitioner could not file the appeal and, therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the uploading of the order and filing of the appeal are two different processes, is not tenable in law - Moreover, filing of the appeal and uploading of the order are intertwined activities - The order is required to be uploaded online so that the appeal can be filed electronically as per the mandate of the provisions of the Act and the Rules - However, there is no provision or procedure to file the appeal manually - In such circumstances, there was no failure on part of the petitioner to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation as the period of limitation did not start till the order passed by the adjudicating authority was uploaded on the GST portal - Merely because the petitioner has filed the appeal manually after exhausting all the efforts to ensure filing of the appeal in proper and legal manner, the impugned order rejecting such appeal on the ground of limitation is not sustainable as the petitioner cannot be penalised for lack of clarity of the provision when the new law is enacted - Therefore, the appellate authority was not justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation and thereby depriving the petitioner to submit its case on merits - Taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the case, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is required to be quashed and set aside by condoning the delay in filing of the appeal manually by the petitioner in absence of availability of the order passed by the adjudicating authority on the GST portal - Petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed - Impugned order is quashed and set aside and the delay in preferring the appeal manually is ordered to be condoned and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no.3 appellate authority to decide the same afresh de novo on merits after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner: High Court [para 8 to 10]

GST - Refund - It is the case of the petitioner that being a SEZ unit making zero rated supplies under the GST, the petitioner was not able to utilize the credit of the Input Tax Credit of IGST from its ISD and it was lying unutilized in the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner - accordingly, petitioner filed an application for refund in Form GST RFD-01A with regard to the credit of Integrated Goods and Services Tax distributed by Input Service Distributor (ISD) for the services pertaining to the SEZ unit for an amount of Rs.99,05,156/- for the year 2018-2019 - SCN dated 2nd July, 2019 was issued by respondent no.3 - Deputy Commissioner, Central GST Mundra Division, Gandhindham with a proposal of rejection of the claim of refund of the unutilized ITC - consequently, by an order, the refund was rejected - Petitioner is, therefore, before the High Court - Counsel for Revenue submitted that in view of the provision of section 54 of the CGST Act read with Rule 89 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 only a supplier of goods or services can file an application for refund and not recipient of the services; that the petitioner is a recipient of service; the petitioner is not entitled to get the refund under the provisions of the CGST Act read with the CGST Rules - It was further pointed out that there is no circular, notification or guidelines issued by the Government or Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to process the input tax credit refund claims of the units located in the SEZ and, therefore, the competent authority has rightly rejected the claim of the refund made by the petitioner by passing the impugned order.

Held: Rule 89 of the CGST Rules provides for procedure for application for refund of tax, interest, penalty, fees and prescribes that in respect of supplies to a SEZ unit, the application for refund has to be filed by the supplier of goods or services - The contention of the respondents that as the petitioner is not the supplier of the goods and services, the petitioner would not be entitled to file application for refund is not tenable because in facts of the present case, input service distributor i.e. ISD as defined under section 2(61) of the CGST Act is an office of the supplier of goods and services which receives tax invoices issued under section 31 of the CGST Act towards the receipt of input services and issues a prescribed document for the purpose of distributing the credit of CGST, SGST or IGST paid on such goods or services - Therefore, in facts of the case, it is not possible for a supplier of goods and services to file a refund application to claim the refund of the input tax credit distributed by ISD - Therefore, the stance of the department that the petitioner is not entitled to seek the refund of the ITC paid in connection with goods or services supplied to SEZ unit is not tenable - This aspect is further fortified by notification no. 28/2012 dated 20th June, 2012 which was in connection with service tax attributable to the services used in more than one unit to be distributed pro-rata on the basis of the turnover during the relevant period of the concerned unit to the sum total of the turnover of all the units and similarly, in facts of the present case also, credit of service tax is distributed to all the units by the ISD and, therefore, the claim of refund made by the SEZ unit of the petitioner is required to be granted - In view of the decision in case of M/s. Amit Cotton Industries - 2019-TIOL-1443-HC-AHM-GST, the petitioner is entitled to claim refund of the IGST lying in the Electronic Credit Ledger as there is no specific supplier who can claim the refund under the provisions of the CGST Act and the CGST Rules as input tax credit is distributed by the input service distributor - The impugned order is quashed and set aside - The respondents are directed to process the claim of refund made by the petitioner within three months for unutilized IGST credit lying in Electronic Credit Ledger under section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 : High Court [para 21 to 24]

GST - Circular trading - Allegation of floating bogus firms and supply of fake invoices to pass ITC - Petitioner seeks quashing of the condition in order dated 08.04.2020 passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Panipat whereby, while granting bail to the petitioner, he has been directed to furnish bail bonds of Rs.50,00,000/- with one surety of like amount - Similarly, he has been directed to pay the outstanding liability of Rs.1,94,78,017/- along with interest - Petitioner has argued that the said onerous conditions resulted in practically denying the grant of bail to the petitioner as he is not in a position to pay the said outstanding amount.

Held: It is not disputed that the petitioner was arrested after logding of the FIR on 06.09.2019 and he is in custody since then and a period of almost a year has gone by - The Addl.Sessions Judge, Panipat rightly came to the conclusion that the offences punishable when the amount of input tax credit or refund of tax does not exceed Rs.500 lakhs, the offences are cognizable and non-bailable - It was noticed that FIR No.571 had already been lodged against the petitioner for the creation of 18 fake firms and the liability beyond Rs.5 crores would be subject matter of that proceedings - The liability was held to be as per the complaint and would be for Rs.1,94,78,017/- and therefore, the conditional bail order was passed, which aspect has not been challenged by the State - In the opinion of this Court, there are sufficient remedies available to the State to recover the amount by other modes also and to protect the interest of revenue - As noticed, by putting conditional order of directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,94,78,017/-, it would amount to recovery of the amount - The perusal of the complaint would go on to show that show cause notices have already been issued to the petitioner also, to pay the said amount along with penalties - In such circumstances, it would be clear that the investigation is complete and on the basis of which, a complaint has been filed - The record of same is with the authorities and it is not that the petitioner is in a position to interfere with the investigation or tamper with the evidence and neither it is the case of the State also, in that context - Keeping in view the above factors, Court is of the opinion that since the maximum punishment which can be awarded is upto 5 years and the petitioner has almost undergone a period of one year having been arrested on 06.09.2019, the onerous conditions would thus violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the liberty of the petitioner is being deprived - It is settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception and mere seriousness of the charge is not a factor to be taken into account while denying the valuable right of liberty - The basic principle being the man is innocent till he is found guilty - The factum of the investigation being complete and enquiry having been completed and the relevant documents being in possession of the prosecution, the petitioner thus cannot be detained during the trial only on account of the fact that a bail order in the form of a recovery proceedings has been passed against him to pay the outstanding worth almost Rs.2 crores along with interest - onerous condition imposed by by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Panipat thus suffers from the vice of unreasonability and cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny - the present petition is accepted - The condition of payment of Rs.1,94,78,017/- along with interest is set aside - The bail bonds of Rs.50 lakhs with one surety are reduced to Rs.25 lakhs which shall be in the form of immoveable property - order of the Addl.Sessions Judge dated 08.04.2020 is, accordingly, modified, whereas the other conditions shall remain intact: High Court [para 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19]

GST - Subject-matter of challenge in the present litigation is the order dated 27.08.2020 passed by the respondent No.3 in Form GST MOV-11 viz. final order of confiscation of goods and conveyance - Writ applicant had informed the respondent No.3 that he has already approached the High Court challenging the notice in Form GST MOV-10 - It appears that the hearing which was scheduled to be held on 22.08.2020 was adjourned - However, during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, the subject final order in Form GST MOV-11 came to be passed.

Held: It appears that the writ applicant was not given any opportunity of hearing before the final order in Form GST MOV-11 came to be passed, hence, Bench is inclined to remit the matter to the respondent No.3 so as to give an opportunity to the writ applicant to make good his case why the goods and conveyance are not liable to be confiscated under Section 130 of the GST Act, 2017 - writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed - impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 27.08.2020, Annexure-K, in Form GST MOV-11 is hereby quashed and set aside - while deciding the matter afresh, the respondent No.3 shall keep in mind the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application No.4730 of 2019 = 2019-TIOL-2950-HC-AHM-GST and allied petitions, decided on 23.12.2019: High Court [para 7, 8, 9, 11]

GST - Petitioner challenges penalty order passed u/s 130 of the Act - during the pendency of the Writ petition, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 3 rd respondent - limited prayer now is for a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 appeal expeditiously, and to keep in abeyance recovery steps for the balance amounts recoverable from the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P6 penalty order, in the meanwhile.

Held: Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 appeal within six weeks - till such time as orders are passed by the 3rd respondent in the appeal, and the order communicated to the petitioner, there will be a stay of operation of Ext.P9, and the communication of the 1st respondent referred to therein - lien exercised by the 1st respondent on the bank account of the petitioner with the 7th respondent shall stand lifted during the period when the stay granted in this judgment is in force: High Court [para 2]

GST - Petition has been filed seeking refund of outstanding IGST amount of Rs.7,61,176/- paid on the shipping bill dated 24th March, 2018 either manually through RTGS or cheque - Counsel for Revenue states that the Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Export) has approached the Directorate General of Systems and Data Management to take necessary steps for resolution of the issue and prays that the matter be stood over for two weeks - the present case is, therefore, adjourned to 22nd September, 2020: High Court

- Matter listed : DELHI HIGH COURT

GST - Court on 8th February, 2019, gave liberty to the petitioner to file returns and pay taxes, so as to avoid future liability of interest, if it accrues - While the petitioner exercised the liberty so granted to it, the liberty was meaningless as the returns filed by the petitioner were not accepted by the system - Respondents did not seeking modification of the order and now they are seeking time for filing of the reply to this application and are also seeking to raise challenge about maintainability of this petition - Bench does not understand if the grounds were known to the respondents, why respondents did not question the order dated 08.02.2019 earlier - Filing of a tax return is something which is not a one way affair - What happens in the filing of return is a positive act on the part of assessed and corresponding acceptance of such positive act by the revenue - In the present case, the positive act in the nature of filing of the return did take place, but the effort was negated by the respondents and now blame is being put on the system that respondents have adopted to enable e-filing of tax returns - In such a case, the system can always be amended suitably for the system is created by human beings and not vice-versa - Two weeks time granted to the respondents to file reply in the matter - Meanwhile, respondents shall make suitable amends to the system and accept the returns filed by the petitioner on or before the next date - If the petitioner's returns are not accepted online, the petitioner shall be allowed to file them manually, which returns shall be taken on record by the respondents - Two week's time granted to the respondents to make suitable amends in the matter: High Court [para 2 to 4]

- Petition disposed of : BOMBAY HIGH COURT

GST - Petitioner has prayed that it may be permitted to file Form TRAN-1 in compliance of Section 140 of Act, 2017 read with Rule 117 of CGST Rules, 2017 in order to enable the petitioner to avail Transitional Credit of Rs. 4,52,768/- in Electronic Credit Ledger - It is also prayed that the respondents should give effect to Form TRAN-1 that had been manually submitted to the respondent-department to avail relevant Legitimate Input Tax Credit of Rs. 4,52,768/-.

Held: Controversy involved in the present writ petition is similar to that involved in Obelisk Composite Technology LLP - Hence, the writ petition is liable to be disposed of in terms of the decision (supra) rendered by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this - Accordingly, liberty granted to the petitioner to make an application before GST Council through Standing Counsel, who is further requested to hand over the same to the jurisdictional officer for forwarding the same to the GST Council to issue requisite certificate of recommendation alongwith requisite particulars, evidence and a certified copy of the order instantly and such decision be taken forthwith and if the petitioner's assertion is found to be correct, the GST Council shall issue necessary recommendation to the Commissioner to enable the petitioner to get the benefit of CENVAT credit within the stipulated time as stipulated by the Union of India – Petition disposed of: High Court

Telangana GST - THE assessee is a Master System Cable Operator - The State of Telangana had adopted the Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 and cable service was brought under the purview of the State Act by insertion of Section 15-A in the Act - The assessee obtained registration under the Act and stated to be paying tax @ 5% per connection - During the relevant period, the Revenue issued SCN proposing to levy Entertainment Tax on the assessee, amounting to Rs 3.24 crores - Considering the assessee's replies, an assessment order was passed, imposing tax liability of Rs 5.57 lakhs, which was paid by the assessee - Consequently, the CTO issued a Revision SCN u/s 9-A of the Telangana GST Act, proposing to revise the earlier order on account of it being prejudicial to Revenue's interests - The assessee claimed to have closed its business in the State of Telangana but had not informed the Revenue about the same - It claimed that its Corporate Office in Mumbai was not able to respond immediately to the revision SCN and so sought time to file objections - Subsequently, revision order was passed and duty demand of Rs 3.24 crores was raised as the assessee had not filed its objections to the SCN - Hence the present petition.

Held - Consequent to rejection of the Stay petition, an arrears notice was served on the assessee, directing payment of Rs 3.24 crores within 3 days - Hence the order rejecting the assessee's stay petition merits being set aside on account of non consideration of the assessee's contentions and the matter merits being remanded for fresh consideration: HC

GST - Petitioner has inter alia prayed for the relief of not recovering the amount in dispute as stated in the demand notice DRC-07 dt 02.09.2019 till the filing of the Appeal before the Appellate Authority - Petitioner submits they would deposit the amount towards tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty as admitted and also a sum equal to 10% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the impugned order and be permitted to file the statutory appeal assailing the order subject matter of appeal, which is sought to be preferred by the petitioner, and upload it on the GST Web Portal as is required under Section 107 of the Act, 2017 - Counsel for Respondent states that once the above is met by the petitioner, the authority concerned will allow access to the petitioner for uploading the statutory appeal on the GST Web Portal as is required under Section 107 of the Act - Bench directs that the needful be done within four weeks and, thereafter, the appellate authority is required to hear the appeal through virtual mode on account of circumstances arising from the current Pandemic Covid-19 and decide it expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of its filing - Petition disposed of: High Court

GST - Writ petition has been filed challenging the inquiry letter dated 29th July, 2019 issued by respondent no.3 and subsequent proceedings thereunder, as also the legality of Explanation to Section 17(5)(d) of the Act, 2017 to the extent it excludes 'telecommunication towers' from the meaning of the term 'Plant and Machinery' - Petitioner further seeks to challenge Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, to the extent it debars Input Tax Credit on construction of Immovable Property.

Held: Court is not inclined to interfere with the inquiry letter dated 29th July, 2019 as well as the proceedings initiated under the said letter - However, this Court shall examine the legality and validity of Explanation to Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act along with similar writ petitions - It is clarified that there is no stay of the letter dated 29th July, 2019 – Matter to be listed on on 20th November, 2020: High Court

GST - Petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P2 series of demand cum recovery notices issued to him under the GST Act - It is the case of the petitioner that the assessment orders were not served on him but, immediately on receipt of the demand notices, he took the necessary steps and filed returns for the said period, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the demand notices, so as to get the benefit of withdrawal of the assessment orders as contemplated under S.62 of the GST Act.

Held: As per Section 169(c) and (d) of the GST Act, the service of any communication to the e-mail address provided by an assessee at the time of registration, as also by making available the communication on the common portal of the department, is to be treated as an effective communication under the statute – Petitioner, therefore, cannot wish away the fact that the assessment orders were brought to his notice on 25.11.2019 and 27.11.2019 respectively - Inasmuch as the returns filed by the petitioner for the period covered by the assessment orders were belated in that they were filed more than 30 days after the date of service of the orders on the petitioner via the web portal of the department, he cannot aspire for the benefit of withdrawal of the assessment orders as mandated under Section 62 of the GST Act - The Writ Petition in the challenge to the assessment orders and demand notices, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed - recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for a period of six weeks so as to enable the petitioner to move the appellate authority through statutory appeals in the meanwhile: High Court [para 3, 4]

GST - Petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the FAQ released in January, 2018 and the Guidance Note on CGST Transitional Credit dated 14th March, 2018 issued by respondent no. 2 - Petitioner also challenges legality and validity of Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 notified on 29th January, 2019 with effect from 1st July, 2017 as well as the provisions of Circular dated 2nd January, 2019 issued by respondent no. 2 giving retrospective/retroactive effect to Section 28(a) & (d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act, 2018 with effect from 1st July, 2017 - Petitioner further seeks setting aside the Show Cause Notice dated 27th May, 2020 issued to the petitioner as well as allowing of the refund application dated 15th May, 2018 – Petitioner also relies upon the Madras High Court decision in Suthland Global (P). Ltd. 2019-TIOL-2516-HC-MAD-GST - counsel for the respondent states that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is pending challenge before the Division Bench of Madras High Court.

Held: Respondent is permitted to file a counter-affidavit within four weeks and rejoinder-affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing - To await the judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court, list on 07th December, 2020: High Court

GST - Petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents to allow it to avail the short transitioning of input tax credit ("ITC) by either updating electronic credit ledger at their back end, in accord with the details of credit submitted by the petitioner or allowing them to revise form GST TRAN-1, in conformity with the returns filed under the existing laws that stand repealed by the Act 2017 – Petitioner submits that they were facing technical difficulty in uploading the form TRAN-I, therefore, the petitioner relentlessly raised the grievance before the respondent authorities but of no avail - Various representations were submitted to the authorities but their grievance fell on deaf ears and no action was taken by the respondent authorities – Petitioner submits that the issue involved is squarely covered by the judgments in Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2019-TIOL-2519-HC-P&H-GST and Brand Equities Treaties Ltd 2020-TIOL-900-HC-DEL-GST .

Held: Court deems it proper to direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation annexing all the judgments cited before this court within a period of seven days before the Jurisdictional Commissioner from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order - In case, the petitioner files representation within the aforesaid period, the Jurisdictional Commissioner is directed to decide the same in the light of various judgments passed by the High Courts and the Apex Court and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks thereafter: High Court

GST - Petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P7 detention notices issued to him by the 1st respondent detaining a consignment of used generators that was being transported at his instance - the reason for detention was the non-mention of the IGST payable in the e-way bill that accompanied the transportation of the goods – petitioner contends that as per Rule 138A of the SGST Rules there is no requirement of mentioning the IGST applicable in the e-way bill and hence, the authorities are not justified in detaining the consignment.

Held: Bench finds force in the contention of the petitioner that as per the SGST Act and R.138 A of the SGST Rules, there is no requirement to mention the details of the tax payment in the copy of the e-way bill that accompanies the goods - It is not in dispute that the details of the tax paid were shown in the invoice that accompanied the transportation and there is no dispute raised by the respondents with regard to the accompaniment of the invoice along with the transportation - Under such circumstances and taking note of the judgment of this Court dated 12.08.2020 in W.P(C).No.16356 of 2020, Writ Petition is allowed by quashing Exts.P6 and P7 detention notices and directing the 1st respondent to release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner: High Court [para 3]

GST - Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P11 order passed against him - Petitioner submits that before passing Ext.P11 order he was not afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing or an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice, which is mandated as per the Rules - Counsel for Revenue submits, on instructions, that it is a fact that there was no proper hearing afforded to the petitioner pursuant to the issuance of a show cause notice as mandated under the Rules, and the officer is ready to reconsider the matter, after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to take copies of the documents sought to be relied against it in the proceedings, as also to consider any reasonable request for cross examination of persons.

Held: Taking note of the said submission, Bench allows this writ petition by quashing Ext.P11 order and directing the respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter after following the principles of natural justice - To enable the respondent to pass fresh orders as directed, the petitioner shall appear before the respondent at his office at 11 am on 07.09.2020 - Fresh orders to be passed by the respondent within three months: High Court [para 2]

GST - Goods in question came to be seized and detained under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act - Writ applicants have submitted that they are seeking to confine the relief only to the extent of getting the goods released - petitioner points out that the notice issued under Section 130 of the Act is yet to be adjudicated and pray that pending confiscation proceedings, the goods may be ordered to be released as the liability towards tax, penalty and fine has also been determined by the competent authority - Bench drew the attention of the applicants to s.67(6) of the Act, 2017 and suggested that they should prefer an appropriate application under Section 67(6) of the Act for the provisional release of the goods - the applicant agrees to make such application at the earliest and accordingly, the competent authority is directed to look into the same at the earliest and pass an appropriate order on such application within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of such application - Writ application disposed of: High Court [para 6, 7]

GST - Subject matter of this writ application is the levy of tax under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on the Ocean freight for the services provided by a person located in a non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India upto the customs stations of clearance in India and the levy of collection of tax of such Ocean freight under the Notification No. 10/2017-IGST dated 28th June 2017 - Court in Mohit Minerals ( 2020-TIOL-164-HC-AHM-GST ) and allied petitions declared the Notification No. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 and the Entry No.10 of the Notification No. 10/2017-Integrated Tax dated 28th June 2017 as ultra vires the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on the ground that the same lacked legislative competency – Inasmuch as both the Notifications referred to above were declared to be unconstitutional - In such circumstances referred to above, this litigation succeeds and is hereby allowed - The respondents are directed to sanction the refund and pay the requisite amount of IGST already paid by the writ applicant pursuant to the Entry No.10 of Notification No. 10/2017-IGST dated 28th June 2017 declared to be ultra vires by this Court in Mohit Minerals (supra) - The respondents shall undertake the process of refunding the requisite amount of IGST at the earliest and see to it that the same is paid to the writ applicant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order: High Court [para 4, 6]

GST - Goods comprising of Pan Masala, Tobacco, Mouth Freshener, Confectionery, etc. valued at Rs.2.59 Crores were seized under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act read with Section 129 of the CGST Act and Section 130 of CGST Act from six godowns operated by Shri Sanjay Matta and his brother Shri Sandeep Matta as no bills / invoices could be produced by them - Unaccounted cash of Rs.66,43,130/- was also seized from the residential premises of Shri Sanjay Matta –Petitioner, wife of Sanjay Matta, seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.4 - Assistant Director, DGGSTI, Indore and respondent No.5 - Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGSTI, Indore to release the cash amounting to Rs.66,43,130/- seized from the petitioner vide Panchnama dated 30/05/2020 from the residential premises of the petitioner and her husband - petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondent No.5 has got no power vested u/s 67(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 to effect seizure of cash amount from the petitioner nor from her husband; that the cash cannot be treated as "Document, Book or Things" as per the definition under the definition clause of the CGST Act, 2017 and, therefore, the respondents be directed to release the cash, which they have seized.

Held: Core issue before this Court is that whether expression "things" covers within its meaning the cash or not - In the considered opinion of this Court, the CGST Act, 2017 has to be seen as a whole and the definition clauses are the keys to unlock the intent and purpose of the various sections and expressions used therein, where the said provisions are put to implementation - Section 2(17) defines "business" and Section 2(31) defines "consideration" - In the considered opinion of this Court a conjoint reading of Section 2(17), 2(31), 2(75) and 67(2) makes it clear that “money” can also be seized by authorized officer - The word "things" appears in Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 is to be given wide meaning and as per Black's Law Dictionary, 10th Edition, any subject matter of ownership within the sphere of proprietary or valuable right, would come under the definition of " thing" (page No.1707) - Similarly, Wharton's Law Lexicon at page No.1869 and 1870, the word "thing" has been defined and it includes "money" - It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statute that unreasonable and inconvenient results are to be avoided, artificially and anomaly to be avoided and most importantly a statute is to be given interpretation which suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy (Interpretation of statute by Maxwel, 12th Edition, page No.199 to 205) - keeping in view the aforesaid interpretation of the word "thing", ‘money' has to be included and it cannot be excluded as prayed by the petitioner from Section 67(2) - ground raised in the present petition that the husband of the petitioner retracted the confessional statement does not help the petitioner nor her husband in any manner in view of the settled apex court decision in Surjeet Singh Chhabra - 2002-TIOL-158-SC-CUS and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in R. S. Company - keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the material available in the case diary and also keeping in view Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, this Court is of the opinion that the authorities have rightly seized the amount from the husband of the petitioner and unless and until the investigation is carried out and the matter is finally adjudicated, the question of releasing the amount does not arise - The writ petition is dismissed: High Court [para 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25]

GST - The petitioner filed returns for the financial year 2017-18, 20018-19 and 2019-20 at belated stage and availed Input Tax Credit at the time of filing GSTR-3B returns, as Works Contractor - The Superintendent demanded interest of Rs.2,24,487/- on 04.03.2020 under Section 50 (1) of the C.G.S.T Act, 2017 in respect of the above three financial years on the ground that interest is payable on ITC set off - Hence the present Writ Petition - P etitioner submitted that in the 39 th meeting of GST Council held on 14.03.2020 it was decided that interest for delay in payment of GST is to be charged on the Net Cash Tax Liability w.e.f. 01.07.2017 retrospectively but not on the Input Tax Credit; that the petitioner has filed a representation before the Superintendent, Central GST and Central Excise, Berhampur with a prayer not to charge the interest on the availed Input Tax Credit and to drop the proceeding in view of the decision taken in the 39 th meeting of GST Council, h owever, no action has been taken as yet.

Held: Court disposes of this Writ Petition with a direction to the Superintendent, Central GST and Central Excise, Berhampur - opposite party No.3 to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner on 06.05.2020 under Annexure:3 keeping in view the decision taken in the 39 th meeting of GST Council, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks and the decision taken, if any, is to be communicated to the petitioner: High Court [para 4]

GST - Constitutional validity and legality of Section 171 CGST Act as well as Rules 126, 127 and 133 of the CGST Rules are involved in the present petition - Respondent is permitted to file counter-affidavit within four weeks and rejoinder affidavit, if any, to be filed before the next date of hearing - Matter listed on 3rd November, 2020 along-with W.P. (C) 10999/2018 and other connected matters for final hearing: High Court

GST - Petitioner seeks to challenge the constitutionality and legality of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 126 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Since the legality and validity of the aforesaid Section and Rules have been challenged in a batch of connected matters, which have been tagged with the present writ petition, present application is allowed and the amended writ petition is taken on record -Respondents are permitted to file counter-affidavits within four weeks and Rejoinder-affidavits, if any, within four weeks thereafter - It is agreed between the counsel that issues of Constitutional validity as well as legality and interpretation of the CGST Act and Rules shall be framed by consensus - It is also agreed that Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel, shall be the point person/coordinator for the petitioners and Mr. Zoheb Hussain, learned counsel shall represent the respondents - Interim orders, if any, to continue - Matter to be listed on 3rd November, 2020 along-with W.P. (C) 10999/2018 and other connected matters for final hearing: High Court

GST - Constitutional validity and legality of Section 171 CGST Act as well as Rules 126, 127 and 133 of the CGST Rules are involved - It is agreed between the counsel that issues of Constitutional validity as well as legality and interpretation of the CGST Act and Rules shall be framed by consensus - It is also agreed that Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel, shall be the point person/coordinator for the petitioners and Mr. Zoheb Hussain, learned counsel shall represent the respondents - Let common draft issues/points of law be prepared by the two counsel in consultation with the other counsel within two weeks - parties shall file their written submissions not exceeding five pages alongwith judgments they wish to rely upon within four weeks - Matter to be listed on 3rd November, 2020 along-with W.P. (C) 969/2020 for final hearing - Interim orders, if any, to continue: High Court

GST - Petitioner is challenging the orders dated 17th February, 2020 and 19th June, 2020 issued by Respondent No.2 - By the impugned orders, the respondent seeks to directly recover interest under Section 50 of the GST Act through coercive recovery provisions of Section 79 which the petitioner opines is clearly in contravention of Section 78 of the GST Act, which provides for a three-month breathing period after the passing of any order - Petitioner further submits that the impugned orders are passed without issuing any show cause notice and without giving a hearing to the Petitioner and they are also unaware of how the interest calculation has been arrived at - Petitioner also submits that Respondent No.2 is threatening to initiate coercive recovery proceedings under Section 79 of the GST Act if the amount is not paid within a period of 7 days - In its affidavit-in-reply dated 27 th July 2020, the respondent submits that the email was sent to the Petitioner on 17th February, 2020 and 19th June, 2020 was merely an intimation of payment of interest under section 50 of the Act payable on account of late filing of Return-GSTR 3B from July, 2017; that the office is conscious of the procedure required to be followed by it to recover and will initiate the recovery proceeding with issuance of show cause notice, working of interest calculation and further actions as per provision of law; therefore, the petition is premature and liable to be dismissed - in view of the statements made in the affidavit-in-reply, Petitioner is not pressing for reliefs sought in the Writ Petition - Petition is, therefore, disposed of: High Court [para 5, 6]

GST - Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of the writ to safeguard the right to life, liberty, dignity & fair investigation and to examine the illegal acts of the CGST officials and to monitor the investigation of the case - petitioner has prayed that records of the investigation be called from the office of the respondents and the court should examine the same on the touchstone of the law relating to the fair investigation - It is further prayed that Court should monitor the investigation of the case till the issuance of Show Cause Notice and/ or till the filing of complaint and further direct the respondents to give bi-monthly reports to this Court about the progress of the investigation - An interim application has also been filed for issuance of direction to the respondents to conduct the investigation without use of any coercive means along with video recording of the statements of the applicant and to allow the presence of the Lawyer at visible yet inaudible distance of the applicant - Petitioner has submitted that applicant was picked up on 07.03.2020 and was kept in illegal detention for three consecutive days; that he was beaten ruthlessly and was coerced to write incriminating statement; that since the investigation by the respondents is not being conducted in accordance with law, the presence of the Advocate be allowed at a visible yet inaudible distance of the applicant.

Held: Petitioner in the present case has been summoned by the Officers under GST Act who are not Police Officers and who have been conferred with the power to summon any person whose attendance they consider necessary to give evidence or to produce a document - The presence of the lawyer, therefore, is not required during the examination of the petitioner as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pool Pandi's case ( 1992 AIR 1795 (SC) ) - Insofar as apprehension of petitioner that he may be physically assaulted or manhandled is concerned, Court is of the opinion that it is a well settled law now that no inquiry/ investigating officer has a right to use any method which is not approved by law to extract information from a witness/ suspect during examination and in case it is so done, no one can be allowed to break the law with impunity and has to face the consequences of his action - Counsel for the respondents has categorically stated at Bar that interrogation/ investigation of the petitioner would be conducted as per law and the respondents will not adopt any such method which is not permissible by law - no grounds are, therefore, made out to allow the presence of the Advocate while questioning or examination by the officers of the respondents - application is dismissed: High Court [para 7 to 9]

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the Act - Authority has held that the petitioner had profiteered in respect of the supplies made and accordingly directed the petitioner to deposit the profiteered amount of Rs.20,80,087/- within three months along with 18% interest - Petitioner challenges this order and also prays for declaring Section 171 of the CGST Act and Chapter XV of the CGST Rules as arbitrary, discriminatory as well as unconstitutional and in the alternative to be inapplicable to the post transition period i.e. 01st July, 2017 being contrary to the intent and purpose of the CGST Act - Petitioner also prays that Rules 123 and 129 of the CGST Rules be declared as ultra vires the provisions of the CGST Act in the absence of any enabling provision to constitute respondent no.3 or the Standing Committee and other State Screening Committees - Petitioner further prays that due to Covid-19 pandemic, they may be allowed to deposit the aforesaid amount in instalments.

Held: Keeping in view the orders passed by this Court in Phillips India Limited = 2020-TIOL-1092-HC-DEL-GST as well as M/s Samsonite South Asia Pvt. Ltd. = 2020-TIOL-1213-HC-DEL-GST and M/s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. = 2020-TIOL-1241-HC-DEL-GST , Court directs the petitioner to deposit the principal profiteered amount i.e. Rs.19,81,035/- (i.e. Rs.20,80,087/- minus Rs.99,052/- already paid) in six equated monthly installments commencing 01 st September, 2020 - The interest amount directed to be paid by the respondents is stayed till further orders - Matter listed on 03rd November, 2020: High Court

GST - Present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 are arbitrary, unreasonable and being beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament are ultra vires the Constitution - Counter-affidavits be filed within a period of four weeks and rejoinder-affidavits, if any, to be filed within four weeks thereafter - ASG candidly states that the Supreme Court in a similar case being W.P.(Crl.) No.184/2020 has issued notice and directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner therein - Keeping in view the aforesaid order, it is directed that, till further orders, bail of the petitioner shall not be cancelled in the present case – Matter to be listed on 18th November, 2020: High Court

GST – Applicant is the promoter of residential real estate project (RREP), supplying construction service in developing a residential housing project named "Akriti" in Burdwan - The applicant wants to know whether Entry No. 3(v)(da) of Notification 11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28/06/2017, as amended time to time, applies to the works contract service received from the contractors.

Held: Affordable housing has been defined in the affordable housing project (AHP) Notification as a housing project using at least 50% of Floor Area Ratio (FAR)/ Floor Space Index (FSI) for dwelling units with a carpet area of not more than 60 sqm - The term 'carpet area' has been assigned the same meaning as in section 2(k) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - It means the net usable floor area of an apartment, excluding the area covered by the external walls, areas under services shafts, balcony or veranda and open terrace, but includes the area covered by the internal partition walls of the apartment - According to the Project Plan submitted at the time of the hearing, FAR [FAR = CA / LA where CA = Constructed area or built-up area, and LA = Land area] for the entire project is 2.749 after deducting from the total built-up area the common areas like lift-lobby, stair area etc. - FAR for the affordable residential apartments in the project should, therefore, be at least 1.375 - The total plot size being 5627 sqm, the built-up area for affordable residential apartments should at least be 7734 sqm - The built-up area for the affordable residential apartments, as identified by the architect, under the RREP is 7885 sqm - The relevant FAR, therefore, comes out to be 1.401, which is 50.96% of the FAR for the project - The RREP, therefore, is an affordable housing project in terms of the AHP Notification - It is, therefore, concluded that the works contract service for the construction of those dwelling units in the RREP “Akriti” that are affordable residential apartments in terms of clause Explanation 4(xvi) of the Rate Notification are taxable under Entry No. 3(v)(da) of the said notification, provided the applicant does not opt for paying tax at the rate specified in (ie) or (if) of Entry No.3: AAR

GST - Applicant caters to the Education vertical in terms of stationery items for the conduct of examination and post examination process such as Marks card/Certificates etc. - They were awarded a contract by the Bihar School Educational Board (BSEB) vide Work Order No. ST/281/18 DT dated 16.12.2018 for scanning of OMR Flying slip, OMR Marks Foil, OMR attendance sheet, OMR absentee sheet and finalisation of data - Applicant sought Advance Ruling in respect of the question that Whether the services performed by them are exempted by virtue of item (b) of Sr. No. 66 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (R) .

Held: It is an undisputed fact that the process of conducting examination is not limited/ restricted to a test centre - Examination is an incomplete activity without assessment - Scanning of answer sheets and quantifying marks is an essential part albeit main objective of the examination process - Educational institutions or the examinees do not look at these activities in isolation - Activity of the applicant, is covered under "Other Educational Support Services", under SAC 999299, and is related to conduct of examination and hence is exempted, in terms of Sl.No.66 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) : AAR

GST - Applicant have proposed/planned to engage in the business of renting of commercial property on monthly rents and allied business – They have sought advance ruling in respect of the following questions viz. ( i) For the purpose of arriving at the value of rental income, whether the applicant can seek deduction of property taxes and other statutory levies; (ii) For the purposes of arriving at total income from rental, whether notional interest on the security deposit should be taken into consideration; ( iii) Whether the applicant is entitled for exemption of tax under the general exemption of Rs.20 lakhs.

+ It can be easily inferred from Section 15(2) of the Act, 2017 that any taxes, duties, cesses, fees and charges, levied under any law for the time being in force, shall be included in the value of taxable supply - In the instant case the property tax is levied, under the Karnataka Municipalities Act 1964, by the BBMP in Bangalore – Further, the only exclusions from the value of the taxable supply are the taxes, duties, cesses, fees and charges levied under the CGST Act 2017, SGST (KGST) Act 2017, UTGST Act 2017 & GST (Compensation to States) Act, subject to the condition that they are charged separately by the supplier - It is observed that in the instant case, the supplier (applicant) and the recipient are not related; price is the sole consideration of the supply and monthly rent is the price payable - Thus the monthly rent is the transaction value and the same would be the value of supply of the impugned service – therefore, the property tax is not deductable from the value of taxable supply of "Renting of Immovable Property" service: AAR

+ Security deposit collected by the applicant shall not be considered as payment made for supply of RIS service unless the applicant applies such deposit as consideration for the said supply, in terms of proviso to Section 2(31)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 - In the instant case the security deposit is taken as a guarantee against damage to property, is an interest free refundable deposit which will be returned to the lessee at the expiration of the lease period and hence shall not be considered as consideration for the supply of RIS service - However, at the expiry of the lease tenure, if the entire deposit or part of it is withheld and not paid back, as a charge against damages etc., then at that stage such amounts not refunded will be liable to GST.

+ The security deposit is taken invariably in all cases and it is a general practice that wherever the quantum of deposit is higher the rent charged is less and vice-versa. The applicant is collecting the security deposit as their property is being leased. Had the property has not been leased, the applicant would not have been collected the security deposit. Thus there is a nexus between security deposit taken and the rent charged beyond doubt.

+ The security deposit is collected normally equivalent to 6 months or 12 months rent. Also it is a known fact that higher the security deposit lower is the monthly rent amount. In the instant case, an amount of Rs.5 Crore is proposed to be collected as security deposit and a monthly rent of Rs. 1.5 Lacs. However the applicant has not furnished adequate date / information so as to decide whether actually the notional interest influences the monthly rental amount or not.

+ Section 2(31)(b) of the CGST Act 2017 stipulates that "consideration" in relation to supply of goods or services or both includes the monetary value of an act or forbearance, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of the supply of goods or services or both, whether by the recipient or by any other person but shall not include any subsidy given by the Central Government or a State Government. In the instant case the notional interest that the applicant earns is in respect of supply of RIS service, though is not by the recipient of the service but from other person.

+ Notional interest has to be considered as part of value of supply of service, if and only if the said notional interest influences the value of supply i.e. value of RIS service / monthly rent and is leviable to GST along with monthly rent at the rate applicable to monthly rent.

+ Applicants are entitled for the general exemption for registration purpose, subject to the condition that their annual total turnover which includes monthly rent and notional interest, if it influences the value of supply, does not exceed the threshold limit.

++ The applicant can't deduct the property taxes and other statutory levies for the purpose of arriving at the value of rental income.

++ The notional interest on the security deposit shall be taken into consideration, for the purposes of arriving at total income from rental, only if it influences the value supply of RIS service i.e. monthly rent.

++ The applicant is entitled for exemption of tax under the general exemption of Rs.20 lakhs, subject to the condition that their annual turnover, which includes monthly rent and notional interest, if it influences the value of supply, does not exceed the threshold limit.

GST - Landfill pit is a combination of earth work and other capital goods as given in the brief submitted - It cannot solely or in itself be identified as apparatus, equipment and machinery fixed to earth by foundation - it is also not a structural support for anything - Therefore, Authority does not agree with the applicant's view that the landfilling pit falls under Plant and Machinery - Civil structure involves engineering work at both levels i.e. above and below the ground - Applicant has performed civil work to create the landfill pits below the ground and, therefore, it is a civil structure - On a case to case basis, the Orissa High Court in Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd. [2019-TIOL-1088-HC-ORISSA-GST ] has granted the credit of input tax paid on goods/services used for construction - since the appeal against the High Court order (supra) is pending before the Supreme Court [2019-TIOL-489-SC-GST ], Authority refrains from commenting on the eligibility of the ITC in the instant case: AAR

GST - Activity of maintaining the facilities at the housing society layout from the funds collected from members of the society is a service attracting GST - contribution collected from members either annually or once in ten years towards sourcing of goods or service from the third person for common use of its member, must be divided by recipients of such service in the society and if the said amount per member does not exceed rupees seven thousand five hundred in that tax period suchamount is exempted from tax as per Entry no. 77(c) of 12/2017-CTR and if the amount exceeds Rs.7500/-, then the entireamount is taxable: AAR

GST - Water charges collected separately is exempt from levy of GST in view of Entry no. 99 of 2/2017-CTR: AAR

GST - Applicant isutilising the endowment amount which is collected from members who are selling their ‘sites' -such contribution is not for providing any maintenance service but for providing No-objection certificates (NOC) and other clearances for the site sellers - this amount when collected amounts to a service and applicant is liable to pay GST at the rate of 18% as such services are unclassified services covered under Entry no. 35 of 11/2017-CTR - Exemption under Entry 77(c) of 12/2017-CTR is not available - Concluded that Amount collected as endowment fund from member who is selling the site and ceases to be a member is liable to tax @18% under GST: AAR

GST - Applicant submitted that, "ALOHA" a business brand is operated by EXPLORE KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES LLP, Rajkot - It charges Royalty from its franchisees for using its brand name and sells its product under its brand through its franchisees - The applicant M/s PATRATOR further submitted that they, "PATRATOR" is a partnership firm, unregistered under the GST Act and one of the franchisees of EXPLORE KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES LLP, Rajkot - Further submitted that they sell their products and provide services under the brand name of "ALOHA" to customers - They sell products like books, stationery etc. without having profit margin under the brand name of "ALOHA" - They offer various courses to students Mental Arithmetic, English Smart under the brand name of "ALOHA" - All receipts of product sale or services are being taken in the name of their partnership firm "PATRATOR" and deposit the fees in their partnership firm bank account - At the end of every fifteen days, they pay royalty to their franchiser, KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES LLP, Rajkot based on fees they collect from their customers - Applicant has submitted that total yearly receipt of their partnership firms PATRATOR does not exceeds Rs. 20 lacs in any financial year; however the annual receipt of the franchiser, KNOWLEDGE RESOURCES LLP, Rajkot exceeds Rs. 20 lacs - Applicant, therefore, seeks to know as to whether they are required to take GSTIN and are required to pay tax under the GST Act.

Held: From a reading of the clauses of the agreement, it is crystal clear that the applicant is authorized to supply only the goods and services under the brand name of "ALOHA" and cannot supply the other goods and services - Hence applicant is supplying the goods and service on behalf of the taxable person i.e. Xplore Knowledge Resources LLP - Accordingly, the applicant is covered under the Sr. No. (vii) of the Section 24 of CGST Act, 2017 - Therefore, applicant is liable for taking GST registration - Consequently, they are required to pay GST on supply of goods and services: AAR

GST - 'Maize Bran' manufactured and supplied by applicant is covered under Entry Sr.No.103A of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) on which rate of GST chargeable is 5% (2.5% SGST + 2.5% CGST): AAR

GST - Micro manipulator is a device, which is used to physically interact with a sample under a microscope, where a level of precision of movement is necessary that cannot be achieved by the unaided human hand - In the absence of a microscope, a micro manipulator cannot function i.e. a micro manipulator is dependent on the microscope to do the function that it is created for i.e. micro manipulation – From the procedure of micro manipulation described, it appears that the same can be compared to surgery - It can, therefore, be concluded that the said product would be rightly classifiable as 'Surgical microscope' (Tariff item No.90118000) under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 covered under the Sub-heading "Compound optical microscopes, including those for photomicrography, cine photomicrography or micro projection" - 'Micro manipulator system' manufactured and supplied by applicant for use in Assisted Reproductive Technology Procedure (IVF) is classifiable under Tariff item no.9011 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not under HSN 9018 as claimed by applicant - The said product is covered under Entry No.184 of Schedule-IV of Notification No. 01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) (upto 14.11.2017) and under Entry No.411F of Schedule-III of Notification No. 01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) (w.e.f. 15.11.2017) - Applicability of the rate of GST on the said product would be 28% (14% SGST + 14% CGST) upto 14.11.2017 and 18% GST (9% SGST + 9% CGST) with effect from 15.11.2017: AAR

GST - 'Fly Ash Bricks' manufactured and supplied by applicant is classifiable under Tariff item No.6815 9910 - Applicability of GST rate on the said product would be 12% GST (6% SGST + 6% CGST) upto 14.11.2017 and 18% GST (9% SGST + 9% CGST) with effect from 15.11.2017 as per Notification No: 01/2017-Central Tax(Rate) - 'Fly Ash Blocks' manufactured and supplied by applicant is classifiable under Tariff item No.6815 9990 and the GST rate on the said product would be 12% (6% SGST + 6% CGST) upto 31.12.2018 and 5% GST (2.5% SGST + 2.5% CGST) with effect from 01.01.2019 as per Notification No:01/2017-Central Tax(Rate): AAR

GST - Applicant has received part Building Used Permission for the commercial Shops of Ground and First Floor and not for the Residential Flat - Accordingly, Authority holds that since no Building used permission has been issued by the competent authority in respect of residential flat and since no residential unit has been occupied by prospective buyer, supply of residential flats shall be treated as supply of service in terms Para 5(b) of Schedule-II of the CGST Act, 2017 - Selling of residential flats after date of completion certificate of commercial shops or after first occupancy in building is not an exempt supply - The manner of reversal of ITC on expenses incurred up to date of completion certificate shops has been provided under Sections 16 and 17 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Rules 42 and 43 of CGST Rules, 2017 read with Notification No. 16/2019-CT dated 29.03.2019 - The manner of claiming Input Tax Credit on expenses incurred after date of completion certificate of commercial shops has been provided under Sections 16 and 17 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Rules 42 and 43 of CGST Rules, 2017 read with Notification No. 16/2019-CT dated 29.03.2019: AAR

GST - Nimba Nature Cure Village is a unit of M/s. Oswal Industries ltd - The applicant has stated that this is one of the largest Naturopathy Centers in India and offers physical, psychological and spiritual health overhaul with the help of power of nature; that Nimba nature cure borrows name from a 'Nimba' well-known tree which brings perfect, complete and imperishable health to everyone, which is why it is also known as 'Arista' and every part of a nimba tree gives amazing health benefits - applicant has further stated that they provide different types of wellness facilities at Nimba such as Naturopathy, Ayurveda, Yoga and meditation, Physiotherapy and Special therapy - It is their contention that the classification of services provided by them is Heading 9993 (human health and social care services) and exempted in view of Sr. no. 74 of 12/2017-CTR - Ruling sought.

Held : The packages offered by the applicant, as evident from their website www.nimba.in, indicates that the therapy offered by them is strictly on a residence basis and the same is evident from the fact that the consideration is solely dependent on the type of room opted by the customer - This fact creates an impression that stay is mandatory and the charges of stay depend on the above factors - Thus, the AAR observes that the element of accommodation becomes the primary activity in the entire package - The fact that the package is strictly a residence package is fortified by the schedule of the programme which is shown in the sub-menu 'Dincharya' of the website - In all the packages, 3 types of rooms viz. amukha, sumukha and pramukha are offered either on a single occupancy basis or double occupancy basis - The rates of the room per night have been specified, which forms the major part of the consideration towards the selected package - In the above circumstances, the issue of composite supply, as defined as per Section 2(30) of the CGST Act, 2017 comes in play - Entire package consists of the above 3 components of Accommodation, Food & Therapy and the packages would not be possible without any one of the 3 components - In other words, the packages offered by the applicant are naturally bundled and would be aptly covered under the definition of Composite Supply - Further, the principal supply would be the accommodation services since the therapy can in no way be administered without accommodation - In fact, there is no option available for the customer to avail the wellness package without opting for the accommodation - Thus, the accommodation service attains the nature of the principal supply and the other two components attain the nature of ancillary services - in view of Section 8(a) of the Act, it can be seen that a composite supply comprising of two or more supplies, one of which is a principal supply, shall be treated as a supply of such principal supply - Therefore, in the instant case, the composite supply of services would be treated as a supply of accommodation service falling under Heading 9963 and specific heading 996311 (Room or unit accommodation services provided by Hotels, Inn, Guest House, Club and the like) as per Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and tax would be charged accordingly - The exemption at Entry No.74 of Exemption Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) is applicable to services falling under the Heading 9993 - However, since the nature of services provided by the applicant is covered under the Sub-Heading 9963 11, the exemption available at Entry No.74 of Exemption Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) is not applicable to the applicant: AAR

GST - Products 'Rhyzomyx' and 'Rhyzomyco' manufactured and supplied by applicant M/s. Novozymes South Asia pvt. ltd., are classifiable under Tariff item No.30029030 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and covered under Entry Sr.No.61 of Schedule-II of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 on which rate of GST chargeable is 12% (6% SGST +6% CGST) - Online information guide viz. Vikaspedia launched by the Government of India relied upon : AAR

GST - Applicant had sought a ruling as to whether GST is payable under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on the salary paid to Directors of the company who is paid salary as per employment contract - applicant submitted a letter dated 29.06.2020 addressed to this authority requesting to withdraw their application - accordingly, their request to withdraw the application is considered: AAR

GST - 'Maize Bran' manufactured and supplied by applicant M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. is covered under Entry Sr.No.103A of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 on which rate of GST chargeable is 5% (2.5% SGST + 2.5% CGST): AAR

GST - Educational assessment examination (ASSET) with its variants provided by the applicant to school/educational organization is exempted from payment of GST under Sr. No. 66(b)(iv) of the Not. No. 12/2017-CT (rate) dated 28.06.2017 and entry No. 69(b)(iv) of Not. No. 9/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as well as equivalent SGST Notification: AAR

GST - In case the applicant receives the chasis from the principal on Job work challan/ delivery challan and builds body on it and thereafter clears to the principal by raising the Invoice of Job work charges, it would amount to supply of service classifiable under SAC 9988 - In cases where the applicant owned the chasis and built the body and thereafter supplies the same as complete body built motor vehicle to the customer by raising invoice of value of motor vehicle, it would amount to supply of goods classifiable under CTH 87 - in case of supply of service, rate of GST will be 18% and in case supply of goods i.e. motor vehicle GST rate will be 28%: AAR

GST - Classification and applicable rate of tax for the activity of accident repairing job on the vehicle supplied by the owner for such job, if a lump sum price is charged that includes cost of material and labour, would be under SAC 9987 and GST is leviable @ 18 %: AAR

GST - Input tax credit (ITC) is available to Applicant on GST charged by service provider on hiring of bus/motor vehicle having seating capacity of more than thirteen persons for transportation of employees to & from workplace, however, ITC is available only after 01.02.2019 and this would be restricted to the extent of cost borne by the Applicant (employer) - Further, GST is not applicable on the nominal amount recovered by Applicants from employees for usage of employee bus transportation facility in non-air conditioned bus: AAR

GST - Advance Ruling - First proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017 does not specify as to with whom the issue pertaining to the question raised has to be pending, but merely specifies that it has to be pending or decided under the provisions of this Act - Therefore, the argument of the applicant that the issue must be pending before the jurisdictional officer is not tenable under the law - In the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore East Commissionerate, Bangalore have reported vide their letter dated 18.08.2020 that the Directorate of GST Intelligence, Bangalore Zonal Unit have initiated the investigation against the applicant, with regard to mis-classification of "flavoured milk", under Incident Report No.35/2019-20, which is under progress. - Further, it is an admitted fact that the initiation of investigation was done prior to filing of the instant application, by issuing summons dated 18.02.2019, 15.03.2019 & 14.08.2019, thus all the required three conditions have been satisfied in the instant case and hence the application is liable to be treated as inadmissible - application is rejected as "inadmissible", in terms of first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017: AAR

GST - Value of supply for the transaction of sale of residential/ commercial property with undivided rights of land is to be arrived in terms of deeming provision of Para 2 of Notification no. 11/2017-CT (Rate) as amended by Not. No. 1/2018-C.T. (Rate) - Even if the value of Land is clearly ascertainable, actual cost of Land cannot be deducted for the purpose of arriving at the taxable value of supply - land value is deemed to be one third (33.33%) of the total amount (i.e. value including land value) and GST is payable on balance amount in terms of Not No. 11/2017-CT (Rate) and 08/2017-I.T (Rate) - reliance on Rule 18(A) (A) of the erstwhile Gujarat Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 is not warranted in the instant case since the Value Added Tax Act is no more in existence - The Value Added Tax Act also does not have any legal basis in determination of GST liability since the value of supply is to be arrived in terms of the provisions of the GST Act: AAR

GST - Plastic Mechanical Liquid Dispenser imported from China is classifiable under HSN CSH 3926.90; attracts GST @ 28% till 14.11.2017 and @18% w. e. f. 15.11.2017: AAR

GST - Section 15(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant is providing services of "Rental services of aircraft including passenger aircrafts, freight aircrafts and the like with or without operator"; classifiable under Heading 9966 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) which appears at Sr.No.10(ii) of the said Notification on which applicable GST is 18% - In the instant case, the applicant is filling ATF fuel in the aircraft before the supply of services to the customer i.e. "Rental services of aircraft including passenger aircrafts, freight aircraft and the like with or without operator" and the amount of the ATF fuel is being charged from the customer, which the applicant is receiving in the form of consideration, which has been received by them as reimbursement - This act of the applicant would be considered as 'any amount charged for anything done by the supplier in respect of the supply of goods or services or both at the time of, or before delivery of goods or supply of services' and would, therefore, form part of the value - Amount recovered as reimbursement (at actuals) by the applicant M/s. Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. from the customer, for the fuel procured on behalf of the Customer is required to be included in the value of services provided by the Applicant: AAR

GST - 'Sprayer pumps' (manually operated) manufactured and supplied by applicant are classifiable under Tariff item No.8424 8100 - GST rate on the said product would be 18% GST upto 24.01.2018 and 12% GST with effect from 25.01.2018 as per Notification No: 01/2017-Central Tax(Rate) - 'Stoves' manufactured and supplied by applicant are classifiable under Tariff item No.7321 8990 - GST rate on the said product would be 12% GST as per Notification No: 01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017: AAR

GST - Activity of providing auditing, accounting, taxation to the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. is not covered under Entry No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017, hence liable to GST - Applicant has provided no evidence to establish that the activity of providing service of auditing, accounting, taxation to the SSNNL are provided in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under Article 243G of the Constitution or in relation to the function entrusted to a Municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution: AAR

GST - Applicant is engaged in the business of quarry of "Black Trap" in the State of Gujarat - Royalty paid - The activity undertaken by the applicant is classifiable under Heading 9973 (Leasing or rental services, with or without operator), as mentioned in the annexure at Serial No. 257 (Licensing services for the right to use minerals including its exploration and evaluation) sub-heading 9973 37 of Notification Number 11/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 - The activity undertaken by the applicant attracts 18% GST: AAR

GST - Applicant is engaged in business of providing tour services to the tourists identified by the Main Tour Operator - In transaction which the Applicant intents to undertake, the Applicant is going to provide local transportation services along-with services like elephant ride, lunch/dinner, local sightseeing, guide services etc. - the final amount charged by the Applicant from the Main Tour Operator is total amount of all the services provided by the Applicant to the Tourist i.e. local transportation services along-with services like guide, elephant ride, local sightseeing - Applicant seeks to know as to whether the rate of 5% under Serial 23, heading 9985(i) [Supply of tour operator services] of 11/2017-CTR is applicable on transaction which the Applicant intents to undertake wherein a single invoice is raised in respect of all the services i.e. local transportation services along-with services like sightseeing, tour guide, elephant ride etc., provided by the Applicant to Main Tour Operator?

Held: Notification 11/2017, Sr. no. 23 delineates two conditions for being considered a tour operator - first condition is related to restriction of input tax credit whereas second condition is related to criteria for inclusion of charges of accommodation and transportation in the bill of a tour operator - The second condition clearly emphasise that a bill issued by a tour operator for supply of its services should be inclusive of charges of accommodation and transportation required for such a tour - The conjunction 'and' clearly explains that accommodation and transportation, both are must elements for a tour whereas conjunction 'or' may have rendered option between accommodation and transportation - Whereas, the applicant is rendering only transportation with some ancillary services and not accommodation, as such does not satisfy the conditions as mentioned under Serial No. 23 (i) {Chapter heading 9985} of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended), therefore, rate of GST 5% is not applicable: AAR

GST - A pplicant is a proprietary concern having brand name of "Bangalore Medical System" and are into supply of various reagents/ medical consumables (goods) in addition to provision of diagnostic services - The applicant has established a full fledged laboratory in the premises of the Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology and provides the service of diagnostic testing on the samples sent by the hospital - They charge the hospital for the services rendered - The applicant claims that the services being provided to the Institute, which is a hospital, are exempted from tax under the CGST /KGST/IGST Act 2017 - Further, a lot of fixed assets in the form of instruments, furnitures & fixtures purchased and have been capitalised in the books of accounts, thus they are capital goods & hence applicant is eligible to claim input tax credit on the inward supply of such capital goods - applicant has sought advance ruling in respect of the following questions viz. Can the applicant avail GST Input on the equipments, furniture etc. which are being purchased by them; and Can the applicant avail GST input on the reagents/ consumables they would be purchasing for performing the tests as the reagents / consumables are taxable and not the test.

Held: In the instant case, the services provided by the applicant are by way of diagnosis of an illness and hence the same are covered under "health care services" - as the applicant established a medical diagnostic laboratory to carry out diagnostic or investigative services of diseases, they qualify as a clinical establishment - It is clear that the services provided by the applicant are covered under clause (a) of Entry no. 74 of the Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and hence is exempt from tax under the CGST Act, 2017/KGST Act, 2017/IGST Act 2017 - However, the applicant is involved in taxable as well as exempted supplies, therefore, in view of section 17(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, the applicant needs to restrict the credit to the amount attributable to taxable supplies including zero rated supplies in the case of both capital goods as well as reagents/consumables or drug - Further if the applicant claims depreciation on the tax component of capital goods and plant & machinery under Income Tax Act 1961, the input tax credit on the said tax component shall not be allowed, in terms of Section 16(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 - To conclude, the applicant is eligible for input tax credit on the tax paid on the purchases of goods, i.e. equipments, furniture, etc. which are purchased for this project and also on the reagents / consumables which are used for performing the test, subject to the restriction of the same in terms of Section 17(2) of the CGST Act 2017: AAR

GST - Applicant is not approved/recognised by the ICAI or ICWAI or Institute of Company Secretaries of India or universities to conduct coaching/training of students as per the syllabus/curriculum prescribed by them to obtain the qualifications/certificates granted by the institutes/universities - Therefore, applicant is not covered under the definition of ‘educational institution' in para 2(y) of the exemption notification 12/2017-CTR, hence services provided by them are not exempted from GST: AAR

GST - Education services provided by the applicant comes under SAC 9992 - 999293 - Commercial training and coaching services: AAR

GST - Entire consideration received by the applicant from recipient of services is liable to GST in view of s.15 of the Act - however, if in respect of the amount collected as examination fees/other fees the conditions prescribed in rule 33 of the Rules, 2017 are satisfied, then such amount can be excluded from the value of the taxable supply as being an expenditure incurred as a pure agent: AAR

GST - Provision of coaching/training provided by applicant to their students along with hostel facility qualifies as a composite supply as defined in s.2(30) of the Act and the tax liability on the composite supply has to be determined as per provisions of s.8(a) of the Act - Therefore, the entire supply is to be treated as falling under SAC 999293 [Commercial training and coaching], being the principal supply and will be liable to GST at the rate applicable for the principal supply: AAR

GST - Hostel fees collected from outside students staying at the hostel @Rs.250/- per day, since below Rs.1000/- per day, applicant is eligible for exemption in terms of Sl. no. 14 of 12/2017-CTR: AAR

GST - Sale of text books to students will attract GST as per the Schedule of rates notified under notification 1/2017-CTR: AAR

GST - Question is whether the applicant KMRL has any liability to pay GST on the funds received from Govt. of Kerala for paying the cost of the water metro project/whether invoice is required to be raised.

Held: Applicant, being the agency executing and operating the integrated water transport project in Kochi is rendering pure services to the Government of Kerala - such services [998339] are exempted from payment of tax by virtue of Entry no. 3 of 12/2017-CTR - No GST invoice is required to be raised for transferring the value of assets on a back to back basis after completion of the works: AAR

GST - Applicant, KMRL falls under the definition of ‘governmental authority' under para 2(zf) of 12/2017-CTR: AAR

GST - Activity undertaken by the applicant of construction of Jetty and development of sites for NTRO as per MOU dated 22.12.2016 entered with National Technical Research Organisation of the GOI are covered under Works Contract as defined in s.2(119) of the Act - The rate of GST is 12% as per Sl. no. 3(vi)(a) of 8/2017-ITR - rate of GST applicable on services provided by the contractors/sub-contractors to the applicant as envisaged in the said MOU is also 12% as per the said notification Sl. no. 3(ix) - Applicant is entitled for refund of excess GST paid subject to provisions of s.54 of the Act and the rules made thereunder - Supply of electricity and water are the components of the main supply and are ancillary to main supply and hence cannot be segregated or vivisected from the main supply - they too are liable to GST at the same rate as main supply: AAR

GST - Plastic latex collection cup is an agricultural implement exclusively used for rubber tapping and comes under the classification HSN 8201 90 00 "other hand tools of the kind used in agriculture, horticulture or forest" - It is exempted from GST as per Sl No. 137 of Notification No. 02/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017: AAR

GST - Plastic latex collection cup is an agricultural implement exclusively used for rubber tapping and comes under the classification HSN 8201 90 00 "other hand tools of the kind used in agriculture, horticulture or forest" - It is exempted from GST as per Sl No. 137 of Notification No. 02/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017: AAR

GST - Applicant is a manufacturer and marketer of medical devices - Silicone Insole and Heel Cushion are rightly classifiable under HSN 6406 as parts of footwear and hence do not qualify to be termed as “footwear” [@5% GST] as described in Sl No. 225 of Schedule – I of Notification No. 01/2017-CT(R) ; are rightly covered under Sl No. 171 of Schedule III of Notification No. 01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) attracting GST at the rate of 18%: AAR

GST - Plastic latex collection cup is an agricultural implement exclusively used for rubber tapping and is classifiable under HSN 8201 90 00 as "other hand tools of the kind used in agriculture, horticulture or forest" - Same is exempted from GST as per Sl No. 137 of Notification No. 02/2017 Central Tax (Rate) : AAR

GST - HSN Code of Security Excise Labels is 4911 and the rate of tax applicable is 12% GST - as per Sr. No. 132 of schedule II of Notification No. 01/2017-CT (R) dated 28.06.2017 - judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Holostick India Ltd [ 2015-TIOL-60-SC-CX ] wholly applies: AAR

GST - Plastic latex collection cup is an agricultural implement exclusively used for rubber tapping and comes under the classification HSN 8201 90 00 "other hand tools of the kind used in agriculture, horticulture or forest" - As such it is exempted from GST as per 51 No. 137 of Notification No. 02/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017: AAR

GST - Spout, Cup Holders and Collection Cups are agricultural implements used for rubber tapping and are covered under the description under HSN 8201 90 00 "other hand tools of the kind used in agricultural, horticulture or forest" and are exempt from GST as per Sl No. 137 of Notification No. 02/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017: AAR

GST - The appellant-company is engaged in the construction business - It is a Joint Venture (JV) company formed for construction of a tunnel and allied works for Nira-Bhima Link under the Krishna Bhima Stabilisation Project awarded by the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, Aurangabad - The work order consists of earth work such as excavation for tunnel, removing excavated earth, providing steel support, rock bolting, reinforcement, fixing of chain link and cement concreting - The appellant had approached the AAR seeking to know whether the contract is covered under Sr No 3A, Chapter 99 as per Notfn No 02/2018-CT(R) dated 25.01.2018 - It also sought to know if the contract qualifies as Earth Work and so is covered under Chapter 9954 as per Notfn No 31/2017-CT(R) dated 13.10.2017 - Whether, if the preceding issue is answered in the affirmative, what would be the meaning of earthwork - AAR had observed that the contract at hand is not covered under Sr No 3A, Chapter 99 as per Notfn No 02/2018-CT(R) dated 25.01.2018 - Further, the contract is not covered under the term of Earth work so as to be covered under Chapter No 9954 as per Notfn No 31/2017-CT(R) dated 13.10.2017 and in light of the same, the issue seeking meaning of earth work, need not be answered - inasmuch as application was rejected - aggrieved with this order of the AAR, the applicant is in appeal before the AAAR.

Held: AAR has not dealt with the submission of the appellant regarding coverage under Sr. no. 3A of 12/2017-TR but has only discussed the submission concerning Sr. no. 3(vii) of 11/2017-CTR as amended - It must be mentioned that being an authority formed under the CGST Act and specially empowered to give ruling on questions put forth by applicants, the AAR should take due care that all the submissions of the applicant are dealt with properly and with reasons - It has, therefore, to be seen as to whether the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation is covered by the category of ‘Central government, State government or Union territory or local authority or a governmental authority or a government entity' - It is seen that the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation is a ‘government entity' as it is set up by an Act of the State legislature namely the Maharashtra Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Act, 1998 - Irrigation comes under Sr. no. 3 of Eleventh Schedule of Article 243G of the Constitution which covers ‘minor irrigation, water management and watershed development' and Sr. no. 5 of Twelfth Schedule of Article 243W of Constitution which covers ‘Water supply for domestic, industrial and commercial purpose' - It is clear that Earthwork includes excavation and as per the contract the earthwork constitutes more than 92.66% of the contract by value and thus all conditions of the entry 3(vii) are fulfilled - Services provided by the appellant in the impugned matter qualifies for inclusion under entry 3(vii) of 12/2017-CTR: AAAR

GST - Applicant issues consignment notes during execution of the service of transportation of goods and has opted for 5% GST payable by the recipient under reverse charge - sometimes, applicant functions as a mere transporter of goods for which consignment note is issued by some other party which acts as GTA for that transaction - there is a company named POSCO which provides GTA service and has opted for GST payable on forward charge basis @12% by claiming ITC - since POSCO does not have enough fleet of its own, it sub-contracts GTA service to applicant who provides the GTA service as a sub-contractor - applicant wants to issue a consignment note to POSCO who is also a GTA and the latter will, in turn, issue a second consignment note to final client for transportation of the goods by road happening in the same vehicle belonging to the applicant where e-way bill is prepared by POSCO only - applicant wishes to know whether he can also act as a GTA in terms of 20/2017-CTR and issue consignment note and charge GST @12% on forward charge basis - Applicant, therefore, approached the AAR for a ruling in the matter - AAR observed that a consignment note is a proof of the custody of goods during the movement and transportation of goods; that for a single transaction and the same movement of goods, there cannot be multiple consignment notes, hence there will be only one consignment note for movement of goods to a place, to be issued by POSCO; that in view thereof, applicant, in respect of the subject transaction cannot be treated as a GTA and, therefore, cannot charge GST @12% under forward charge mechanism as a GTA; that the question as to whether POSCO would be eligible to claim credit of the 12% GST charged by applicant in its invoice ought to have been raised by POSCO and not applicant, therefore, Authority refrains from answering this question; that the fourth question raised as to whether it is procedurally correct to have two GTA service providers and two consignment notes for the same movement of the goods is not answered as the same is not pertaining to any of the matters mentioned in s.97(2) of the Act - aggrieved, applicant is before the AAAR.

Held: Appellant is simply hiring out their transport vehicles to M/s POSCO ISDC P Ltd. for a consideration, hence their services would be classified under heading 9966 of 11/2017-CTR being the description ‘rental services of transport vehicles' - It is M/s POSCO ISDC P. Ltd. which is acting as a Goods Transport Agency (GTA) in the contract and not the appellant - Order of AAR upheld and appeal is dismissed: AAAR

GST - AAR had held that commission received by applicant in convertible foreign exchange for rendering services as an 'Intermediary' between an exporter abroad receiving such services and an Indian importer of an equipment is NOT an export of service; that said supply will be treated as inter-state supply and IGST will be levied @18% - Aggrieved by this order, an Appeal was filed before AAAR and the AAAR while disposing of the appeal observed that in order to determine which levy, whether export, or CGST or IGST, will be imposed on the said supply of 'intermediate services' of the appellant, Authority will have to determine the 'place of supply' and only then can the Authority determine the nature of levy, as to whether the same qualifies as an ‘export'; that as per the law, s.97(2), the Authority does not have the jurisdiction to determine the 'place of supply of services or goods or both' and accordingly no ruling on this particular question can be passed by the Advance Ruling Authority; that such rationale also holds true in case of the second question asked i.e. whether the said supply could be treated as 'intra-state supply' u/s 8(1) of the IGST Act r/w s.2(65) of the CGST Act - AAAR concluded that AAR should not have passed any ruling on the above mentioned questions and since ruling has been passed by transcending its jurisdiction, Authority quashed the impugned ruling by the AAR - Appellant has now filed an application u/s 102 of the CGST Act, 2017 for rectification of the ruling of the AAAR.

Held: It is laid down by the Courts that mistake to be rectified must be one apparent from the record; that a decision on a debatable point of law or a disputed question of fact is not a mistake apparent from the record; that the plain meaning of the word ‘apparent' is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie and it is incapable of argument or debate and, therefore, rectification of a mistake does not envisage rectification of an alleged error of judgment - It can be adequately inferred that since there is a dispute in the interpretation of the legal provisions of s.97(2)(e) of the Act, 2017, there is absolutely no question of any error apparent from the face of record - Application for rectification is, therefore, rejected: AAAR

GST - Replacement of existing lift/elevator by applicant, a CHS, paying GST on Maintenance charges collected from members - Applicant/appellant had sought a ruling from the AAR as to whether they are entitled to avail ITC of GST paid on such activity by vendor - AAR had observed that Lift, after erection and installation is an immovable property because it becomes a part of an immovable property i.e. a building; that in other words it is to be considered as an integral part of the building itself and it is not a separate part of the building; that, therefore, manufacture, supply, installation and commissioning of lifts/elevators is in the nature of Works Contract (WCS) activity which results in creation of an immovable property; that in view of Explanation to s.17 of the CGST Act, applicant is not entitled to ITC of GST paid on replacement of existing lift/elevator at its premises - Aggrieved, appellant is before the AAAR.

Held: No reason to interfere with the order of the AAR - Held, therefore, that the appellant will not be eligible to avail ITC in respect of the GST paid on lift installation charges paid to the lift contractor, in terms of s.16(2)(b) r/w s.17(5)(c) and s.17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Appeal is dismissed: AAAR

GST - AAR had held that GST is leviable on sale of Transferable Development Rights (TDR)/Floor Space Index (FSI) received as consideration for surrendering the joint rights in land in terms of Development Control Regulations and granted in light of the article of agreement dated 18/12/2017 entered between the applicant and Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) read with Development Control Regulations - Further, that Classification of such supply would be under heading 9972 and the applicable rate of GST is 18% under reverse charge - Applicant is aggrieved by this order and is in appeal before the Appellate Authority.

Held: Transferable Development Rights (TDR) is not ‘money' - It is given in lieu of money and just because it is given in lieu of money it does not get the status of money - Money is already defined in Section 2(75) of the CGST Act, 2017 and it does not include TDR, therefore, it is clear that TDR is not money - Only sale of land is outside the purview of tax and it is clear that TDR is not land and, therefore, interpreting TDR as a service and, therefore, taxable, does not seem to be an absurd conclusion in the sense that it leads to the taxation of something either expressly prohibited by law or prohibited by the use of common logic or reason - TDR is a service and Authority does not find any ambiguity whatsoever in the wordings of the statute and, therefore, does not need to go back to the Statement of Objects and Reasons (SOR) as an aid to interpretation - Accordingly, it is held that sale of TDR/Floor Space Index (FSI) would be leviable to GST under heading 9972 at the rate of 18% as prescribed under entry at Sr. no. 16(iii) of 11/2017-CTR - No reason for interfering with the ruling passed by the Advance Ruling Authority: AAAR

GST - AAR had held that Prize money received from horse racing conducting entities, in the event the horse owned by the applicant wins the race, would amount to 'supply of services' u/s 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 and is liable to GST @18%; covered under Entry no. 35 of 11/2017-CTR - Aggrieved, the State Tax Officer, PUN-VAT-C-118, Pune has filed appeal before the AAAR - Revenue has also sought a condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the present appeal - It is the contention of the appellant Revenue that the order of the AAR is void ab initio in terms of s.101 as well as section 104 of the CGST Act, 2017 - The appellant Revenue further submits that the applicant Mr. Vijay B Shirke had suppressed certain vital facts in the application made before the AAR about the investigation that had been initiated by the DGGI, Pune Zonal Unit against him viz. Mr. Vijay B Shirke; therefore, the Advance Ruling obtained by the applicant by keeping the AAR in the dark appeared to be not legal and proper and, therefore, is required to be set aside.

Held: Investigation proceedings were initiated under the Service Tax and not under the CGST Act, 2017, therefore, section 98(2) is not attracted as there was no proceeding pending under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 - By applying the definition of 'supply' to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that no service has been provided by the applicant-respondent to the racing clubs for the Prize money/stakes received from such clubs as it is not in dispute that not all horse owners, who agree to provide their horses to such race organising clubs, get consideration in the form of the said prize money/stakes from such clubs - only those horse owners receive these considerations whose horses win the races organised by such clubs - Thus, there is no direct nexus between the activities carried out by the horse owners viz. by providing thoroughbred horses to race clubs for organising horse race events and the prize money received by such horse owners - For occurrence of any taxable event, there must be a direct and immediate link between the supply made and the consideration received - in the present facts and circumstances, this clause of direct and immediate link between the supply and consideration is absolutely absent in the present situation - As such, it would not be construed as a taxable supply/event - Participation of the race horses in the races and winning by such race horses are two separate events/transactions - It is clear that in the first transaction i.e. getting the opportunity to participate in such races organised by the horse racing clubs against the entry fee payable by the horse race owners to such clubs is a supply of service by the race conducting entity to such aspiring horse owners - However, Appellate Authority fails to see any element of service when the applicant's horses win the race and get the prize - Authority also fails to see what kind of service is given by the horse owner to the race club when he participates in the race and if the same is held as a service then, even the rest of the horses which are not winners should get consideration for enabling the club to hold a race which is surely not the case in the instant case - Surely, it cannot be a case that service is provided by all and consideration is received only by a few - It is, therefore, difficult to accept the contention of the applicant and the ruling of the AAR that the horse owners have supplied a service to the club by providing their horses in the race - Every supply is a contract but not every contract is a supply - In order to levy tax under the CGST Act, there should be a supply of goods/services and there should be consideration - There is no service provided in the present case and, therefore, the argument of the appellant is not acceptable - Insofar as eligibility to avail ITC is concerned, since there is no supply, applicant respondent is not entitled to avail any ITC in accordance with the provisions of s.17(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Order of AAR is set aside: AAAR

GST - Applicant/Appellant entered into a contract with Delhi Metro Railway Corporation (DMRC) for supply, erection, installation, commissioning and testing of UPS systems and sought a ruling as to whether the same qualifies as supply of Works Contract u/s 2(119) of the CGST Act - AAR observed that the Principal supply in this case is a supply of goods and, therefore, the GST will have to be paid on the goods at the appropriate rate after classification under the appropriate heading; that the principal goods in the subject case is UPS units which are most important for the applicant to render the supply as per the contract; that UPS is classifiable under Heading 8504 and attracts GST @18% as supply of goods, therefore, the principal supply in the composite supply being goods as described under heading 8504, the applicant is liable to pay GST on the whole contract @18%; AAR further held that the contention of the applicant that the contract qualifies as supply of Works Contract u/s 2(119) of the Act is answered in the negative and consequently, their contention that the supply would be taxable @12% GST in terms of Sr. no. 3(v) of 11/2017-CTR also fails - Aggrieved, the appellant is before the AAAR.

Held: Bench agrees with the appellant's contention that there exists two taxable persons i.e. one Maharashtra unit undertaking the supply of UPS systems and the other specified accessories and another Delhi unit undertaking the task of erection, commissioning, installation, testing etc. of the UPS systems which is manifest from the separate invoices raised by the Maharashtra and the Delhi unit of the appellant for the supply of goods and supply of services respectively - The presence of two taxable persons would clearly preclude the impugned supplies from being considered as being in the nature of composite supply, wherein one of the essential conditions is that there should be a single taxable person who is undertaking all the supplies involved in a particular transaction, which is clearly not the case here - key requirement of being called a ‘composite supply' u/s 2(30) of the CGST Act since not satisfied, the observation made by the Advance Ruling Authority is not proper and legal and hence warrants to be set aside - Appeal allowed: AAAR

GST - Applicant/appellant had entered into an agreement with Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (GSIDC) for execution of additional Air-conditioning work for the new building of Director of Education at Porvorim, Goa - Applicant had sought to know whether the transaction would be classifiable as 'Works Contract' or the transaction is a Composite Supply - AAR had observed that there is no Works contract involved in the subject case and the supply is nothing but a Composite supply with supply of goods being the principal supply; that, therefore, GST will have to be paid on the goods at the appropriate rate after classification under appropriate heading; that since final deliverable is nothing but ready to operate Air-conditioning system and Air conditioner units falling under Chapter 8415 are taxable @28%, Schedule IV, Sr. no. 119 of 1/2017-CTR and parallel IGST/State/UT etc. notification - applicant is liable to pay GST on the whole contract @28%; that there is no 'Mixed supply' because no individual supplies are made in the instant case - Aggrieved, appellant is before the AAAR.

Held: Contract in the impugned case although a composite supply is not for immovable property, hence, does not fall under the definition of 'Works Contract' - the principal supply in the case is of Air Conditioning units and the entire contract is taxable @28% as correctly held by the AAR - AAR ruling upheld and appeal dismissed: AAAR

GST - Applicant (now appellant) is a retail chain of digital labs and studios and had sought 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 - AAR had held that 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 and 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 - Aggrieved with the ruling of the AAR, appellant is before the AAAR.

Held: Delay of two days in filing appeal condoned - Once it is decided that the entire gamut of activities of the appellant, which are in the nature of facilitation of the main services between the Consultant Manager and its customers i.e. prospective investors are those of an 'intermediary', the determination of the activities of the appellant as being export of services or otherwise is out of the ambit of the Advance Ruling in terms of section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 which lays down the set of questions in respect of which advance ruling can be sought under the Act, 2017 - the said set of questions do not cover the determination of the place of supply of any goods or services or both - Further, to determine the export of services in terms of s. 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017, place of supply of the services has to be determined so as to ascertain whether the supply of services under question can be considered as export of service or not - since the 'place of supply' is beyond the ambit of the advance ruling, Authority cannot pass any ruling in relation to the issue of export - Therefore, Advance Ruling Authority should also have refrained from passing the ruling on the issue of export raised by the applicant/appellant in his application - Held that the entire gamut of activities performed by the appellant in terms of the subject agreement are those of an 'intermediary', which would be classified under the heading 9997 [Other services] - As regards issue of export of the services provided by the appellant, it is held that advance ruling on this issue cannot be passed as the same is beyond the jurisdiction of the Authority: AAAR

GST - Applicant (now appellant) had sought an advance ruling on the applicable GST rate on Operating Gaming zone in Malls - Authority for Advance Ruling had observed that the Applicant has stationed in the Oberoi mall, various gaming equipment and machines for different age groups consisting of kids, teenagers and adults and these machines are either coin operated or card operated; that through the various equipment/machine, the applicant allows the interested person to enjoy various games; that Notification 11/2017-CTR as amended by 1/2018-CTR prescribes CGST tax rates of 9% and 14% in respect of "services by way of admission to amusement parks" and "services by way of admission to entertainment events or access to amusement facilities" respectively; that the term "amusement park" has not been defined under the CGST Act but section 2(a-1) of the Bombay Entertainment Act defines the same as meaning a place wherein various types of amusements including games or riders or both are provided fairly on permanent basis on payment for admission; that although the word "amusement" is common in both the expressions, it is worthwhile to know the difference between "park" and "facility"; that whereas "park" is a 'large area of land for a particular purpose', 'facility' is a place, building, equipment or an amenity for a particular purpose; that in the present case, the applicant has placed equipment in an area within the Oberoi mall, therefore, there is no second thought to call it an "amusement facility" rather than an "amusement park" - Held that Services provided by the applicant on operating gaming zone in a mall is correctly chargeable under Heading 9996 @28% GST - Aggrieved, appellant has filed an appeal before the AAAR.

Held - It is seen that Entry (iii) of Sr. no. 34 of 11/2017-CTR as amended by 01/2018-CTR talks about the amusement parks including theme parks, water parks, joy rides, merry-go rounds, go-carting and ballet - On a plain reading of this expression of Entry (iii) and applying the rule of legal interpretation, it may adequately be inferred that the said entry does not talk about the fun or recreation in the nature of arcade games as in the present case of the appellant - Hence, it can be decisively concluded that the aforesaid entry no. (iii) does not cover the activities of the appellant - On the other hand, the entry (iiia) of the amended notification 11/2017-CTR squarely covers the appellant's activities as the gaming zone operated by the appellant in the mall's closed premises are nothing but the amusement facilities as per the definition of the "amusement facility" provided under section 65(B)(9) of the erstwhile Finance Act, 1994 - applying the said provision of the aforesaid definition of "amusement facility" in the present case, it is clearly revealed that the provision of fun or recreation by the appellant by means of amusement rides and gaming devices deployed in the covered area of the mall premises, which can be reasonably construed as amusement arcade is nothing but the amusement facility - It is perspicuous that the gaming zone operated by the appellant in the mall would be covered by the entry no. (iiia) of Sr. no. 34 of 11/2017-CTR as amended by 01/2018-CTR and would accordingly attract GST rate of 28% (CGST + SGST) - Ruling of AAR upheld and the appeal is dismissed: AAAR

GST - Applicant (now appellant) sought an advance ruling on the following questions viz. whether exemption prescribed under Entry no. 13 of 9/2017-ITR can be sought and the lessors need not charge GST while issuing invoice for the lease service to M/s D Twelve Spaces P Ltd.; whether lease service falls under the exemption and can be described as 'services by way of renting of residential dwelling for use as residence' - Applicant along with four others collectively have let out a residential complex to M/s D Twelve Spaces Pvt. Ltd. which is engaged in the business of providing affordable residential accommodation to students on a long term basis (from 3 to 11 months) - along with such accommodation, the company M/s D Twelve Spaces P ltd. is engaged in providing a host of other services such as maintenance, food, WiFi etc. generally called as a Paying Guest accommodation - it is the contention of the applicant that ‘services by way of renting of residential dwelling for use as residence' are exempt from GST - AAR held [2020-TIOL-84-AAR-GST] that Copy of lease deed entered between the lessors of which the applicant is one of them and the company shows that the lessors (totally five in number) have collectively leased out their premises to the company by way of a single agreement - Each of the lessor owns a part of the property and they have pooled up their properties and then leased it to the company - para 7.1 of the agreement shows very clearly that the consideration for the contract is settled at Rs.xxx per month - This clearly shows that the contract is for the entire property and the lessors have pooled their individual properties into a single one and then given the same as a single piece and even the sharing of the rent is only an apportionment of the common income - it is, therefore, clear that the applicant is not providing the service in an individual capacity to the lessee but as a part of the group of lessors - contract of the applicant group with the company indicates that what is given is an immovable property consisting of only rooms with attached toilets as per the layout of the leased premises annexed to the lease agreement and does not fit into the meaning of a dwelling which means a house - They are like hotel rooms and the entire leased premises of 42 rooms, which can by no imagination be termed as residential dwelling - even if the same is given for residential purposes, the services provided is not for use as residence by the lessee - therefore, exemption prescribed under Entry no. 13 of 9/2017-ITR cannot be extended and the lessors (as an entity) have to charge GST while issuing the invoice for the lease services to M/s D Twelve Spaces P Ltd. - lease services does not fall under the exemption Entry 13 of 9/2017-ITR titled 'Services by way of renting of residential dwelling for use as residence' - Aggrieved, appeal filed before AAAR.

+ Order of AAR is upheld, however, the observation made by the AAR in para 8(b) of the impugned order viz. ‘that the question of charging or not charging GST for the transaction between the applicant and the company does not arise as the applicant himself is not effecting any supply of service to the company directly' is expunged as the same is beyond the ambit of the question on which the ruling had been sought - Appeal dismissed: AAAR

+ Application was filed manually on 6th December 2019 and the ruling should have been pronounced on or before 5th March 2020 - No doubt, the ruling given by the Authority on 23rd March 2020 has been passed after the time period stipulated under the statute, however, that does not render the ruling null and void or unsustainable - moreover, an order suffering from illegality or irregularity of procedure cannot be termed as in-executable - remedy of a person aggrieved by such an order is to have it set aside in a duly constituted legal proceeding or by a superior court failing which he must obey the order - An order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be denuded of its efficacy by any collateral attack or in incidental proceedings - Authority was well within its jurisdiction to pass a ruling on the subject matter - Not adhering to the time limit in passing an order can be termed as an irregularity in procedure which can be set right in appeal proceedings: AAAR

GST - Appellant is an individual stated to be an employee of an overseas company engaged in business of manufacturing and selling various categories of distribution transformer components and accessories -applicant had sought a ruling as to whether the services provided to M/s H-J family of companies amounts to or results in supply of services or both, within the meaning of that term; whether the question, if answered, in the affirmative, applicant is required to take registration under the Act and what would be his liability as well as the time and value of the supply of services - AAR held [2019-TIOL-399-AAR-GST] that the services provided would be classifiable under HSN 9983 11 under the description 'Other professional, technical and business services' and, therefore, applicant is required to get himself registered; rate of tax is GST 18%, Sr. no. 21(ii) of 11/2017-CTR - time of such supply would be determined as per provisions of s.13(2) of the Act and the value would be the amount received by applicant from recipient of services and also includes the amounts reimbursed to applicant for the expenses incurred - Aggrieved, applicant has filed an appeal before the AAAR.

Held: Decision of AAR is upheld inasmuch as the service of sales presentations of the products of H-J family of companies is classifiable as ‘Other professional, technical and business services' under SAC 9983 11 and the same is being rendered as an ‘intermediary service' as defined u/s 2(13) of the IGST Act - Other findings of the lower authority with regard to liability to register, the rate of tax and the time and value of supply are also upheld - Appeal dismissed: AAAR

GST - Applicant (now Appellant) company has entered into an agreement with landlord Dr Banraji B H for getting the first and second floor of the building on monthly rent of Rs.2,35,000/- per month to the extent of 3 years exclusively use for accommodation services - applicant has entered into a leave and license agreement with Sodexo Food Solutions India P Ltd. for providing the sub-lease of the said premises to the extent of Rs.5,25,000/- per month and also provided facilities as per requirement of Sodexo Food Solutions India P Ltd. and executives for residential accommodation - applicant charges Rs.5,25,000/- for services of rent with water and maintenance and also raises invoice for Rs.1,22,893/- towards EMI per month for the additional facilities provided - applicant contends that the services by way of renting of residential dwelling for use as residence is exempt from GST in view of 12/2017-CTR, a ruling is sought on the subject matter - AAR held that the c lassification of service provided by applicant is covered under SAC 997212, Entry no. 16 of 11/2017-CTR and security services is covered under SAC 998529, Entry no. 23(ii) of 11/2017-CTR and liable to tax at respective rates - classification of service provided by building owner to applicant is covered under SAC 997212 and liable to tax under 11/2017-CTR, Sr. no.16 and the exemption as claimed by applicant is not entertainable; EMI charges on goods supplied is an instalment for the goods transferred and is a supply of goods under clause 1(c) of Schedule II to the CGST Act and hence is liable to tax at the rate applicable to each of the goods supplied at the time of delivery of such goods - Aggrieved, applicant is before the AAAR

Held: Delay in filing appeal is condoned - It is observed that the same non-residential premises which the appellant took on rent from the owner has been sub-leased by appellant to M/s Sodexo Food Solutions for use by their employees - The appellant has provided this non-residential building on monthly lease along with the facilities which were required by Sodexo Food Solutions - Since the premises rented out to the appellant by the owner is a non-residential premise, the same continues to be non-residential when sub-leased by the appellant - It is not of relevance whether the employees of Sodexo Food Solutions use the premises for residential purposes - What is important to determine the taxability of a supply is the nature of the supply made by the service provider - in this case, the appellant as a service provider is merely sub-leasing a non-residential premise to another entity - This activity of renting/leasing of property which is primarily non-residential is taxable under Heading 997212 and chargeable to tax @18% GST under Entry Sl. no 16 of 11/2017-CTR - Insofar as other services provided by the appellant is concerned, the Appellate authority agrees with the findings of the lower Authority - Accordingly, order of AAR is upheld and the appeal is dismissed: AAAR

GST - The appellant is part of a group of companies engaged in providing services in the field of media, printing, publishing, financial services and information technology - They are engaged in supplying services of printing books, magazines, bank passbooks, bank account opening forms and various other stationery items required by the banking industry, educational institutions and by various other customers - They had approached the AAR seeking to know whether Pattadar Passbook cum Title Deed document classifies as a Document of Title so as to be classified under HSN 4907 or as a passbook under HSN 4820 - AAR after considering the relevant provisions in the Telangana State Rights in Land Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, held [ 2019-TIOL-325-AAR-GST ] that the Pattadar Passbook cum Title Deed is appropriately classifiable under HSN 4820 - Appeal before AAAR.

Held: Pattadar Pas Book cum title deed is not a document of title as claimed by the appellant is not classifiable under CH 4907 of the Customs Tariff Act but is rightly classifiable under CH 4820 of CTA as held by AAR - Reliance placed by the appellant on several case laws to buttress their case that Pattadar Pass book qualifies as a document of title and that the record of rights maintained with the Mandal revenue officers is not a document of title are not applicable to the case on hand as all the relied upon case laws were rendered in the context of settling land disputes and wherein the Courts were concerned with the pleas regarding the title to the disputed property - Authority is concerned with deciding the classification of the item ‘Pattadar Pass Book' in terms of the Customs Tariff Act for which purpose the description of goods as contained in the Tariff read with the relevant Explanatory Notes of the HSN are of importance - AAR order dated 16.09.2019 upheld and the Appeal is dismissed: AAAR

GST - AAR had held [ 2019-TIOL-393-AAR-GST ] that s ervices provided by applicant (now appellant) to Electricity Supply companies viz. BESCOM, MESCOM and HESCOM (wholly owned by Government of Karnataka undertakings) by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion etc. are not covered under Entry no. 3(vi)(a) of 12/2017-CTR or Entry no. 3(vi)(a) of 8/2017-ITR as amended and consequently are not eligible for being taxed at the lower rate of 12% GST but are rightly chargeable to GST @18%; that predominant activity of the Electricity distribution companies is to supply electricity and the works executed by the applicant are used for this only and hence are original works meant predominantly for use for commerce, industry or any other business or profession; that the contracts do not satisfy the fourth condition required for them to be covered under entry no. 3(vi)(a) to the aforesaid notifications - appeal to AAAR.

Held: From the information available in the public domain, it is clear that the principal/primary and foremost aim of these companies are predominantly commercial in nature and moreover these electricity distribution companies generally work for the efficient and economic management of Electric power and optimum utilisation of available resources - since the nature of activities of BESCOM, MESCOM and HESCOM are principally and predominantly commercial in nature, Authority has come to the considered conclusion that the appellants are not eligible for the benefit of 12% GST in terms of Sl. no. 3(vi)(a) of 8/2017-ITR - AAR order upheld and appeal dismissed: AAAR

GST - Appellant is in the business of distributing Rice, Wheat, Palm Oil, Toor dal, salt etc. under the Public Distribution System allocated by the Government of Karnataka - They are hiring a godown of Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC), Belgaum and paying storage shares for the agreed space for storage - They are using this godown for storage of commodities which comprise both exempted as well as taxable goods - CWC is charging GST as per the dedicated warehousing agreement and the appellant sought to know from AAR whether the entire amount of storage charges is liable to tax or is it only to the extent of amount used for storing taxable goods - They referred to notification 12/2017-CTR wherein the services by way of storage or warehousing of rice is exempted under Entry 24 and also that services relating to agricultural produce by way of storage or warehousing of agricultural product is also exempt under Entry no. 54 of 12/2017-CTR - AAR held [2019-TIOL-387-AAR-GST] that the s ervices provided by the Central Warehousing Corporation to the applicant are covered under Renting of Commercial space in Immovable property and is not storage service of goods; that the Service is covered under SAC 997212 and is liable to CGST of @9% under Entry no. 16 of 11/2017-CTR - Aggrieved, appeal filed before AAAR.

Held: From the terms of the agreement, it is observed that CWC is only providing the 488 sq.m of space in the Central Warehouse for rent; and this space has been taken on rent by appellant for storing the food grains - the activity which is under consideration here is the activity performed by CWC and not the activity undertaken by the appellant - supply made by CWC is merely a renting of space - There is a difference between ‘storage or warehousing' service and ‘renting of storage premises' service - whereas the ‘storage and warehousing service' provider normally makes arrangement for space to keep the goods, loading, unloading and stacking of goods in the storage area, keeps inventory of goods, makes security arrangements and provides insurance cover etc., a person who ‘rents the storage premises' does not provide any service such as loading/unloading, stacking, security etc. - Therefore, mere renting of space cannot be said to be in the nature of service provided for storage or warehousing of goods - Authority agrees with the findings of the AAR and holds that the service supplied by Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC), Belgaum to appellant is renting of immovable property service - amount of rent paid by appellant to CWC is taxable at the hands of ‘CWC' under the category of ‘Rental or leasing services involving own or leased non-residential property' (SAC 997212) - AAR order upheld and appeal dismissed: AAAR

GST - Applicant (now appellant) is in the business of supplying online journals and have a portal called J-Gate which is a platform for searching various educational journals - They had sought a ruling as to whether the supply of services in the nature of subscription to J-Gate by educational institutions is eligible for exemption from GST under 2/2018-CTR - AAR had observed that the c ontention of applicant that if Tax India Online (TIOL) and GST Law Times are considered as journals, J-Gate should also be considered as an online journal is misplaced; that the Applicant only acts as the gateway to the data and are not its owners; that in respect of the metadata, the educational institutes have to further pay the publishers to get access to the full text of articles; that what the applicant supplies is educational material/information already prepared by someone else; that they only act as a platform for supply of information or as an aggregator of information in case of metadata and, therefore, the services transaction are not covered under sub-item (v) of item (b) of Serial no. 66 of 12/2017-CTR as amended and instead the transaction of supply of information by applicant is more appropriately covered under SAC 998431 and is liable to tax @9% CGST under entry no. 22 of 11/2017-CTR - Aggrieved, appeal before AAAR.

Held: Appellate authority disagrees with the view expressed by the AAR - The intention of the exemption notification is to exempt the 'supply of online journals to educational institutions' - The notification does not require that the supply is made by one who owns or publishes the journal and the only requirement is that the supply should be in the online mode and it should be to certain kinds of educational institutions - J-Gate is no doubt aggregating the journals from different publishers on one common platform but the supply of journals to the end-user i.e. the subscriber is made by the appellant through their platform J-Gate - Payment of additional fees to the publisher is only to protect the interests of the publisher in how the journal content is being used - Therefore, in the opinion of the Appellate Authority, it is the appellant who makes the supply of the online journals to educational institutions - Moreover, the question before the lower authority (AAR) was regarding their eligibility to the exemption notification and there was no question regarding classification and rate of tax of the supply made by the appellant - As the lower authority has gone beyond the question on which a ruling was sought for, the finding of AAR on the classification and rate of tax of supply is also set aside - Held that the supply of services in the nature of subscription to the J-Gate by educational institutions is eligible for exemption from GST under sub-item (v) of item (b) of Serial no. 66 of 12/2017-CTR: AAAR

GST - Applicant (now appellant) entered into a contract with Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) for facilitating the service of transportation of employees of the tenants of the business park by providing a chartered bus - Bus passes are sold by BMTC to applicant - Applicant charges a separate fee in the form of 'facilitation fee' for arranging this facility for the commuters and this practice is followed for both non-AC regular passes as well as combo bus passes - AAR held [2019-TIOL-380-AAR-GST] that the value of bus passes distributed by applicant to commuters and facilitation charges is to be included in the value of services provided by applicant; that applicant is not an 'intermediary' since it is the applicant who is receiving services from BMTC and providing services to the commuters and all are on principal to principal basis and applicant is neither the agent of BMTC or the commuter - Aggrieved, appeal filed before AAAR.

Held: Claim of the appellant that the Bus pass is an actionable claim and, therefore, not liable to GST is disagreed with - Inasmuch as commuter produces the bus pass for purchasing the service of transportation; that the bus pass only gives the commuter the right to travel and if the commuter does not use the bus pass within the duration for which it is valid or loses the bus pass, it becomes invalid and cannot be used to procure the service of transportation - Bus pass is only a contract of carriage and a contract is not a property but only a promise supported by consideration, therefore, the bus pass is not an actionable claim as defined under Transfer of Property Act - It is only an instrument accepted as consideration/part consideration while purchasing the service from appellant - Ruling given by the lower authority (AAR) is upheld - Inasmuch as by virtue of section 15 of the CGST Act, the value of service supplied by appellants will include the value of the bus passes as well as the facilitation charges: AAAR

GST - Applicant is engaged in supply of 'Relocation Management Service' to its clients located in India, which primarily involves facilitation/administration/management of relocation of client's employees from one location to another - for the purposes of GST, the applicant is classifying the said services as 'Support services' under SAC 9985 - applicant had filed an application before the AAR and sought to know whether the gamut of services collectively referred to as "Relocation Management Service" provided would constitute as a composite supply or mixed supply for the purpose of taxability under GST - AAR held that Services rendered by the applicant do not constitute a composite supply but a mixed supply when the services are billed for a single price in case where the relocation related services are actually provided by them; services provided to the company as an agent are "Management support services of relocation related services" which is a single service covered under SAC 9985 and is covered under Entry no. 23(ii) of 11/2017-CTR - Appeal before AAAR

Held: Package of bundled services supplied by appellant for a single price in terms of the Relocation Service Agreement (RSA) and State of Work (SOW) is a mixed supply in terms of s.2(74) of the Act, 2017 and the taxability of the mixed supply will be determined in terms of s.8(b) of the Act - A la carte services provided by the appellant, relating to employee relocation is neither a composite supply nor a mixed supply - observations made by the AAR to the effect that the service provided by the appellant is covered under the definition of 'intermediary' is expunged as being beyond the mandate of the Authority - appeal disposed of: AAAR

GST - The applicant company is a joint venture between the Volvo Group and Eicher Motors Limited - It is in the business of selling Volvo branded trucks and providing after sale support services, including warranty services for Volvo branded trucks and buses in India - The applicant approached the AAR seeking to know whether the supplies made by it to Volvo Sweden is supply of services - It also sought to know whether the supplies made by the applicant amount to export of services to Volvo Sweden and hence zero rated under the GST law - AAR held that the applicant is providing composite supply of goods and services to the customers wherein the principal supply is that of goods or services depending on the nature of each case - Besides, the transaction is an intra-State or inter-State transaction (but not export transaction) depending on the place of supply - Also, since the transaction is not export of services, the transaction is not a zero-rated supply under the IGST Act - Appeal filed before AAAR.

Held: Activities performed by the appellant with regard to repair and servicing of Volvo vehicles for Indian customers during the warranty period is an activity amounting to composite supply of goods and services for Volvo Sweden with the principal supply being a supply of service - recipient of supply is Volvo Sweden - However, Authority refrains from answering the question as to whether the supply of services to Volvo Sweden amounts to export of services since the Authority is a creature of the statute and has to function within the legal boundary mandated by the Act - inasmuch as ‘place of supply' is not covered by the section 97(2) of the Act - Order of AAR set aside: AAAR

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant No. 1 had alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of rate reduction when the rate of GST was reduced from 18% to 5% on the foot wear (Shoes) - Based on the DGAP report, Authority had by its order 40/2019 = 2019-TIOL-40-NAA-GST dated 26.06.2019 determined the profiteered amount as Rs. 6,55,307/- as per the provisions of Section 171 (2) of the above Act read with Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 pertaining to the period from 27.07.2018 to 30.11.2018 and also held that the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171(1) of the Act, 2017 - Accordingly, Respondent was issued notice dated 03.07.2019 asking him to explain why the penalty mentioned in Section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him - Respondent vide his submissions dated 24.09.2019 has stated that the penal provisions under Section 122 of the Act read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be invoked and penalty should not be imposed on him as he had accepted and deposited the entire profiteered amount which had been determined by this Authority in the Consumer Welfare Funds (CWFs) within 1 month from the date of the order issued by this Authority and had also deposited the interest of Rs. 85,892/-.

Held: From the perusal of Section 122(1)(i) it is clear that the violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) is not covered under it as it does not provide penalty for not passing on the benefits of tax reduction and hence the above penalty cannot be imposed for violation of the anti-profiteering provisions made under Section 171 of the above Act - It is further revealed that vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020, by inserting Section 171 (3A). Since, no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 27.07.2018 to 30.11.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171 (1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) also cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively - Accordingly, the notice dated 03.07.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122 (1)(i) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped: NAA

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant has alleged profiteering by the respondent in respect of supply of ‘Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematograph films where price of admission ticket is one hundred rupees or less" despite reduction in the GST rate from 18% to 12% w.e.f 01.01.2019 [Notification 27/2018-CTR dt. 31.12.2018] inasmuch as the respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate by reducing the ticket prices - DGAP in its report has stated that the respondent had increased the base prices in all three categories [Emerald Circle, Dress Circle, Emerald] of admission tickets and had thus profiteered by an amount of Rs.5,31,625/- during the period 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019 [no sale of tickets for Emerald category during period of investigation] - Since the respondent has not submitted any written submissions against the DGAP's report or appear for hearing, Authority does not find any reason to differ from the findings recorded in the report and thus concludes that the respondent has contravened the provisions of s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - respondent is, therefore, directed to reduce the prices of his tickets as per the provisions of rule 133(3)(a) of the Rules, 2017 - respondent is also directed to deposit the profiteered amount of Rs.5,31,625/- along with interest @18% in the Consumer Welfare Fund of both the Centre and the State in two equal parts since the recipients are not identifiable - above amount to be deposited within three months failing which the same would be recovered by the Commissioner CGST/SGST as per provisions of the Act, 2017 - Respondent has contravened the provisions of s.171 of the Act, 2017 however, since the penalty u/s 171(3A) has come into force w.e.f 01.01.2020 and the infringement pertains to the period from 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019, the penalty cannot be imposed retrospectively - Notice for imposition of penalty is, therefore, not required to be issued to the respondent - read with notification 65/2020-CT, the present order is issued: NAA

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant has alleged profiteering by the respondent in respect of supply of ‘services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematography films where the price of the admission ticket was above one hundred rupees' despite reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% w.e.f 01.01.2019 - it is alleged that the respondent was selling the movie tickets of value of Rs.250/-, Rs.200/- and Rs.150/- at the same prices after the reduction in the rate of GST from 28% to 18% vide notification 27/2018-CTR by increasing the base prices resulting in non-passing of the benefit of rate reduction to his customers - DGAP in its report has stated that the respondent had profiteered by an amount of Rs.4,20,731/- w.e.f 01.01.2019 to 06.01.2019 and w.e.f 07.01.2019 have reduced their prices commensurate to the rate reduction; that the respondent has deposited an amount of Rs.4,20,731/- being the profiteered amount along with interest of Rs.10,065/- in the Consumer Welfare Funds of the Central and State government as the customers are not identifiable - contention of respondent that the prices of the tickets were fixed in terms of the orders of the State government and hence could not be reduced by them is untenable as the Telangana State regulations or any order issued by the State government in the Home department cannot supersede the provisions of the CGST/Telangana SGST Act, 2017 which governs the fixation of GST rates as well as the anti-profiteering measures - respondent cannot illegally enrich himself at the expense of the general public which is vulnerable, unorganised and voiceless and misappropriate the benefits of tax rate reduction - DGAP report is accepted by the Authority - Respondent has contravened the provisions of s.171 of the Act, 2017 however, since the penalty u/s 171(3A) has come into force w.e.f 01.01.2020 and the infringement pertains to the period from 01.01.2019 to 06.01.2019 and the respondent has deposited the profiteered amount along with interest, no penalty can be imposed - read with notification 65/2020-CT, the present order is issued: NAA

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant alleges that the respondent has profiteered in respect of the supply of apartment no. Emerald-002 in their project ‘Parkwest-Emerald' & 'Parkwest-Maple'; inasmuch as the respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - DGAP in its report has stated that the respondent has benefited from additional Input Tax Credit to the tune of 1.99% [6.69% - 4.70%] [ITC as a percentage of the turnover] for the project Emerald and additional ITC to the tune of 3.62% in respect of the project Maple; that the profiteered amount in respect of project Emerald is Rs.9,67,330/- but nothing is due to the applicant no. 1 as the respondent had already passed on an amount of Rs.31,823/- to him; that the buyer and unit-wise break up of the profiteered amount in respect of the flats sold up to 30.04.2019 is computed; that the profiteered amount in respect of project Maple comes to Rs.3,03,94,113/- for the period up to 30.04.2019 [in respect of applicant no.2 it is Rs.74,929/-] - Authority observes that the mathematical methodology employed by the DGAP to compute the ITC ratios as well as the profiteered amount is logical, reasonable, appropriate and in consonance with the provisions of s.171(1) of the Act - such methodology has also been approved by the Authority in all such cases of real estate sector where benefit of additional ITC is to be passed on - Further contention of respondent is that after coming into force of GST, they had become entitled to ITC of Excise duty only which amounted to Rs.55,02,353/- in respect of Emerald project and Rs.2,85,34,060/- for project Maple and hence they were required to pass on the above amounts only as the benefit of ITC is not tenable - This is because there is no provision in s.171 which states that the respondent is required to pass on the benefit of Excise duty only, therefore, the entire amount of additional ITC which has become available to the respondent in the post-GST period has to be taken into account to compute the benefit which he is required to pass on - respondent has also not given any reason as to why he has availed the full benefit of ITC and not restricted the same to the amount of excise duty only while paying GST - respondent cannot misappropriate the benefit of ITC which has been granted to him by the Central as well as the State government out of their precious tax revenue to benefit the buyers and, therefore, he has to pass on the entire additional ITC which was accrued to him in the post-GST period - respondent also cannot use this in his business or reflect it as his profit - respondent is also not required to pay even a single penny out of his own pocket to pass on the above benefit inasmuch as he cannot enrich himself at the expense of the buyers who are vulnerable, unorganised and voiceless - contention of the respondent that only 10 percent amount was demanded from the buyers in the post-GST period as 90% amount had already been received in the pre-GST period, therefore, only am amount of Rs.11,70,713/- was required to be passed on as benefit of ITC is untenable as the benefit has to be computed on the basis of the additional ITC as well as the turnover received by the respondent during the post-get period and it has no connection with the percentage of work completed or percentage of amount received or purchases made by the respondent - Authority agrees with the report of the DGAP and the computation of the profiteered amounts of Rs.9,67,330/- and Rs.3,03,94,113/- arrived at by them - since the buyers are identifiable, respondent is directed to pass on the profiteered amount to the buyers along with interest @18% within a period of three months - Commissioner concerned to submit compliance report within four months - the respondent has committed the offence of violation of the provisions of s.171 of the Act, 2017 - however, since penal provisions in section 171 of the Act, 2017 have been inserted by section 112 of the Finance No.2 Act, 2017 and which is made effective from 01.01.2020, no penalty can be imposed on the respondent as the period of offence is from 01.07.2017 to 30.04.2019 - notice for penalty is, therefore, not required to be issued to respondent - order is being passed taking into consideration notification 35/2020-CT in the matter of force majeure due to the pandemic of COVID-19: NAA

GST - Anti-Profiteering - Period involved is July 2017 to June 2018 - Authority had in its order dated 21.06.2019 [2019-TIOL-39-NAA-GST] concluded that the respondent had profiteered by an amount of Rs.81,67,546/- by not passing on the benefit of ITC to the buyers of its flats in the project ‘City Park Township', Lodhipur, Shahjahanpur, UP - Accordingly, the Authority had held that for the aforesaid contravention of s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017, the respondent was liable for imposition of penalty and accordingly a SCN dated 05.07.2019 was issued asking him to explain as to why penalty mentioned in s.122 r/w rule 133(3)(d) of the Act/Rules should not be imposed on him - appellant made submissions on 23.08.2019 and inter alia contended that the penalty provisions u/s 122 r/w rule 133(3)(d) should not be invoked as penalty u/s 122 of the Act was not imposable for offence under s.171 of the Act; that there is no mens rea and deliberate attempt to violate the provision of law.

Held: Period involved is July 2017 to June 2018 - Perusal of Section 122(1)(i) makes it clear that the violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) is not covered under it as it does not provide penalty for not passing on the benefits of tax reduction and ITC and hence the above penalty cannot be imposed for violation of the anti-profiteering provisions made under Section 171 of the above Act - Furthermore, vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020, by inserting Section 171(3A) - However, since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. July 2017 to June 2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171(1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively - Accordingly, the notice dated 05.07.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122(1)(i) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped: NAA

GST - Anti-Profiteering - Period involved is July 2017 to December 2018 - Authority had in its order dated 09.12.2019 [2019-TIOL-67-NAA-GST] concluded that the respondent had profiteered by an amount of Rs.2,69,77,661/- by not passing on the benefit of ITC to the buyers of its flats in the project ‘Floridaa', Haryana - Accordingly, the Authority had held that for the aforesaid contravention of s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017, the respondent was liable for imposition of penalty and accordingly a SCN dated 17.01.2020 was issued asking him to explain as to why penalty mentioned in s.171(3A) r/w rule 133(3)(d) of the Act/Rules should not be imposed on him - appellant made submissions on 19.06.2020 and inter alia contended that the penalty provisions u/s 171(3A) r/w rule 133(3)(d) should not be invoked as the Central government had vide notification 01/2020-CT has appointed the 1st day of January 2020 as the date on which the provision of s.92 to 112 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 would come into force; that the section 171(3A) is effective prospectively and cannot be applied to the period in question; that there is no mens rea and deliberate attempt to violate the provision of law.

Held: Period involved is July 2017 to December 2018 - Vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020 [Notification 1/2020-CT], by inserting Section 171(3A) - However, since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.01.2017 to 31.10.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171(1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively - Accordingly, the notice dated 17.01.2020 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped: NAA

Director General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs Nani Resorts And Floriculture Pvt Ltd

GST - Anti-Profiteering - Period involved is July 2017 to September 2018 - Authority had in its order dated 21.10.2019 [2019-TIOL-52-NAA-GST] concluded that the respondent had profiteered by an amount of Rs.2,47,48,549/- by not passing on the benefit of ITC to the buyers of its flats in the project ‘ROF Aalayas', Gurgaon - Accordingly, the Authority had held that for the aforesaid contravention of s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017, the respondent was liable for imposition of penalty and accordingly a SCN dated 26.11.2019 was issued asking him to explain as to why penalty mentioned in s.171(3A) r/w rule 133(3)(d) of the Act/Rules should not be imposed on him - appellant made submissions on various dates, last being on 11.02.2020 and inter alia contended that the penalty provisions u/s 171(3A) r/w rule 133(3)(d) should not be invoked as the Central government had vide notification 01/2020-CT has appointed the 1st day of January 2020 as the date on which the provision of s.92 to 112 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 would come into force; that the section 171(3A) is effective prospectively and cannot be applied to the period in question; that there is no mens rea and deliberate attempt to violate the provision of law.

Held: Period involved is July 2017 to September 2018 - Vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020 [Notification 1/2020-CT], by inserting Section 171(3A) - However, since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.01.2017 to 31.10.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171(1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively - Accordingly, the notice dated 26.11.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped: NAA

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Period involved is 15.11.2017 to 28.02.2018 - Authority held that the respondent had profiteered by not passing the benefit of reduction in the GST rate to customers - accordingly, Respondent was directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,253/- to the Applicant along with interest @ 18% p.a. and since the other customers of the product were not identifiable, the Respondent was directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.88,525/- along with the interest at 18% P.A. till the date of deposit in the respective Central or State Consumer Welfare Fund within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order - Authority also directed issuance of SCN for imposition of penalty prescribed under Section 122 of the Act read with rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - accordingly, SCN was issued on 10.10.2018 for imposition of penalty - respondent replied vide submission dated 26.11.2019 stating that penalty cannot be imposed as the profiteered amount as determined has been paid by them and there is no mens rea involved.

Held: Period involved is 15.11.2017 to 28.02.2018 - Perusal of Section 122(1)(i) makes it clear that the violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) is not covered under it as it does not provide penalty for not passing on the benefits of tax reduction and ITC and hence the above penalty cannot be imposed for violation of the anti-profiteering provisions made under Section 171 of the above Act - Furthermore, vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020, by inserting Section 171(3A) - However, since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 28.02.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171(1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively - Accordingly, the notice dated 10.10.2018 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122(1)(i) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped: NAA

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Period involved is 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 - Authority by its order dated 27.02.2019 [ 2019-TIOL-12-NAA-GST ] held that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by way of commensurate reduction in the price after implementation of GST w.e.f 01.07.2017 and charged GST on full amount of instalments; that there were a total of 663 other recipients who were not applicants in present proceedings and the additional amount of Rs.57,65,329/- was required to be returned to the eligible recipients along with interest @18%; that s ince respondent has denied benefit of ITC to buyers in contravention of s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and has realized more price from them than he was entitled to collect and had compelled them to pay more GST than what they were required to pay, by issuing incorrect tax invoices, they have committed an offence u/s 122(1)(i) of the Act and are liable for imposition of penalty - accordingly, SCN was issued on 11.03.2019 proposing imposition of penalty for the offence committed under s.122(1) of the Act read with rule 133(3)(d) of the Rules - respondent made submissions by letter dated 04.04.2019 that penalty should not be imposed as they had accepted and paid the profiteered amount which had been determined by the authority; that there is no mens rea involved.

Held: Period involved is 01 .07.2017 to 31.08.2018 - Perusal of Section 122(1)(i) makes it clear that the violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) is not covered under it as it does not provide penalty for not passing on the benefits of tax reduction and ITC and hence the above penalty cannot be imposed for violation of the anti-profiteering provisions made under Section 171 of the above Act - Furthermore, vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020, by inserting Section 171(3A) - However, since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01 .07.2017 to 31.08.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171(1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively - Accordingly, the notice dated 11.03.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122(1)(i) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped: NAA

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant alleges that the respondent had sold tickets of value of Rs.250/-, Rs.200/-, Rs. 150/- at the same prices prior to and after the GST rate reduction vide notification 27/2018-CTR dated 31.12.2018; that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% w.e.f 01.01.2019 and instead, had increased the base prices; therefore, had profiteered - DGAP in its report has stated that the respondent had profiteered by an amount of Rs.13,51,519/- w.e.f 01.01.2019 to 06.01.2019 thus the benefit of rate reduction in GST rates was not passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in the prices of the tickets; however, it is confirmed by the DGAP that the respondent has reduced the prices commensurately w.e.f 07.01.2019 and has also deposited an amount of Rs.13,72,181/- as profiteered amount along with interest of Rs.35,865/- in the Consumer Welfare Funds - respondent has also claimed that one of his sites in the State of Telangana, Hyderabad has started its operation from 30.11.2019 and in terms of Telangana State Regulations, the prices of the tickets were to be fixed after completion of one month; that the prices of the tickets were fixed in terms of the order dated 02.01.2019 passed by the High Court of Telangana in WP no. 48127 of 2018 filed on 31.12.2018; therefore, the rate reduction was not applicable in the above cinema hall.

Held: Telangana State Regulations cannot supersede the provisions of the CGST/Telangana SGST Act, 2017 which governs the fixation of the GST rates as well as the anti-profiteering measures - since the Central government and the Telangana Government have given the benefit of tax reductions out of their precious tax revenue to benefit the common cinema goers the respondent cannot deny the same since it is not to be paid by him from his own pocket - respondent cannot illegally enrich himself at the expense of the general public which is vulnerable, unorganised and voiceless and misappropriate the above benefit - it is also revealed from the perusal of the order dated 02.01.2019 of the High Court that the Court has not exempted the respondent from passing on the benefit of tax reductions, therefore, the respondent has to pass on the rate reduction benefit to the eligible customers as per the provisions of s.171 of the Act - respondent has also averred that he was not allowed to change the ticket prices even on account of increase in his cost without permission of the licensing authorities concerned as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 - it is pertinent to note that passing on the benefit of tax reductions has no connection with the costs of the respondents as the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 only require passing on the benefit of tax reductions which does not fall under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 - moreover, State Authorities always fix the upper price limits of the cinema tickets by taking into consideration the various factors including cost in the interest of cinema goers and the respondent is always at liberty to reduce the prices in accordance with the provisions of s.171 of the Act at the time of rate reductions - no prior approval of the State Government under this Act is required to pass on the benefit of tax reductions as the rates of tax are not fixed under it - it is also apparent from the record that the respondent has not reduced his prices suo motu as the same was done by him due to the intervention of the Central GST Anti-Evasion authorities; therefore, the claim of the respondent that he had passed on the benefit of rate reduction to his customers and no further reduction of ticket prices is required is unacceptable moreso since no evidence is there on record to substantiate this claim - the profiteered amount is determined as Rs.13,51,519/- for the period 01.01.2019 to 06.01.2019 as mentioned in DGAP report dated 31.01.2020 - as the respondent has voluntarily deposited this amount in the Consumer Welfare Funds (as recipients are not identifiable) along with interest and has also reduced the ticket prices commensurately w.e.f 07.01.2019, no further direction is required in the matter - Although the respondent has contravened the provisions of s.171 of the Act and resorted to profiteering, penalty u/s 171(3A) for violation of the above provisions cannot be imposed since the said sub-section has come into force w.e.f 01.01.2020 only - As the infringement pertains to the period 01.01.2019 to 06.01.2019 and the respondent has already deposited the profiteered amount along with interest no penalty is proposed to be imposed - Order is passed taking into account the prevalent pandemic and the notification 55/2020-CT: NAA

GST - 'Luggage trolley bag/suitcases' viz. Weekender & Neolite - Period involved is 15.11.2017 to 31.08.2018 - Anti-Profiteering - S.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - DGAP in its report concluded that the respondent had increased the base prices despite the reduction in the rate of GST from 28% to 18% - Authority held that the Respondent had acted in contravention of the provisions of section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 inasmuch as he did not pass on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax to his recipients by way of commensurate reduction in the prices - respondent was, therefore, directed to deposit the profiteered amount of Rs.18,887/ as computed by the DGAP along with interest calculated @18% from the date when the above amount was collected from the recipients till the date the amount is deposited - since recipients are not identifiable, the amount was required to be deposited in the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and the Kerala State CWF in the ratio of 50:50 along with 18% interest within three months - since the respondent had deliberately and consciously acted, in contravention of the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, by issuing incorrect tax invoices which is an offence u/s 122(1)(i) of the Act, they were liable for imposition of penalty and in which regard SCN was required to be issued - respondent were issued SCN dated 13.06.2019 asking them as to why penalty mentioned in s.122 r/w rule 133(3)(d) of the Rules should not be imposed - reply was filed on 25.09.2019.

Held: Period involved is 15.11.2017 to 31.08.2018 - Perusal of Section 122(1)(i) makes it clear that the violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) is not covered under it as it does not provide penalty for not passing on the benefits of tax reduction and ITC and hence the above penalty cannot be imposed for violation of the anti-profiteering provisions made under Section 171 of the above Act - Furthermore, vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020, by inserting Section 171(3A) - However, since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 31.08.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171(1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively - Accordingly, the notice dated 13.06.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122(1)(i) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped: NAA

GST - Runway My City Project - Anti-Profiteering - S.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - DGAP in its report stated that during the period July 2017 to June 2018 the respondent had benefited from additional ITC to the tune of 3.35% of the turnover; that the profiteered amount computed based on the aforesaid ratio comes to Rs.3,20,49,507/- - Authority held that Passing on the benefit of ITC which is not being paid by the respondent from this own pocket does not amount to violation of his fundamental right to carry out his business; that the computation of benefit of ITC as per the revised report indicated that the applicant is entitled to an amount of Rs.15,336/- as benefit of ITC apart from what has been already passed on to him and which has been duly verified by DGAP - in respect of the other flat buyers, the balance amount of Rs.3,19,49,275/- is directed to be passed without taking into account the benefit of ITC which has been claimed to have have been passed on; that interest is payable @18% on the said amount and the amounts are to be paid within a period of 3 months; that penalty is required to be imposed for the offence committed u/s 171(3A) of the Act for which reason SCN is to be issued; that the SCN dated 12.12.2018 issued to respondent proposing penalty u/s 29 and 122-127 was withdrawn - respondent was later issued notice on 18.12.2019 asking him to explain as to why the penalty mentioned in s.171(3A) r/w rule 133(3)(d) should not be imposed on him - respondent made their submissions on 03.01.2020.

Held: Period involved is 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 - Perusal of Section 122(1)(i) makes it clear that the violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) is not covered under it as it does not provide penalty for not passing on the benefits of tax reduction and ITC and hence the above penalty cannot be imposed for violation of the anti-profiteering provisions made under Section 171 of the above Act - Furthermore, vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020, by inserting Section 171(3A) - However, since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171(1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively - Accordingly, the notice dated 18.12.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped: NAA

GST - Anti-Profiteering - Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - DGAP had submitted a revised investigation report and in which it is concluded that post-GST the respondent had benefited from the additional ITC to the tune of 1.79% - Since the said conclusion was not challenged by the respondent, the Authority treated the same as correct and concluded that the amount of ITC benefit which had not been passed on by the respondent to the customers/the profiteered amount comes to Rs.1,01,06,773/- which includes GST (@12% or 18%) on the base profiteered amount of Rs.89,68,979/- and which also included an amount of Rs.49,169/- (including GST on base amount of Rs.43,655/-) which was profiteered by the respondent from the present applicant; that the ITC benefit is required to be passed by the respondent to the 155 buyers from whom he has received consideration post GST; that the respondent had also realized an additional amount of Rs.15,90,239/- which includes both the profiteered amount @1.79% of the taxable amount and GST on the said profiteered amount from 92 other flat buyers and since these buyers are identifiable as per the documents, the profiteered amount is required to be passed to them along with interest @18% p.a - Authority concluded that in view of the above profiteering the respondent had committed an offence u/s 122 of the Act and is, therefore, liable for imposition of penalty and a SCN was issued in this regard on 15.05.2019 asking as to why penalty mentioned in s.122(1) read with rule 133(3)(d) of the Rules should not be imposed - respondent made submissions on 28.05.2019 and the same has been considered.

Held: Period involved is 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 - Perusal of Section 122(1)(i) makes it clear that the violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) is not covered under it as it does not provide penalty for not passing on the benefits of tax reduction and ITC and hence the above penalty cannot be imposed for violation of the anti-profiteering provisions made under Section 171 of the above Act - Furthermore, vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020, by inserting Section 171(3A) - However, since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171(1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively - Accordingly, the notice dated 15.05.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122 (1) (i) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped: NAA

Extension of CGST exemption on services by way of transportation of goods by air or by sea from customs station of clearance in India to a place outside India, by one year i.e. upto 30.09.2021.

Seeks to amend notification 14/2020- Central Tax to extend the date of implementation of the Dynamic QR Code for B2C invoices till 01.12.2020.

Sec 31(7) - Goods removed before supply - Time period for raising invoice extended till Oct 31

Extension of IGST exemption on services by way of transportation of goods by air or by sea from customs station of clearance in India to a place outside India, by one year i.e. upto 30.09.2021.

Extension of UTGST exemption on services by way of transportation of goods by air or by sea from customs station of clearance in India to a place outside India, by one year i.e. upto 30.09.2021.