2019-TIOL-66-AAR-GST

GST - Applicant is in the business of issuance and operation of pre-paid payment instruments (mobile wallet and pre-paid card) as per RBI guidelines - applicant has entered into an agreement with Federal Bank and is issuing pre-paid payment instruments as Business Correspondent of Federal Bank - Applicant seeks a ruling on whether the portion of the Merchant Discount Rate received by the issuing bank as ‘Interchange fee' is liable to tax under the GST Act and also as to why different practices prevails by the network in the industry.

Held: Merchant Discount rate is the rate charged by acquiring bank from merchant on every card transaction - this MDR is as per agreement between acquiring bank and merchant establishment - from the transaction, it is clear that the applicant is neither the supplier nor a recipient and the questions raised are not in relation to supply of goods or services or both, being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant - by virtue of s.95 of the Act, applicant cannot make an application before the AAR - as regards the second question, the same is not on matters specified in s.97(2) of the Act and as such is inadmissible - Application rejected as not maintainable: AAR

- Application rejected : AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

2019-TIOL-65-AAR-GST

GST - Applicant is not the supplier of services but he is the recipient of services from their supplier who provided leased circuit facility to the applicant and as such by virtue of s.95 is not an 'applicant' who can obtain advance ruling unless the recipient is paying the taxes under reverse charge mechanism on the transaction of receipt of supply - application rejected u/s 98(2) of the Act: AAR

2019-TIOL-64-AAR-GST

GST - Applicant is supplier of manpower services to highly technical industries such as Oil & Gas, Power etc. – Applicant NES India and NES Abu Dhabi have proposed to enter into a Master service agreement through which NES India will provide support service in respect of the foreign business carried on by NES Abu Dhabi – Applicant seeks to know as to whether the transaction in question is a Zero Rated supply or a Normal Supply under the GST Act and if the supply is a Zero Rated supply whether the same can be considered as export of service under the GST Act.

Held: Transaction covered under the MSA between the applicant and NES Abu Dhabi is a Zero rated supply and is to be considered as an export of service under the GST Act: AAR

2019-TIOL-63-AAR-GST

GST - Engine manufactured and supplied solely and principally for use in railways/locomotives are classifiable under HSN heading 8408: AAR

Availment of ITC on common input supplies on behalf of other units registered as distinct persons and further allocation of the cost incurred for same to such other units qualifies as supply and attracts GST – Assessable value can be determined by following the provisions of rule 30 of the CGST Rules, 2017 – Applicant is required to get registered as an ISD: AAR

2019-TIOL-62-AAR-GST

GST - Applicant is engaged in the manufacture of diesel and natural gas engines and also executes Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) with end customers for which a fixed charge is levied based on the nature of maintenance activity that is required - Applicant seeks determination of GST liability by deciding principal supply of the composite supply qua maintenance contracts executed between the customer and the applicant.

Held: Since the supply of maintenance service is for a single price with supply of spare parts/goods as and when required, the supply of both, goods and services are made in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business and, therefore, supply of services/goods in the present case is naturally bundled, with supply of goods being incidental to the supply of services and, therefore, such contracts are to be considered as a composite supply of service where the principal supply is service and the supply of goods is incidental to such supply of service: AAR

2019-TIOL-61-AAR-GST

GST - Applicant has been selected by the Government of Maharashtra (GOM) as the successful bidder and issued letter of intent for setting up a comprehensive CCTV based city surveillance for Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad – applicant seeks a ruling as to whether the amount received for supply of services during the post GST period to the GOM as per contract is taxable under the CGST/SGST Act and if so, the rate of tax. Held: The contract is not related to any 'Original work' as defined in the CPWD Works Manual, 2014 and is in the nature of composite supply of Works Contract, hence they will be covered under Sr.no. 3 (ii) of Notification 11/2017-CTR as amended and will attract GST @18%: AAR

- Application disposed of : AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

SERVICE TAX

2019-TIOL-722-CESTAT-MUM + Case Story

CST Vs Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd

ST - Not considering the written submissions filed by the Revenue while passing the order is an error apparent on record - Submission although filed by the AR, same not placed in the file by Registry - it is, therefore, evident that the order dated 13.04.2018 was passed without considering the submissions made - ROM Application allowed and registry directed to list appeal for hearing afresh: CESTAT [para 3, 4]

- Application allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2019-TIOL-717-CESTAT-MUM

Sureprep (India) Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST

ST - Refund - Notification 27/2012-CX(NT) r/w rule 5 of CCR, 2004 -Refund claims were rejected on the ground that the services namely, Computer Data Processing in relation to Accounting and Professional services rendered to M/s Sureprep LLC USA for preparation of Income tax returns of USA clients did not fall under the scope of ‘export of services' in terms of Place Of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 - appeal to CESTAT.

Held: Findings of the lower authorities that the relevant data were processed in India and ultimately sent to the foreign company, hence not export service, is devoid of merit and substance - services provided by appellant fall under rule 3 of the POPS Rules, 2012 and not rule 4 - besides department has allowed refund claims for the earlier and subsequent period, hence denying the claim for the impugned period without change in circumstances is devoid of merits - order set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 6, 7]

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2019-TIOL-716-CESTAT-ALL

Sun National Transport Company Vs CCE, C & ST

ST - The assessee is registered with Service Tax Department under category of "Rent a Cab Service" and was discharging their tax liability - Revenue entertained a view that the activity of providing vehicles to another person on monthly leasing rent also amounts to providing 'Rent a Cab Service' and as such demands were raised against assessee by way of issuance of a SCN - The clarification to Boards clarification issued vide F.No.B-43/7/97-TRU does not make it clear as to how and who has paid the service tax on which amount billed by whom - In any case, the legal issue having been decided by Tribunal against the assessee in Carzonrent (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2017-TIOL-800-CESTAT-DEL is required to be followed in terms of judicial discipline - As such, assessee's providing motor vehicles to the other 'Rent a Cab' operator on leasing basis is also covered by the services falling under category of 'Rent a Cab' and tax liability would arise against him - The assessee have assailed impugned demand on the point of limitation inasmuch as SCN stand issued by invoking longer period of limitation - Inasmuch as the issue is complicated issue of legal interpretation of provisions of law and there is no direct evidence on record to reflect upon any mala fide of the assessee, longer period would not be available to Revenue - Accordingly, demand restricted within the normal period of limitation, which would be re-quantified by the Original Adjudicating Authority and set aside the penalty in toto: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

2019-TIOL-714-CESTAT-DEL

IPCA Laboratories Ltd Vs CGST, CE & C

ST - The appellant company was denied credit in respect of Garden Maintenance services for the relevant period - Duty demands were raised for reversal of the same - Hence the present appeal.

Held - The issue at hand stands settled by the Tribunal in Rane TRW Steering Systems Ltd. Vs. CCE and by the High Court in Rane TRW Steering System Ltd. Vs. Commissioner - In these cases, credit was held to be admissible in Garden Maintenance service - Regarding the invoking of extended limitation to raise duty demand, it is seen that the appellant reflected details of credit availed in the ER-1 returns & also maintained proper records - Hence no mala fide intention can be attributed to the assessee, so as to justify invoking extended period of limitation - Hence the demand is barred by limitation: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

2019-TIOL-715-CESTAT-CHD

SB Packaging Ltd Vs CCE

CX - The assessee has filed an application for restoration of appeal - The sole issue is that whether the appeal can be restored or not - The revenue relied on the decision in case of Jai Bharat Steel Co wherein the appeal filed by assessee against the order of dismissal of their appeal on account of pre-deposit by this Tribunal was dismissed by Apex Court, but the same is not in this case - In this case against the order of dismissal of appeal by Tribunal, the assessee made pre-deposit and came for restoration of appeal as directed by BIFR - Although the Apex Court in case of Kisaan Gramodyog Sansthan 2015-TIOL-90-SC-CX-LB has observed that the order itself that the said order shall not be treated as precedence in any other case but the ratio of the said order is required to be follows by the courts below - The main thrust of Apex Court is that of the statutory right of appeal should not be defeated - Therefore, as the applicant has complied with the direction of Tribunal for pre-deposit - In the circumstances, merit and statutory right of appeal should not be defeated for other circumstances - Tribunal recall its order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of condition of pre-deposit and restore the appeal to its original number - Registry is directed to list the appeal in due course for final hearing: CESTAT

- Application allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

CUSTOMS

2019-TIOL-713-CESTAT-ALL

Arshiya Supply Chain Management Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & C

Cus - The assessee operates a warehousing area Free Trade Warehousing Zone - As per allegations in SCN and as per the impugned orders, assessee have helped various importers in evasion of Additional Duty of Customs leviable under Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of CTA, 1975 also called as SAD - The importer subsequently either paid said SAD or in cases where importers did not pay said SAD, Authorities have confirmed demands against them - Further, penalties were imposed upon assessee - No reason found to interfere in impugned orders inasmuch as this Tribunal have already held in case of LLOYD Electric & Engineering Ltd. 2018-TIOL-1165-CESTAT-ALL that the present assessee was helping the importers in evasion of said SAD by allowing them to warehouse goods in their warehouse and subsequently allowing clearances of same without payment of said SAD: CESTAT

- Appeals rejected: ALLAHABAD CESTAT