2019-TIOL-17-AAAR-GST

KEI Industries Ltd

GST - Applicant (now appellant) wanted the Authority for Advance Ruling to decide whether the benefit of notification 03/2017-CTR was available to them or not in respect of supply of Power Cables - AAR had by order dated 01.08.2018 held that Electrical Cables do not fall under the Entry no. 24 of list as 'material', 'accessories', 'consumables', and/or 'stores' of Sl. No. 1 of notification 03/2017-CTR and are not entitled for the concessional rate of tax - Appeal to AAAR.

Held: - From the definition of "Advance Ruling" given under s.95(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, it is very much clear that the scope of the Advance ruling for both i.e. the AAR and AAAR is limited to transactions being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken - Since in the instant csae, the application seeking advance ruling was filed on 09.05.2018 before the AAR with respect to supplies undertaken in the month of January 2018, actual date of transactions being 22.01.2018 and 24.01.2018 as per GSTR-1, it is out of the purview of Advance Ruling - If the lower forum has committed any error, the forum of AAAR is not bound to carry the burden of that error being an independent forum - AAAR is at a higher pedestal than that of AAR and so it has all the powers to modify the ruling of the AAR the way it deems fit - If the AAR has entertained and pronounced its ruling on any issue which was outside the scope of the Advance Ruling, the AAAR has every power to undo the job done by the AAR while disposing of the appeal and this can be done even if neither party i.e the applicant/appellant or department pleaded for the same during the proceedings of the appeal filed before it - No ruling can, therefore, be given by the AAAR on the question posed - Appeal dismissed: AAAR

- Appeal dismissed : APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

2019-TIOL-16-AAAR-GST

GST -  Amount charged as Interest on transaction based short term loan given by Del Credere Agent (DCA) (the applicant) to buyers of material - AAR held that service provided by applicant is by way of extending short term loans and that insofar as the consideration is represented by way of interest, same is covered under Sl. No. 27 of Notification 12/2017-CT(R) and hence exempted from payment of Goods and Services Tax - Appeal filed against this order before the AAAR by Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Division-VII(Satellite), Ahmedabad.

Held:

Per: Ajay Jain , Member

++ Once the DCA makes payment to the principal on behalf of the customer, the DCA enters into the shoes of the principal and becomes entitled to recover the amount from the customer - submission of the applicant that the interest charged by the DCA from customers is not for delayed payment of consideration of any underlying supply is not found to be correct - argument that the obligation of the DCA to make payment to the principal on failure of the customer to make payment on due date has been termed by the applicant as ‘short term loan' to the customer and it is contended that the interest charged towards such loan given to the customer will be exempted under sr.no.27 of notfn. 12/2017-CTR, although appears attractive is not without any merit - such an interpretation would make the clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section 15 otiose - looked at from another angle, in case of direct transaction between supplier and customer, where the customer makes delayed payment with interest, the amount of interest would be charged to GST - therefore, an interpretation which would make the leviability of GST on the interest/late fee/penalty for delayed payment of consideration by the customer dependent upon the nature of transaction is untenable - held, therefore, that interest or late fee or penalty for delayed payment of consideration by the customer would be leviable to Goods and Services Tax - AAR ruling is, therefore, erroneous and is required to be set aside.

Per: Dr. P.D.Vaghela, Member

Held:

++ In the present case, goods are supplied directly from the principal to the buyer (recipient) and in case the buyer (recipient) is not in position to pay to the principal in due date, DCA extends loan to the buyer (recipient) and makes payment of such supply to the principal on behalf of the customer - The said loan is repaid by the buyer to DCA along with interestagreed between DCA and buyer (recipient) - The amount of interest received by DCA on supply of services in form of loan or advances cannot be included in value of supply of goods by the principal as the following two transactions are separate (a) supply of goods from supplier (principal) to buyer (recipient) and (b) supply of service from DCA (loan giver) to buyer (recipient) by way of extending loan to buyer (recipient) with interest agreed between them - AAR order upheld and appeal dismissed.

2019-TIOL-15-AAAR-GST

GST - In respect of a contract given by one of their customers for catering services to be provided to the staff, premises being made available by customer, Applicant had sought a ruling as to whether it is taxable @12% GST and the AAR had held that the expression ‘Outdoor catering' is not defined under the CGST Act/GGST Act, 2017 or the notifications issued thereunder and in view of the decision in Indian Coffee Workers Co-op Society -  2014-TIOL-499-HC-ALL-ST such services are to be treated as 'Outdoor catering' and covered under Serial no. 7(v) of Notification 11/2017-CT(R) attracting CGST @9% + SGST @9% - AAR ruling upheld, hence appeal rejected: AAAR

- Appeal rejected : APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

2019-TIOL-14-AAAR-GST

GST   - Applicant, engaged in providing computer training services to the Government aided secondary and higher secondary schools across the State of Maharashtra to implement theInformation and Computer Technology ICT @ School Project had sought a ruling on the applicability of exemption under Entry no. 72 of notfn. 12/2017-CT - AAR had ruled that i t was incorrect to dub the entire project as training programme and that it was rather a composite supply of goods and services, not naturally but artificially bundled; that as per paragraph 1(c) of Schedule II of the Act, any transfer of title in goods under an agreement which stipulates that property in goods shall pass at a future date upon payment of full consideration as agreed is a supply of goods and not a service, therefore, the second condition of the notification is also not satisfied; nonetheless, the source of funding the expenditure is the State government, so except for fulfillment of this condition, the other two conditions are not satisfied; that therefore, Supply of goods and services as made by the applicant under ICT@School project is not in compliance of all the conditions of the exemption, hence the benefit of exemption 12/2017-CT is not available - Appeal to AAAR.

Held: As per section 2(30) of the Act, a supply will be a composite supply only when it is naturally bundled - Education Guide at paragraph 9.2.4 clarifies that whether services are naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business would depend upon the normal or frequent practices followed in the field of business to which such services relate - From the website of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, insofar as the ICT Scheme is concerned, it is clear that the ICT is a Central government driven project and the training along with supply of computers is an inherent part of the project and the project is imagined as such, therefore, a major pre-requisite for a supply to be a composite supply, that the same should be naturally bundled is satisifed here - supply of computers along with training is itself envisaged and conceived as such by the Ministry of HRD and, therefore, by its very nature, the supply can be said to be naturally bundled - Even if there is an associated supply of computer hardware and software and connected accessories, it is clear from the preamble to the agreement itself that the intention is of ‘education of students' - Training provided by appellant is advanced training or training aided by technology which helps in easy delivery of the contents to the student through the visual medium - Project is nothing but a training project aided by technology - Merely because hardware and software is provided by the appellant, it does not mean that the training to be done is not a principal supply - AAR ruling is, therefore, modified to hold that the supplies of goods and services by the appellant to the Director of Education (S&HS) qualifies for exemption in terms of Entry no. 72 of Notification 12/2017-CTR - Appeal allowed: AAAR

- Appeal allowed : APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

2019-TIOL-581-HC-MAD-VAT

Uthamchand Jewellers Vs Assistant Commissioner (CT)

Whether order of assessment has to be a speaking one, containing reasons for the adjustments & additions effected revealing application of mind to the objections raised by assessee and for rejection thereof - YES: HC

- Assessee's petition allowed : MADRAS HIGH COURT

SERVICE TAX

2019-TIOL-766-CESTAT-HYD

Indian School Of Business Vs CCT

ST - The appellant provides training in management - During the relevant period, the Revenue raised duty demand against the appellant, under the heading 'commercial training or coaching services' - On subsequent appeal, the Tribunal set aside the demand raised on extended limitation, on grounds that there was no suppression of facts - On Revenue's appeal, the Apex Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal, to re-examine the issue in light of the retrospective amendment by insertion of Explanation to Section 65(105)(zzc) - On remand, the Tribunal confirmed the duty demanded with penalty - However, it remanded the matter to examine the availability of benefit under Notfn No 09/2003 - Against such orders, the appellant filed appeal to the Apex Court which is pending disposal - The issue at hand is whether the appellant's activities are taxable as 'Commercial Training or Coaching services' & whether the appellant is entitled for benefit under Notfn No. 09/2003- ST and 24/2004-ST.

Held - The considering that an appeal filed by the appellant is pending disposal before the Apex Court, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to pass any order on this aspect or to deviate from the view taken by the Tribunal on this issue - Concerning the issue regarding benefit of exemption notifications, both these notifications are available for 'vocational training institutes' which have been defined as in 'commercial training or coaching centre' which provide vocational coaching or training that imparts skills to enable the trainee to seek employment or undertaken self employment directly after such training or coaching - The appellant is entitled to benefit of exemption under Notfn No 09/2003-ST & 24/2004-ST - Hence the demands warrant being quashed - For the other period, the demands need to be upheld as it is not covered by the exemption, which is available only after 01.07.2003 - Interest is payable too - Penalties u/s 76,77 & 78 is not imposable - Hence the appeal is partly allowed: CESTAT (Para 2,3,4,13)

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed : HYDERABAD CESTAT

2019-TIOL-765-CESTAT-ALL

Schneider Electric Infrastructure Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

ST - The Commissioner (A) has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with provisions of Section 35F of CEA, 1944 which required the assessee to deposit 7.5% of confirmed demand - Inasmuch as assessee has now deposited the amount, the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to Commissioner (A) for decision on merits: CESTAT

- Matter remanded : ALLAHABAD CESTAT

2019-TIOL-764-CESTAT-DEL

ACC Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CENTRAL EXCISE

2019-TIOL-769-CESTAT-AHM

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Assessee requested to withdraw the appeals, hence same are dismissed as withdrawn: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed : AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2019-TIOL-768-CESTAT-DEL

JK Lakshmi Cement Ltd Vs CE & CGST

CUSTOMS