Department Of Printing, Stationery And Publications

GST - The applicant, The Government Press, is an organisation established by the Government of Karnataka under the control and supervision of the Primary and Secondary Education Secretariat to cater to the Printing and Stationery requirements of the State Government offices namely Governor's office, Legislature, Government Secretariat, High Court and other Government departments seeks to know as to whether these goods/services are taxable or exempted goods/services; if taxable, under which entry, and since materials are supplied by one Government department to another department or autonomous bodies controlled by the government, whether they can claim exemption on the supply of these materials.

Held: Printing and supply of text books and printed materials, annual reports, receipt books, measurement books and log books when supplied to government departments not registered under GST Act is exempted as such transaction does not qualify as supply under s.7(1)(a) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 since the activity is between two or more departments of same Govt. of Karnataka and hence there is no distinct supplier/recipient, either real or deemed, involved in the transactions, but when supplied to Govt. departments registered under the Act they are taxable supplies attracting GST @12% under SAC 9989, Entry no. 27 of 11/2017-CTR; printing and supply of answer booklets, visiting cards, letter heads, forms, covers, file wrappers, invitation cards, scribbling pads, rubber stamps is supply of goods taxable @18% under HSN 4817 Entry 152, 154 of Schedule III of 1/2017-CTR when supplied to Govt. departments registered under the Act and exempted when supplied to govt. departments, not registered; printing and supply of Annual reports to autonomous bodies is a service attracting GST @12%, SAC 9989, 11/2017-CTR, Supply of log books, GST @18%, HSN 4820, 1/2017-CTR; Printing and supply of law reports to Karnataka High Court is supply of service, exempted as transaction does not qualify as supply u/s 7(1)(a) of Act, 2017; printing and supply of bus tickets to BMTC is a service taxable under GST @ 12%, SAC 9989, Entry 27, 11/2017-CTR: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-57-AAR-GST

Water Health India Pvt Ltd

GST - Applicant is engaged in the business of supplying purified water in unsealed form by filling customer supplied empty cans; in 20 litre unsealed cans and through piped network to establishments - applicant seeks to know as to whether such supply is exempted under GST law.

Held: Word 'and' used before the words "water sold in sealed container" in Sl. no. 99 of notification 2/2017-CTR is disjunctive in nature and lays down that "water sold in a sealed container" is another type of water excluded from the said entry along with aerated water, mineral water, purified water, distilled water, medicinal water, ionic water, battery water, demineralised water - therefore, supply of purified water in sealed or unsealed container is not entitled for GST exemption as the purified water is excluded from Sl. no. 99 of 2/2017-CTR - therefore, supply of 'purified drinking water' to the general public in an unsealed container is not entitled for exemption from GST under the impugned notification: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-56-AAR-GST

Kardex India Storage Solution Pvt Ltd

GST - Applicant is the importer of storage solutions and vertical storage solutions from Germany and distributes the goods to industrial customers all over India - they are transporting the imported goods from port of import to applicants' registered premises at Bangalore and then supplying same to customers place - due to logistical problems encountered, the applicant intends to import the goods to the port nearest to the customers place and supply it directly to the customer - they intend to issue bill/tax invoice for said transaction from the registered place of business - in view thereof, they seeks an advance ruling as to whether they can take credit of IGST paid on import of goods; whether applicant can issue tax invoice with IGST to the customers and whether the applicant needs to obtain registration in the state where the port of clearance is located.

Held: Applicant is eligible to claim credit of IGST paid on import of goods as per s.20 of the IGST Act r/w s.16 of CGST Act - they can issue tax invoice with IGST to customer as per s.20 of IGST Act r/w s.31 of the CGST Act for the interstate transaction as provided u/s 7(1) of the IGST Act when the goods are directly despatched from port of import with invoicing done from registered place of business - applicant need not obtain registration in the State where the port of clearance is located if he is not making any supply from the State in which the port is located: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-55-AAR-GST

Karnataka Solar Power Development Corporation Ltd

GST - Applicant obtained lands on lease basis from farmers of five villages for a period of 28 years and sublet the same to the Solar Power Developers (SPD) to install the solar panels for generation of solar power - after commissioning of solar projects, an amount of Rs.5 lakhs per MW is required to be collected in five equal yearly instalments from SPDs towards Local Area Development Fund intended to rehabilitate the affected area - applicant seeks to know as to whether such amount collected can be treated as not a supply and not leviable to tax.

Held: Amount collected by applicant towards Local Area Development Fund forms part of value of supply of rental/leasing service and hence is taxable under forward charge mechanism, taxable under SAC 997212; exemption under Sl. no. 3 or 3A of 12/2017-CTR is unavailable as the service does not qualify as 'pure service': AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

Tata Motors Ltd Vs State Of Jharkhand

Whether it is trite law that State Legislatures are not empowered to treat transactions as sale or purchase, solely by legal fiction, even if such transactions do not qualify as either sale or purchase - YES: HC

Whether therefore, the amendment to the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act for levying VAT on trade discounts and incentives by treating them as taxable transactions of sale, by way of deeming fiction u/s 9(5) of the Act, can be sustained - NO: HC

Whether although it is settled law that writ courts must refrain from interfering with fiscal statutes and give them more latitude than civil laws, their intervention is warranted in event of laws being passed beyond competence of the legislature - YES: HC

- Assessee's writ petition allowed: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

SERVICE TAX

2020-TIOL-504-CESTAT-HYD

Hyderabad Boat Club Vs CC, CE & ST

ST - The assessee is a society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Public Societies Registration Act and provides varisous facilities and advantages only to its members and collects amounts from them in the form of subscriptions, tennis fee, billiards fee, games fee, gym fee, building fund, rent for roof garden - During the relevant period, it collected various amounts under these heads - The Department opined that these activities fall under definition of Club or Association Service as per Section 65(25a) r/w Section 65(105)(zzze) of the Finance Act - Hence duty demand was raised -

Held: The question of law in this case is whether the club and its members are distinct entities and hence the service rendered by the club to its members should be considered as a taxable service under heading Club or Association service or otherwise - There is no doubt that the service has been rendered and amounts were received for the service from the members - This specific question of law was settled by the High Court of Jharkhand in Ranchi Club Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs wherein it was held that the club is formed on the principle of mutuality and therefore if the club provides services to its members, it is not a service by one legal entity to another and will not attract service tax - In light of such judgments, the duty demand is quashed: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

2020-TIOL-503-CESTAT-CHD

AS Bindra Vs CCE

CX - Related Persons - Undervaluation - While confirming the duty demand against the assessee, a penalty of Rs. 53,17,908/- has been imposed on the appellant Managing Director under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - appeal against this order.

Held: There cannot be any dispute in this appeal that duty has been short paid in respect of the clearances made by M/s. P.M.L industries - Also the liability to confiscation of the goods which have been cleared on short payment of duty can be disputed - It is settled principle of law that when the two authorities have sitting separately arrived at the same finding of fact, the same should normally not be disturbed till the time it can be shown to be perverse - Nothing has been produced before the Bench to show that findings recorded by both the lower authorities in respect of the present appellant is perverse, hence Bench is not inclined to disturb the same - There is no merit in the submission that penalty under Rule 26 could not have been imposed upon the appellant, however, Bench finds that penalty equivalent to the duty evaded by P.M.L industries on the appellant is too harsh and should be reduced - penalty reduced to Rs.10 lakhs - appeal partly allowed: CESTAT [para 6.5 to 6.8]

- Appeal partly allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2020-TIOL-502-CESTAT-AHM

AK Chaturvedi Vs CCE

CX - Appellants were availing benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of exemption notification No. 5/99-CE dt. 28.02.99, 6/2000-CE dt. 01.03.2000 under which they were paying concessional duty on clearances of sheets and pipes subject to the condition that the products should have contained not less than 25% by weight of fly ash or phosphorous Gypsum or both by usage - it is the case of the Revenue that on the basis of actual weight mixtures report seized from the factory and production shown in the actual wet mixture, the goods contain fly ash less than 25% and, therefore, the benefit of the notification was wrongly claimed - Demand notice for recovery of CE duty of Rs. 24,65,54,345/- came to be issued for the period period 01.01.2004 to 17.08.2004 and the same was confirmed under the impugned order along with imposition of equal penalty and interest - aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before CESTAT.

Held: It is an accepted position of revenue as clarified by Circular No. 477/43/99-CX4 dt. 10.08.99 that weight of fly ash used should be with reference to the weight of the finished product in dry condition and thus the percentage of fly ash has to be determined with respect to weight of finished goods without moisture content - In the present case, the raw material for use in production i.e fly ash, cement, pulp and asbestos fibre are bone dry - The water used in process has to be ignored for computing the ash percentage and weight of finished goods - Since the fly ash used in production is more than 25% as is apparent from the wet mixture content report, therefore, it has to be considered that the goods fulfill the condition of the Exemption notification - However in respect of some quantity of Asbestos Sheet it was admitted by the appellant that fly ash quantity is less than 25% on which duty liability comes to Rs. 2,80,000/- which is liable to be upheld and accordingly duty demand of Rs. 21,31,29,778/- (Rs.21,34,09,778/- minus Rs.2,80,000/) in respect of Asbestos Cement Sheet and corresponding, Interest and penalty are set aside - As regard asbestos pipes, Bench finds that the Appellant could not establish that the contents of fly ash in asbestos pipe are more than 25% - Unlike in sheet, the use of fly ash in pipe is much lower than 25% even after excluding the water content and the appellant also not pressed much upon the issue related to pipe - Their main contention in regard to demand on pipe is that they are entitled for cum duty price and modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of Asbestos Pipe and which the Bench agrees - As per re-quantification submitted by the appellant, the duty on Asbestos Pipe comes to Rs.2,32,20,340/- and on asbestos sheet Rs. 2,80,000/- which is subject matter of verification by the adjudicating authority - Since the duty on pipe/sheet shall be re-quantified, the option of 25% penalty under section corresponding to such re-quantified duty on pipe and sheet is also extended to the appellant in terms of proviso to section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Appellant, apart from RG-1 register have been maintaining various other records such as Wet Mixture Reports, Daily Production Reports/Register, Physical Lab Register, General shift furnishing report, Stock register and maintenance of these records were not in dispute, as some of these records were relied upon in show cause notice raising the demand, therefore, it cannot be said the stock of goods not entered in RG-1 register is with intent to clear the goods without payment of duty - not a single incident of clandestine removal was brought on record by the Revenue, therefore, order of confiscation and imposition of redemption fine is set aside - insofar as personal penalties are concerned, the duty demand has been reduced substantially and the issue involved is of interpretation of notification, therefore, the personal penalty also need to be reduced accordingly - appeal is, therefore, partly allowed except the appeal filed by Shri Basant Kumar Bangur which is abated due to his demise: CESTAT [para 8 to 12]

- Appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

I-T - Salary received by Indian resident for services rendered in Australia, are taxable in India, considering that such income is duly offered to tax in Australia: ITAT

TP - TPO is vested with power u/s 92CA to determine ALP of specified domestic transactions without collecting data available in public domain or collecting data from private domain by issuing notice u/s 133(6): ITAT

TIOL CORPLAWS

Companies Act - Petition for voluntary winding up can be allowed considering compliance of entire process of winding up with all statutory conditions and NOCs from relevant authorities and declaration of solvency: HC

SAT - For want of any prejudice, proceedings under PFUTP Regulations cannot be quashed simply on ground of delay in launching same: SAT