2020-TIOL-788-ITAT-DEL

2020-TIOL-787-ITAT-MAD

2020-TIOL-786-ITAT-MUM

2020-TIOL-1132-HC-ALL-GST

Shahzad Alam Vs State of UP

GST - The present application for anticipatory bail was filed by the applicant, claiming to have been false implicated by the Trade Tax Officer for offences committed u/s 122 and 132 of the UPGST Act - The applicant claimed to have given out a house on rent to another person, who had evaded payment of taxes - The applicant claimed that the Trade Tax Officer alleged that the applicant too had evaded payment of taxes - The applicant claimed to have no criminal history and was anticipating arrest.

Held - Considering the gravity of the accusation and that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedents and that there is no possibility of his fleeing from justice, the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail - In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released till the submission of police report if any under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned, subject to conditions - If any of such conditions are defaulted on, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant: HC

- Bail application allowed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-165-AAR-GST

Johnson Lifts Pvt Ltd

GST - The applicant company is engaged in supply, erection and commissioning of elevators & escalators - It approached the AAR seeking to know whether a building which consists of more than one residential unit qualifies as a residential complex - It also sought to know whether one unit which is occupied by customers and other units occupied by various family members who are not dependent upon the customer, qualifies as single residential unit - It also sought to know the criteria for determining that a residential unit is a single residential unit as per Sr No 3 of Notfn No 11/2017-CT(R).

Held - The applicant has not furnished the details of supply made or intended to be supplied - They also stated to have not accepted such type of contract wherein the customer owning a single piece of land consisting of dwelling units for himself and family members and had required supply, erection and commission of lifts - Advance ruling can be given only in respect of supplied or intended to be made by the applicant based on the facts of such supply - Hence the applicant cannot be admitted where the details of transaction of supply on which advance ruling is sought, are not furnished: AAR

- Application dismissed: AAR

2020-TIOL-164-AAR-GST

Kavi Cut Tobacco

GST - The applicant company intends to manufacture and supply tobacco product - Raw dried tobacco leaves are purchased from wholesale dealers - The stems & dust are removed and then cured to prevent decay - Such tobacco is then cut into small pieces in a cutting machine which is packed in pouches/pottalams for purpose of retail sale in shops and then is sold under the brand name of the applicant - The applicant approached the AAR seeking to know the appropriate classification and applicable rate of compensation cess for such product.

Held - The product intended to manufactured by the applicant and supplied as Chewing Tobacco under the brand name Kavi Cut tobacco, is classifiabe under CTH 240 9910 as Chewing Tobacco - The applicable rate of compensation cess is provided under Sr No 26 of Notfn No 1/2017-Compensation Cess @ 160%: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-163-AAR-GST

Rajesh Rama Varma

GST - the applicant approached the AAR seeking to know whether the services provided by it to foreign client through the principal are treatable as export of service as the final service claimed by the principal qualifies as export of service - The applicant also sought to know as to whether where the services are treated as export of service would the applicant be eligible to claim taxes paid towards such export of services as refund - Whether the payment of fees received in Indian INR currency from the principal is to be treated as export remittance and also whether the applicant can raise invoices with IGST taxes instead of CGST + SGST for claiming refund.

Held - the services provided by the applicant to M/s doyen Systems Pvt Ltd qualifies as supply of service under CGST / TNGST Act and the applicant is liable to pay tax on such supply - The remaining questions raised by the applicant are not within the ambit of the authority u/s 97(2) and so do not merit being answered: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-162-AAR-GST

Tamil Nadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Ltd

GST - the applicant company is engaged in the generation & distribution of electricity - The applicant approached the AAR seeking to know the taxability of transactions entered into by it between TANGEDCO Ltd and TANTRASCO Ltd. - It also sought to know the applicability of GST on Deposit Contribution Works - The applicant also sought to know whether M/s TANGEDCO can be considered a Government Entity - The applicant also sought to know the applicability of GST on transmission charges for natural gas.

Held - GST is applicable on supply of operation & maintenance material used in regular day to day functions and on transfer of capital assets - GST is also leviabe to the deployment of employees to TANTRASCO as the same is supply of service - GST is not leviable on transactions of physical cash flow between companues and income such as transmission charge, scheduling and systems operation charges as the same are transaction in money - No ruling given on payment of long term open access transmission charges payable to TANTRASCO as the applicant is not the person supplying the service - Deposit Contribution Works is classifiable under SAC 99873 and is taxable @ 9% as per Sr No 25 of Notfn No 11/2017-CT(R) and 9% SGST - TANGEDCO qualifies as a Govt entity as per Notfn No 11/2017-CT(R) - Issue of applicability of GST on Transmission Charges billed by M/s GAIL is not admitted: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-161-AAR-GST

Inventaa Led Lights Pvt Ltd

GST - Supply of LED Stem (long bulb) i.e. Outdoor lighting fixtures with LED integrated inside them is classifiable under CTH 9405 4090 and taxable @12% GST, Sl. no. 226 of Schedule II of 01/2017-CTR: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-160-AAR-GST

Global Textile Aliance India Pvt Ltd

GST - Knitted fabrics is classifiable under Chapter 60 and Woven Fabric/Woven fabric backing with non-woven fabric is classifiable under CTH 5407 - further classification is not possible in absence of supply of complete technical details, chargeable @5% GST, Schedule I, Sr. no. 221 and 217 respectively of 1/2017-CTR - Covers for pillows made of knitted or woven fabrics are classifiable under CTH 6304 9239; attracts GST @5%/@12% in terms of Schedule I, Sr. no. 224, Schedule II, Sr. no. 171 of 1/2017-CTR - Foot runners, pillow sheet made of knitted or woven fabrics classifiable under CTH 6302 1090 attracts GST @5%/@12% in terms of Schedule I, Sr. no. 224, Schedule II, Sr. no. 171 of 1/2017-CTR - Chenille yarn made of polyester classifiable under CTH 5606 0020, GST @12%, Sl. no. 138 of Schedule II of 1/2017-CTR - Poly propylene extrusion yarn, polypropylene Texturized yarn, polyester textured yarn are synthetic yarns classifiable under CTH 5402 when not put up for retail sale and under CTH 5406 when put up for retail sale, tax @18%, Sr. no. 159 of Schedule III of 1/2017-CTR up to 12.10.2017 and thereafter @12% GST as per Sl. no. 132B of Schedule II of 1/2017-CTR: AAR

Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-159-AAR-GST

Heavy Vehicles Factory

GST - Tank is classifiable under CTH 8710 0000 - Retainer steel, valve assembly, casing assembly, hydraulic items, mandrel assembly, nozzle assembly, plate assembly, panel assembly, support assembly and sleeve assembly are classifiable as "Parts" and are also classifiable under CTH 8710 0000 - however, dowel pin, gasket assembly, Stiffner, clip assembly, connector assembly, needle bearing, planet pinion are parts of general use and are not classifiable under CTH 8710 0000 - classification is independent of the buyer or seller and depends only on the goods: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-158-AAR-GST

AM Abdul Rahman Rowther And Company

GST - Issue raised by the applicant in their application for advance ruling was already pending before the department, therefore, in terms of first proviso to section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, the application is rejected: AAR

- Application rejected: AAR

2020-TIOL-956-CESTAT-MUM

Sahara India TV Network Vs CST

ST - The appeals are directed against O-I-O - The assessee is registered with department and are providing various taxable services namely "broadcasting services", "business auxiliary services", "renting of immovable property services", "erection, commissioning and installation services", "advertising services" and "manpower recruitment/ supply agency services" - During audit, it was observed that they had incurred expenditure in foreign currency towards the services received from M/s Asia Satellite Telecommunication Company Ltd. (AsiaSat) for providing C-Band Transponder on Asisset-3S Satellite, as per the agreement commencing from 15.06.2005 - Assessee was uplinking the programmes from the teleport situated at their complex in NOIDA - The satellite transformer was an infrastructural requirement for providing the broadcasting services - The aforesaid activity of providing the C-Band Transponder, appeared to be provision of an infrastructural support to the business of assessee i.e. broadcast of T V channel and the service was appropriately classifiable as "Support Services for Business or Commerce" as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzq) of FA, 1994 - Since AsiaSat was not having any establishment in India, assessee was required to discharge service tax liability as recipient of the services as per Section 66A of FA, 1994 r/w Rule 3(iii) of Taxation of Services Rules, 2006 - By not discharging the service tax liability in respect of the services so received by them assessee had contravened various provisions of FA, 1994 and STR, 1994 - Thus a SCN was issued to them - Assessee have submitted a chart showing the duplication of demand by way of SCN issued by NOIDA Commissionerate and that issued by the Mumbai Commissionerate - From the facts as they emerge from the Table in para 4.3.4, it is quite evident that in respect of the invoices mentioned at Sl No 1 to 14, the address indicated of the service recipient shown on invoices is that of Mumbai and not of Noida - Mumbai Service Tax having jurisdiction over assessee registered in Mumbai, have jurisdiction to demand and recover service due in respect of invoices mentioned at Sl No 1 to 14 in the table in para 4.3.4 - In respect of the invoices mentioned at Sl No 15, 16 & 17 which are in the name of assessee registered premises as per the registration certificate issued by the Noida Commissionerate the jurisdiction will vest with the Noida Commissionerate, accordingly demand in respect of these invoices made by the Mumbai Commissionerate needs to be deleted - The services rendered by M/s AsiaSat to assessee are nothing but "infrastructure support services" for supporting the business of broadcasting services undertaken by assessee - Thus these services are appropriately classifiable as "Business Support Services" by the Section 65(104c) of FA, 1994 and taxable as per Section 65 (105)(zzzq) ibid - The only argument advanced by assessee against the invocation of extended period of limitation for making the demand is that the issue is completely revenue neutral as any service tax paid by them on the basis of reverse charge as recipient of service would be available to them in the form of CENVAT Credit - If the argument of revenue neutrality was to be considered, a valid argument under scheme of FA, 1994, then entire provisions relating to payment of service tax on reverse charge will become otiose and every service recipient will claim that what so ever service tax he pays on reverse charge basis will be available to him as CENVAT Credit - Argument of revenue neutrality thus would not be available in case where the service tax is demanded by recipient of service on the reverse charge basis - Thus, the demand made in SCN by invoking the extended period of limitation is upheld - The demand made as per Statement of Demand/SCN under Section 73(1A) of FA, 1994 is also upheld - Assessee have argued against demand of interest made from them in terms of Section 75 of FA, 1994 - However, no merits found in those submissions in view of the decisions in P V Vikhe Patil SSK 2007-TIOL-419-HC-MUM-CX affirmed by Supreme Court in 2016-TIOL-153-SC-CX , Kanhai Ram Thakedar 2005-TIOL-76-SC-CT - Since the invocation of extended period of limitation is upheld, the penalties imposed under Section 78 cannot be faulted with in view of decision of Bombay High Court and the decision of Supreme Court in case of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills 2009-TIOL-63-SC-CX - Penalty under Section 77 are civil in nature and are imposed for infractions noticed - Since there is no dispute about such infractions as recorded by the Commissioner in his impugned order, penalties as imposed under Section 77(2) are justified - Since on the issue in question, assessee have not placed on record anything to show that their non payment of tax was a bonafide act, no reason found for allowing the benefit of section 80 of FA, 1994: CESTAT

- Appeals partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2020-TIOL-952-CESTAT-DEL

Sham Nijhawan Vs Pr.CC

Cus - The appellant No. II had imported one Mercedes SL 500 car vide bill of entry - The clearances of the matter were effected by appellants by claiming concessional rate of customs duty of 5% under Notfn 97/2004-CUS on the basis of an EPCG licence issued to them - On the strength of EPCG licence, concessional rate of customs duty was availed and thereby customs duty amounting to Rs. 51,86,378/- on import of Mercedes SL 500 car was foregone on the basis of concessional rate of duty - A SCN was issued to appellants - The issue is, whether there has been any violation of conditions by the importer and its Director with regard to the conditions stipulated under said EPCG licence and the customs notification - Since the imported capital good being a car which is a movable capital equipment and there is no allegation in SCN or in the findings given in O-I-O that the capital goods imported under EPCG licence have been found in possession of importing firm and its Director and was found parked at the residence of Director - No violation of condition of EPCG licence has been done on this count as the vehicle found in the possession of importing firm and no evidence have been adduced by Department to sustain their claim that it was not used for the purpose for which it has been allowed to be imported by EPCG licence on concessional rate of customs duty - In view of the fact that export obligation fulfillment documents have been accepted by Additional Director General Foreign Trade and at the same time, it is also found that imported capital goods namely car in this case under EPCG licence was imported validly declaring all the relevant facts and subsequently also there has been no violation of any of the conditions of EPCG/Customs Notification, the impugned order is devoid of any merits and therefore the same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT