2020-TIOL-1487-HC-DEL-GST

Spirotech Heat Exchangers Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

2020-TIOL-1486-HC-MUM-GST

Vishnu Enterprises Vs Joint CCGST

2020-TIOL-1485-HC-RAJ-GST

Riddhi Siddhi Home Studios Vs UoI

- Petition disposed of : RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-38-AAAR-GST

Cartus India Pvt Ltd

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

- Appeal disposed of: AAAR

2020-TIOL-37-AAAR-GST

Volvo-Eicher Commercial Vehicles Ltd

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

- Appeal disposed of: AAAR

2020-TIOL-58-NAA-GST

Director General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs Sun Infra Services Pvt Ltd

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

- Penalty dropped: NAA

2020-TIOL-57-NAA-GST

Director General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs S3 Buildwell Llp

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

- Penalty dropped: NAA

2020-TIOL-56-NAA-GST

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

- Penalty dropped: NAA

2020-TIOL-1479-HC-KERALA-VAT

Arun Agro Metals And Company Vs STO

In writ, the High Court permits the assessee to submit reply to SCN within threee months' time. The Revenue authorities concerned are to consider the assessee's contentions & pass order accordingly.

- Writ petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT

SERVICE TAX

2020-TIOL-1318-CESTAT-ALL

Angel Baby Products Pvt Ltd Vs Asstt CST

ST - Demand of service tax to the tune of Rs.5,65,026/- was detected by the Audit team in the year May, 2014 and it was found that the appellant was liable to pay service tax in respect of such services on reverse charge basis - Appellant accepted their liability and deposited the said service tax alongwith interest - SCN was issued proposing confirmation of the tax paid along with imposition of penalties - order passed imposing penalties and appeal against such imposition was rejected by Commissioner(A), therefore, appeal to CESTAT.

Held: Bench fully agrees with the appellant that there was no need to issue the show cause notice and the entire proceedings were deemed to have been concluded in terms of the provisions of Section 73 - On this ground itself, Bench, while confirming the demand and interest, sets aside the penalty imposed upon the appellant and allows the appeal to that extent: CESTAT [para 6]

- Appeal partly allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1317-CESTAT-HYD

Bayer Bioscience Pvt Ltd Vs CCT

ST - The issue fall for consideration are; whether the assessee is liable to pay service tax on the amounts which they received in foreign currency for rendering services to their parent company, M/s. Aventis and whether the assessee is liable to pay service tax on the amounts which they charge from the farmers for providing guidance in multiplying the seeds - M/s Aventis gets the seeds developed by assessee and obtains the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for the seeds in their name - M/s Aventis pays the assessee for both developing the seeds and testing them under various agro-climatic zones in the country - The question is whether the amount which has been received by assessee from M/s Aventis qualifies to be called a "Scientific or Technical Consultancy service" and if so, whether service tax can be levied on such amounts - This issue was decided in favour of assessee and it was held that while the nature of service is 'scientific or technical consultancy service', the service which when rendered qualifies to be called as export of services and therefore, no service tax is chargeable on such service - In these three appeals, there is no demand on this head at all - The second source of income for the assessee is, after the seeds are developed and patented by M/s Aventis, they provide the seeds to the assessee who get them multiplied by farmers and buy-back such seeds - In order to help farmers efficiently multiply the seeds, the assessee provides guidance to them and charges a fee for providing such guidance - It is the case of revenue that the amounts which are charged by assessee from the farmers is chargeable to service tax under the head of 'scientific or technical consultancy service' - After examining this issue at length, this bench had decided that the nature of service rendered by assessee to the farmers is one of the "agricultural extension" and it does not qualify to be called as 'scientific or technical consultancy service' - Therefore, no service tax can be levied on the amounts which the assessee receives from the farmers on this count - Tribunal find its decision in respect of the same assessee for the earlier period has, so far as, not been overturned by any higher judicial forum - Accordingly, assessee is not liable to pay service tax on the amounts which they have received from the farmers for providing guidance in multiplying the seeds - The impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: HYDRABAD CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

2020-TIOL-1489-HC-DEL-NDPS

Jay Haresh Somaiya Vs Narcotic Control Bureau

2020-TIOL-1488-HC-DEL-CUS

Modak Dyeing And Printing Company Pvt Ltd Vs Dy.CC

CC Vs Rudra Vyaparchem Pvt Ltd

Cus - The assessee had filed four Bills of Entry to clear various imported goods - Receiving information regarding mis-declaration of goods in these Bills of Entry, DRI seized the goods and investigated the matter - Pending final decision of the matter, assessee filed an application seeking provisional release of goods under Section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 - The two key issues fall for decision are; whether the Commissioner (A) was correct in entertaining the appeal against the letter issued by Assistant Commissioner rejecting the provisional release of goods without indicating in it that the decision to reject was taken by Commissioner and that he was only conveying it; that whether the goods in question can be released to assessee holding them as the owner of goods - So far as the first question is concerned, the letter of Assistant Commissioner nowhere indicates that the decision was taken by Commissioner even though the copy of note sheet produced by revenue indicates so - Therefore, there was no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (A) entertaining the appeal against the order from Assistant Commissioner - Insofar as the second question of provisional release of goods is concerned, the only objection of Department is that the assessee is not the owner of goods, but was only acting as a conduit for others to import them by lending their IEC - It is undisputed that the invoices and bill of lading are in the name of assessee - It is true that in their statement, the assessee denied that they are not the importers, which is now being disputed by their Counsel - However, the key to decide who the owner of goods in case of international trade is the bill of lading, which is the document of title - Since the Bill of Lading is in the name of assessee, they are the owners of goods - It does not matter whether they have already paid for the goods or have yet paid so - It also does not matter whether after import, they in turn, sells the goods to the indenters who placed orders on them - The goods have been imported by assessee and the Bill of Lading is in their name and therefore, they are the owner of goods - Therefore, the goods can be provisionally released to them under Section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 - The impugned order of first appellate authority is correct and calls for no interference: CESTAT

- Appeal rejected: KOLKATA CESTAT