| 2020-TIOL-1803-HC-AHM-GST
Vimal Yashwantgiri Goswami Vs State Of Gujarat (Dated: October 20, 2020)
GST - The pivotal question which falls for consideration is whether the power to arrest as provided under section 69 read with section 132 of the CGST Act can be invoked by the Commissioner only upon completion of the adjudication process of finalising the assessment and determination of liability as per the provisions of the CGST Act?
Held:
+ Power to arrest as provided under section 69 of the CGST Act can be invoked if the Commissioner has reason to believe that the person has committed offences as provided under the clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d) of sub-section (1) of section 132 of the CGST Act, which are punishable under the clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of the section 132 of the CGST Act without there being any adjudication for the assessment as provided under the provisions of the Chapter XII of the CGST Act. The reference to section 132 in section 69 of the CGST Act is only for the purpose of indicating the nature of the offences on the basis of the same the reasonable belief is formed and recorded by the Commissioner for the purpose of passing an order of arrest.
+ The Commissioner is required to record reasons of belief to arrest a person as per sub-section (1) of Section 69 of the CGST Act. However sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 69 with reference to the provisions of sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) of section 132 of the CGST Act, differentiates between the cognizable and non-cognizable offences. The sub-section (2) of section 69 provides for informing such a person about grounds of arrest if he is alleged to have committed a cognizable and non bailable offence and sub-section (3) authorises the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner subject to the provisions of the Code for releasing the arrested person on bail if he is alleged to have committed non cognizable and bailable offences by exercising the power as an officer in charge of the police station.
+ Therefore, it is not necessary for the Commissioner to provide a copy of the reasons recorded by him for his belief if he has reason to believe that any person has committed offences which are cognizable and non bailable.
+ Sub-section (2) of section 69 of the CGST Act provides statutory duty upon the officer authorised to arrest to inform such person about grounds of his arrest and in case if the person is ordered to be arrested for offences which are non-cognizable and bailable, he would be released on bail as per provision of sub-section (3) of section 69 of the CGST Act.
+ The Commissioner while recording his reasons to believe that a person has committed any offence has only to form a prima facie opinion based on cogent materials and credible information.
+ The words “reason to believe” contemplate an objective determination based on intelligence, care and deliberation involving judicial review as distinguished from a purely subjective consideration and hence he is not required to conclude that the person sought to be arrested is guilty of any offence.
+ The expression 'any person' in Section 69 of the CGST Act includes a person who is suspected or believed to be concerned in the evasion of tax or availing illegal input tax credit.
+ However, a person arrested by an authorised Officer because he is found to be evading tax or availing input tax credit as specified in the clauses (a) to (d) of the sub-section (1) of the section 132 of the CGST Act is not, when called upon by the authorised Officer to make a statement or to produce a document or thing, accused of an offence within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
+ Where an authorised Officer arrests a person and informs that person of the grounds of his arrest, for the purposes of holding an inquiry into the infringement of the provisions of the CGST Act which he has reason to believe has taken place, there is no formal accusation of an offence. The accusation could be said to have been made when a complaint is lodged by an officer competent in that behalf before the Magistrate.
+ The arrest and detention are only for the purpose of holding effective inquiry under the provisions of the CGST Act with a view to adjudging the evasion of GST and availing illegal input tax credit and imposing penalty.
+ The order authorising any officer to arrest may be justified if the Commissioner or any other authority empowered in law has reasons to believe that the person concerned has committed the offence under section 132 of the Act. However, the subjective satisfaction should be based on some credible materials or information and also should be supported by supervening factor. It is not any and every material, howsoever vague and indefinite or distant remote or farfetching, which would warrant the formation of the belief.
+ The power conferred upon the authority under Section 69 of the Act for arrest could be termed as a very drastic and far-reaching power. Such power should be used sparingly and only on substantive weighty grounds and reasons.
+ The power under Section 69 of the Act should neither be used as a tool to harass the assessee nor should it be used in a manner which may have an irreversible detrimental effect on the business of the assessee.
+ The above are merely the incidents of personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India. No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another.
+ The Commissioner must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. A person is not liable to be arrested merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the authority effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified.
+ Any person can be arrested for any offence under the section 69 of the CGST Act, 1962, by the authorised officer to whom authority to arrest is given by the Commissioner if the Commissioner has reasons to believe that such person has committed an offence punishable under the clauses (a) to (d) of the subsection (1) which is punishable under the clause (i) or Clause (ii) of the sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of the Section 132 of CGST Act.
+ When any person is arrested by the authorised officer, in exercise of his powers under Section 69 of the CGST Act, the authorised officer effecting the arrest is not obliged in law to comply with the provisions of Sections 154 to 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The authorised officer, after arresting such person, has to inform that person of the grounds for such arrest, and the person arrested will have to be taken to a Magistrate without unnecessary delay, if the offences are cognizable and non bailable.
+ By its language, the sub-section (3) does not equate the officers of the GST with an officer-in-charge of a police station, nor does it make him one by implication. It only, therefore, means that he has got the powers as defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of releasing such person on bail or otherwise. This does not necessarily mean that a person alleged to have committed a non-cognizable and bailable offence cannot be arrested without a warrant issued by the Magistrate.
+ The authorised officer exercising power to arrest under section 69 of the CGST Act, is not a Police Officer and, therefore, is not obliged in law to register FIR against the person arrested in respect of an offence under Sections 132 of the CGST Act.
+ An authorised Officer is a 'proper officer' for the purposes of the CGST Act. As the authorised Officers are not Police Officers, the statements made before them in the course of inquiry are not inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
+ The power to arrest a person by an authorised Officer is statutory in character and should not be interfered with. Section 69 of the CGST Act does not contemplate any Magisterial intervention.
+ The constitutional safeguards emphasised (by the Supreme Court in case of D.K. Basu) in the context of the powers of police officers under the Code of Criminal Procedure and of officers of central excise, customs and enforcement directorates, are applicable to the exercise of powers under the GST Act in equal measure. An officer whether of the Central Excise department or another agency like the DGCEI, authorised to exercise powers under the Central Excise Act and/or the FA will have to be conscious of the constitutional limitations on the exercise of such power.
+ Section 69 of the CGST Act requires certain preconditions to be fulfilled prior to the arrest. In particular, the reasons to believe have to be recorded in writing in the file. The second aspect of Section 69 of the GST Act is the communication of the grounds of arrest. Although, Section 69 uses the word “inform” in the context in which it appears, yet a mere communication of the grounds would not be sufficient. Merely reading out the grounds of arrest to the detenu would defeat the very object of requiring the reasons to believe to be recorded in writing and communicated to the detenu.
+ While producing the person arrested under Section 69 of the CGST Act, the importance of valid, proper and exhaustive arrest memo should not be undermined. Every authorized officer under the Act, 2017 carrying out arrest must be clear that the preparation of an arrest memo is mandatory.
+ Unlike the powers of the police to lodge and register F.I.R. at the police station, the authorized officer under the GST can only lodge a complaint in writing before the Court concerned. Again the cognizance of such complaint has to be taken by the Court concerned only in accordance with Section 134 of the Act 2017.
+ In most of the cases when arrest is affected under Section 69 of the Act, a person arrested would be produced before the Magistrate and the Magistrate may thereafter remand the arrested person to judicial custody after looking into the arrest memo. At the time of production of the accused and also at the time when the person arrested is remanded to the judicial custody, the Magistrate may not have any idea as to on what basis and what type of allegations, the person has been arrested by the authorized officers of the GST and has been produced before him.
+ The production of a person accused should not be accepted by the Magistrate without being convinced that the arrest is on lawful grounds and on prima-facie materials indicating the complicity of the accused in the alleged offence. It is at that stage that the arrest memo assumes importance. It is not just sufficient to state in the arrest memo that the person arrested and produced has committed offences under Section 132 of the Act, 2017. The arrest memo should contain some details or information on the basis of which the Magistrate can arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the person has been arrested on lawful grounds. It is necessary, therefore, to incorporate some prima-facie material against the accused showing his complicity in the alleged offence.
+ It is high time that the GST department prescribes a standardized format for the arrest memo. The format must contain all the mandatory requirements and necessary additions. The gist of the offence alleged to have been committed must be incorporated in the arrest memo. It would be the duty of the concerned Magistrate to check that an arrest memo has been prepared and duly filled. In a given case, if the Magistrate finds that the arrest memo is absent or improperly filled or bereft of necessary particulars, then the Magistrate should decline the production of the arrested person.
+ Petitions are accordingly ordered to be rejected.
+ Ad interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.
[para 77, 79, 81, 82, 83, 85]
- Petitions rejected: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-1801-HC-AHM-GST
Cosmo Films Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner was entitled to import raw materials without payment of IGST under Advance Authorization Licenses [AA Licenses] and pay IGST on exports and claim Rebate (Refund) of the IGST so paid on exports - The petitioner has received benefits of rebate of IGST at the relevant point of time - Thereafter, sub-rule (10) of Rule-96 of the CGST Rules was amended by Notification dated 4th September, 2018 with retrospective effect from 23rd October, 2017, providing that rebate on “exports” cannot be availed by the petitioner, if the “inputs” procured by the petitioner have enjoyed AA benefits or Deemed Export Benefits under the said notification - Therefore, the petitioner was unable to utilize the benefit of duty-free imports under AA Licenses and take the benefit of rebate on exports, because of the amendments made in Rule-96(10) of CGST Rules - It appears that, thereafter, by Notification No. 53/2018-Central Tax dated 9th October 2018, sub-clause (a) and (b) of sub-rule 10 of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules were merged - Thereafter, vide Notification No. 54/2018-Central Tax dated 9th October 2018, the sub-rule 10 of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules was again demerged and "with effect from 23rd October, 2017" thereby indicating that Notification No. 54/2018-Central Tax did not intend to apply the amendment to Rule-96(10) of the CGST Rules retrospectively - The petitioner has, therefore, preferred this petition challenging the aforesaid notifications and amendments made in sub-rule 10 of Rule-96 of the CGST Rules, by Notification No. 54/2018 denying the option to claim rebate to the petitioner because they imported inputs/goods under AA Licenses, as being ultra vires the provisions of the CGST Act and the CGST Rules made there under and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Held: + On conjoint reading of the provision of Section 16 of the IGST Act, Section 54 of CGST Act and Rule-96(10) of CGST Rules, which is substituted by Notification No. 54/2018 dated 9th October 2018, it is apparent that the person who has availed the benefits of Notification No. 48/2017 dated 18th October 2017 and other Notifications as stated in sub-rule 10 shall not have the benefit of claiming refund of integrated tax paid on exports of goods or services. The petitioner has availed benefits under Advance Authorization License scheme as per the Notification No. 18/2015-Cus which was amended by Notification No. 79/2017-Cus dated 13th October 2017 and paid integrated tax on the goods procured by the petitioners for the export purpose. + Notification No. 48/2017-C.T . dated 18th October 2017 has declared the following goods and the explanation thereto states that, "Advance Authorization" means an authorization issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade under Chapter4 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 for import or domestic procurement of inputs on pre-import basis for physical exports. Therefore, as the petitioner has availed the benefits of AA License as per Notification No. 40/2017-CT (Rate) dated 23rd October 2017 and has enjoyed the exemption of GST on the supply of the goods from the registered supplier for the purpose of export on fulfilling the conditions prescribed therein. It appears that, thereafter, by Notification No. 39/2018-CT dated 4th September 2018 has substituted the sub-rule (10) of Rule-96 w.e.f. 23rd October 2017, however, by Notification No. 54/2018 , the application of the substituted sub-rule (10) of Rule-96 is not made effective from 23rd October, 2017, but it was made applicable from the inception. Therefore, the petitioner who has availed the benefit of the Notification No. 39/2018 from 23rd October, 2017 to 4th September, 2018 would not be able to get the refund of the IGST paid or the input tax credit balance in the accounts of the petitioner, in view of the Notification No. 54/2018 . + Considering the effect of the Notification No. 54/2018 , the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents that there is no discrimination qua the petitioner is tenable in law, as by the amendment made by Notification No. 54/2018 it clearly denied the benefit which is granted to the petitioner by the Notification No. 39/2018 was withdrawn as the same was not made applicable from 23rd October, 2017. + Vide Notification No. 16/2020-CT dated 23.03.2020 an amendment has been made by inserting following explanation to Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017 as amended (with retrospective effect from 23.10.2017) - "Explanation. For the purpose of this sub-rule, the benefit of the notifications mentioned therein shall not be considered to have been availed only where the registered person has paid Integrated Goods and Services Tax and Compensation Cess on inputs and has availed exemption of only Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under the said notifications." + By virtue of the above amendment, the option of claiming refund under option as per clause (b) is not restricted to the Exporters who only avails BCD exemption and pays IGST on the raw materials thereby exporters who wants to claim refund under second option can switch over now. The amendment is made retrospectively thereby avoiding the anomaly during the intervention period and exporters who already claimed refund under second option need to payback IGST along with interest and avail ITC. + In view of above amendment, the grievance of the petitioner raised in this petition is, therefore, taken care of. However, it is also made clear that Notification No. 54/2018 is required to be made applicable w.e.f. 23rd October, 2017 and not prior thereto from the inception of the Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules. Therefore, in effect Notification No. 39/2018 dated 4th September, 2018 shall remain in force as amended by the Notification No. 54/2018 by substituting sub-rule (10) of Rule 96 of CGST Rules, in consonance with sub-section (3) of Section 54 of the CGST Act and Section 16 of the IGST Act. The Notification No. 54/2018 is therefore held to be effective w.e.f. 23rd October 2017. [para 8.12 to 8.15, 9]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-280-AAR-GST ST Engineering Electronics Ltd
GST - Rate of tax of 6% CGST as per entry No.3 (v) of Notification No. 11/2017 amended vide Notification No.1/2018- Central Tax(rate) dated 25th January 2018, effective from 25.01.2018 may be applicable to the applicant provided the works contracted and undertaken by them satisfies the definition of ‘Works Contract' as defined in clause(119) of section 2 of the CGST Act, 2017: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2020-TIOL-279-AAR-GST
Tamil Nadu Textbook And Educational Services Corporation
GST - Applicant is a society established by State government with the Chief Minister as the Chairman of the Board, Educational Minister as Vice Chairman and Secretaries to the government as members with control by the state government, therefore, the applicant is a ‘government entity' as defined under (B)(v) of the 2/2017-CTR - Supply of educational aids to students such as school bags, footwear, geometry box, wooden colour pencils, crayons, woollen sweater, Rain Coats, Ankle Boots and Socks to government and government aided schools based on the State Government educational policy for which the consideration is paid to applicant Tami Nadu Text Book and Educational Services Corporation by the State Government by means of a budgetary allocation constitutes a supply under the Act - however, above activities of the applicant is exempt with effect from 13.10.2017, vide entry Sl.No.150 in the Notification No.2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 as amended by Notification No. 35/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 13th October 2017 and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to claim credit of tax paid on the related purchases of goods and services: AAR
GST - As per section 95(a) of the Act, a ruling can be sought in relation to the supply of goods or services or both undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant - The Q.No. 5, 6, 7 relates to receipt of service and not supply of service by the applicant, therefore, the said question is not taken up for consideration for the reason that it is not covered under the purview of this Authority: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2020-TIOL-278-AAR-GST
Kumaran Oil Mill
GST - Applicant supplies edible oil, electrical energy and Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) - REC are traded in power exchanges with stipulated regulations and such REC are taxable under GST - Applicant is engaged in the business of generating electric energy through the solar PV cell generator under the REC scheme which entitles the applicant, REC equivalent to the electrical energy generated and uploaded in the grid for supply to the third parties - To become eligible to REC, it is necessary to generate electricity using RE sources and thus it cannot be held that the output of Photo Voltaic generator is only ‘electrical energy' but REC is also an output of generation of electricity using RE source - Solar PV Cell generator being a Plant, the related credits are not blocked under section 17(5) of the Act, 2017 - Proportionate claim of Input Tax Credit is available for the applicant and the provisions of s.17(2) applies to the case on hand - Subject to the goods being capitalised in their books of account, the applicant is eligible to claim ITC on such goods as ‘capital goods' and the provisions of rule 43 of the CGST Rules is applicable to determine the eligible credit in respect of the taxable supplies made by them - in respect of inputs and input services, the attributable credit is to be arrived at by applying rule 42 of the Rules - it is further clarified that ‘Total turnover of the registered person' should include the ‘turnover of edible oil business' and ‘total turnover of power generation business': AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2020-TIOL-277-AAR-GST
Tube Investments Of India Ltd
GST - Activity of body building undertaken on a truck chassis made available by a customer to the applicant amounts to supply of services as per Schedule II, clause 3 of CGST Act, 2017 [under SAC 998881 @18%] - Circular 52/26/2018-GST dated 09.08.2018 relied upon: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2020-TIOL-276-AAR-GST
SGS India Pvt Ltd
GST - Applicant is engaged in providing various inspection, verification, testing and certification services in the agriculture and food production process in its laboratories set up in India - They sought a ruling as to whether the supply of ‘inspection and testing services' on fresh table grapes is classifiable under SAC 9986 of 11/2017-CTR [Support services to agriculture, forestry, fishing, animal husbandry] or in terms of Entry 54(a) of 12/2017-CTR and chargeable to Nil rate of tax.
Held: Activities of testing for chemical residue, grading based on physical attributes of table grapes as per the procedure of APEDA are not classifiable under SAC 9986 as they are not meant for preparation of crops for primary market and not necessary for production of the grapes - such activity is rightly classifiable under SAC 998346 - Hence, they are not directly related to the production of the table grapes - Accordingly, the activities of the applicant are not eligible for the exemption under 11/2017-CTR or for exemption under Entry No. 54 (a) of Notification No. 12/2017-C.T.(Rate): AAR
- Application disposed of; AAR
2020-TIOL-275-AAR-GST
MFAR Hotels And Resorts Pvt Ltd
GST - Supply of soft beverages/aerated water, whether in person or as room service, by the restaurant located in the premises of the hotel is a composite supply; taxable @18% as per S. no. 7 of 11/2017-CTR: AAR
GST - Supply of cigarettes/tobacco products by the restaurant in person or as room service is a mixed supply; taxable @28% as per Sl. no. 14 of Schedule IV of 1/2017-CTR along with GST Compensation Cess: AAR
GST - Supply of alcoholic liquor for human consumption by a restaurant will not be taxable under CGST Act, 2017: AAR
GST - Supply of free meals to the employees at a canteen located in the premises of the hotel of the applicant is a supply under the Act, 2017 and liable to GST @18% as per Sl. no. 7 of 11/2017-CTR as amended on the value determined by rule 28 of the CGST Rules, 2017: AAR
- AAR
2020-TIOL-274-AAR-GST
Macro Media Digital Imaging Pvt Ltd
GST - Printing of content provided by the recipient on the PVC materials of the applicant and supply of printed trade advertising material to the recipient is a Composite supply and 'supply of service of printing' is the principal supply - classification of service is under SAC 998912 and tax rate is @18% during the period from 1st July 2017 to 13.10.2017 and thereafter @12%: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2020-TIOL-273-AAR-GST
ICU Medical India Llp
GST - Applicant has sought a ruling on the following questions viz. whether GST is leviable on the reimbursement of expenses from the subsidiary company to its ultimate holding company located in a foreign territory outside India and, in case GST is leviable, what is the rate of GST applicable to the said reimbursement of expenses.
Held: Applicant is engaged in the business of software development for the infusion system manufactured by its ultimate holding company, ICU Medical Inc. - the ultimate holding company has entered into a contract with Wells Fargo Bank through which certain employees of the applicant are extended with the credit card issued by the said bank - The card is to be used by the employees for the travel requirements on business needs - ultimate holding company settles the amount payable with the bank and in turn raises invoices on the applicant and collects the charges used by the employees of the applicant - Applicant does not come into the picture for any transactions with Wells Fargo - It is also seen from the agreement between Wells Fargo and ICU Medical Inc. that ICU Medical Inc. is the entity with all the financial and legal obligations - It is evident from the above that ICU Medical Inc. is making the supply of the credit cards to the applicant for use of its employees, on its own account and not as an 'intermediary' - Service imported by the applicant is, therefore, one of extension of credit for furtherance of business - Said service is appropriately classifiable under SAC 997113 - Applicant is liable to pay IGST under Reverse charge, the applicable rate is 18% as per Sl. no. 15 of 8/2017-ITR: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2020-TIOL-272-AAR-GST
Gourmet Popcornica Llp
GST - Pre-mix popcorn maize (corn kernels) packed with edible oil and salt supplied by applicant is classifiable under CTH 2008 1990 and not under CTH 2106 - From the packaging, it is evident that they are 'specifically packed for popcorn vending machines and not for retail sale' - Rate of tax is @12% GST w.e.f 01.07.2017: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2020-TIOL-271-AAR-GST
Erode Infrastructures Pvt Ltd
GST - Applicant seeks to know as to whether the upfront lease amount paid to M/s Rail Land Development Authority (RLDA) for the development of multi-functional complex (operational building) at Erode railway junction for long term lease for 45 years is exempt under GST.
Held: Advance ruling are decisions on questions specified in sub-section 97(2) of the CGST Act in relation to the supply of goods or services undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant seeking the same - Therefore, supplies undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant alone are covered under the Advance Ruling as per s.95(a) of the Act - In the instant case, applicant is not making the supply but it is by Rail Land Development Authority (RLDA) - question that does not pertain to the recipient-applicant cannot be answered by the Authority - as per the Act, the recipient of the supply in question cannot seek advance ruling under the Act - Application is rejected: AAR
- Application rejected: AAR
2020-TIOL-270-AAR-GST
Chennai Metro Rail Ltd
GST - Applicant, Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., had acquired a portion of the property (including the land which is now leased out to the owner) for public purpose from Dr K Prema on payment of adequate compensation - As per clause 4 of the agreement entered into, Dr K Prema is entitled to use the passage with 3 Meter width and 14 Meter length out of the acquired land for shared access purpose for 35 years and has to pay Rs.30 lakhs towards lease amount - It appears that the arrangement is made since Dr K Prema from whom the property is acquired has no pathway to her residential property - Applicant has sought a ruling on the taxability of the said transaction inasmuch as it is the view of the applicant that the lease amount received from the lessee would not attract GST by virtue of the exemption granted under 12/2017-CTR.
Held: As per the MOU, the applicant has given the right to use the pathway to the individual so that she can access the main road from her residential property - The pathway is owned by the applicant and is also to be used by both the applicant and the individual - It is clear that this right of use of the 'pathway' granted to the lessee for a fixed period for an amount qualifies the definition of 'Easement' of the land owned by the applicant as per section 4 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 - It is seen that in the course of business of the applicant i.e constructing the metro station, the applicant has given easement rights to the land measuring 452 sq.ft. to the individual for an agreed amount - Hence, it is seen that this transaction of granting easement rights satisfies the conditions of s.7(1)(a) as 'supply' under the CGST Act - further as per section 7(1A) and para 2(a) of the Schedule II to the Act, activity of easement of land constitutes supply of service - In the instant case, it is not a lease of the pathway but only Easement rights are granted to the individual by the applicant, therefore, the classification of the service supplied is not covered under SAC 9972 which covers renting or leasing of property - The applicant has agreed through a MOU to tolerate her use of this pathway for a period of time for consideration, hence this service of agreeing to grant easement rights is a service of agreeing to tolerate an act and is classifiable under SAC 999794 under 'Other Miscellaneous Services'/'Agreeing to tolerate an act' - Held that act of agreeing to grant easement rights of the pathway by the applicant to Dr K Prema (lessee) by way of shared access as per the MOU is classifiable under SAC 999794 and taxable @18% GST in terms of Sr. no. 35 of 11/2017-CTR: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR | 
