2021-TIOL-1747-HC-KAR-GST

Senior Intelligence Officer Vs Sri Om Traders

GST - Bail - The respondent was granted anticipatory bail - As per condition, respondent was required to co-operate during enquiry and he shall appear before Investigating Officer whenever called for further investigation - The nature of the offence alleged is with regard to playing fraud in respect of payment of GST - The department submitted that by delaying tactics, respondent is trying to erase all the possible evidence which is evident in commission of offence - The respondent is ready and willing to co-operate with Investigating Officer - He is also ready to appear before Investigating Officer whenever called for further investigation - Since there was ill-treatment by Investigating Officer, he was made to file a complaint against the Investigating Officer - But nonetheless, he is ready to co-operate with investigating officer - In view of same, no reason found to entertain the petition: HC

- Petition disposed of: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-215-AAR-GST

World Economic Forum

GST -  Applicant is the Indian office of The World Economic Forum (WEF), established as Liaison Office (LO) to assist the WEF to undertake the Fourth Industrial Revolution activities in India to encourage, develop and facilitate cooperation activities in the fields of common interest associated with readiness for the said Revolution, pursue research and develop and deploy policy principles & regulatory framework - The LO is the same legal entity as WEF, Switzerland -  WEF has been granted permission by the RBI as per the FEMA Regulations, 2016  framed under the FEAM Act, 1999 -  Applicant proposes to undertake liaising activities and act as a communication link between the HO and the companies in India to undertake the Fourth Industrial Revolution activities in India -  Except the liaison work, the applicant would not be undertaking any other activity of trading  commercial or industrial nature nor shall it enter into any business contracts in its name - Entire expenses of the applicant in India will be met entirely through inward remittances of foreign exchange received from the WEF located outside India - Applicant is seeking a ruling for the case where the above mentioned support is extended by the HO located outside India to the applicant in India for setting up the LO and in administration of the liaising activities.

Held: A pplicant is not undertaking any 'business' as defined under Section 2(17) of the CGST Act and, therefore, the activities/services received by the applicant from its HO cannot be said to be in the course or furtherance of its business and hence cannot be considered as a supply under Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant would, therefore, not be required to obtain registration in India u/s 24 of the Act which respect to the activities carried out by the applicant's Head Office located outside India and rendered to the applicant: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-214-AAR-GST

Shailesh Ramsunder Pande Pooja Vaishnavi School Bus Service

GST -  Applicant entered into a contract with Ratan India Power Limited for supply of non-AC buses for transportation of their staff under contract carriage - Applicant seeks to know as to whether GST is applicable for the said contract and applicability of Sl. no. 15, heading 9964, of 12/2017-CT(R).

Held:   Essential ingredient of a contract carriage is that it plies under a contract for a fixed set of passengers and does not allow any other passenger to board or alight from the carriage at will - A 'contract carriage' carries passengers as a group and cannot pick up passengers en-route - 

Applicant does not satisfy the condition prescribed in clause (a) nor specified in clause (b) of clause (7) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and accordingly, they cannot be considered as 'non air-conditioned contract carriage' and are hence not eligible for exemption under the serial no. 15 of the exemption notification no. 12/2017-CTR - Service provided by the applicant falls under 'Rent-a-Cab' service -  Subject case is clearly covered by Entry Sr. No. 10 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT(R) inasmuch as there is a Rental services of transport vehicles with or without operators - All activities of Renting of any motor vehicle/transport vehicle which is designed to carry passengers where the cost of fuel is included in the consideration charged from the service recipient are chargeable to either 5% GST or 12% GST depending on availment of ITC: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-213-AAR-GST

Yashaswi Academy For Skills

GST -  Applicant's activities are Charitable and they hold registration under Sec 12AA of Income Tax Act 1961 -  Applicant, registered as a third-party aggregator under the Apprentice Act, 1961 provides support for mobilizing the trainees under National Apprenticeship Promotion Scheme for providing them on-the-job practical training in industries - For that purpose, Applicant enters into agreements with various companies/organizations (industry partner) who impart actual practical training to the students -  During the duration of the training, the apprentices are paid monthly stipend - Applicant is assigned the function of preparing monthly attendance record of apprentices; processing and payment of stipend; providing uniform and safety shoes; take insurance policies and for carrying out the above, the applicant gets fixed professional service charge fees per candidate per month from the industry  partner - The question on which a ruling is sought is whether the reimbursement by industry partner to the applicant of the stipend attracts GST. 

Held: Industry partner that provides training to the trainees is required to pay stipend to the trainees - This stipend is not directly paid to the trainees by the companies, rather the same are routed through the applicant - The applicant has submitted that the entire amounts received as stipend from the companies are paid to the trainees without any amount being retained. Thus, the applicant is only acting as an intermediary in collecting the stipend from the companies and then disbursing the same to the trainees in full since the applicant is not allowed to make any deductions from the stipend before disbursing the same to the trainees - The applicant is only a conduit for the payment of stipend and the actual service is supplied by the trainees to the trainer companies (industry partners) against which stipend is payable - Hence the amount of stipend received by the applicant from the industry partners and paid in full to the trainees is not taxable at the hands of the applicant - Hence, reimbursement by Industry Partner to the applicant of the stipend paid to students does not attract GST: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-1746-HC-MUM-MISC

Premprakash Laxminarayan Bansal Vs State of Maharashtra

Miscellaneous - GST -  In March, 2020, co-accused Sarfaraz introduced the applicant to the complainant [Mahendra Pukhraj Parmar, owner of M/s Esjaypee Mercantile Global Private Limited] and informed him that applicant requires large quantities of cloves - The complainant sent an e-mail to the Cold Storage and Warehousing [where the complainant's goods were stocked] on 2nd March, 2020 asking the Warehouse Manager to transfer 100 bags of cloves worth Rs. 22,90,842/- to applicant's firm and vide another email dated 3rd March, 2020 asked the Manager to transfer 200 bags of cloves worth Rs. 51,30,777/- to applicant's firm - Pursuant to the emails, Cold Storage and Warehousing service provider, transferred 300 bags of cloves in the name of applicant's firm, M/s. Bansal Traders - On 4th March, 2020, 150 bags of cloves were delivered at Godown No.G-39 of Sarfaraz, spice market premises - On 5th March, 2020, the second consignment of 150 bags of cloves were delivered to Sarfaraz at his godown - Since the complainant did not receive the payment, notice was issued to the applicant and the co-accused, Sarfaraz and were called upon to make the payment - Applicant replied the notice through his Advocate stating that, he had not received the goods from the complainant and after which on a written complaint, crime in question came to be registered on 8th May, 2021 -  Apprehending arrest in connection with the crime registered with APMC Police Station, Navi Mumbai for the offences punishable u/s 420, 406 and s.34 of the IPC, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail - applicant submits that a false case has been filed against him and that he had never entered into any transaction with the complainant nor availed Input Tax Credit in respect of the said goods alleged to have been supplied to them.

Held: Response of the Assistant Commissioner, CGST in clear terms says, that M/s. Bansal Traders has availed the ITC against Invoices No.106 and 107 - Besides, the statements of the Manager of the Warehouse, owner of the trucks and the statements of drivers, prima-facie, show that goods were delivered at the request of M/s. Bansal Traders to and at the godown premises of Sarfaraz - From the evidence collected during the course of investigation, Bench has reason to believe that the goods were supplied by the complainant to the applicant, therefore, no case is made out for granting pre-arrest protection to the applicant - Application is rejected: High Court [para 6]

- Application rejected: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-516-CESTAT-AHM

Citizen Metalloys Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Appellant filed the refund claim for the amount of duty, interest and penalty paid during investigation of demand case - Same was rejected on the ground of time bar - The appellant could have availed waiver of Pre- deposit without paying any amount but they have chosen to make payment of excise duty, interest and penalty - The amount paid by appellant is indeed Excise duty, interest and penalty - Therefore, refund of same is clearly governed by proviso of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - The refund claim is arising of consequential to the dropping of demand by Tribunal - The appellant has admittedly filed the refund after one year from the passing of Tribunal order whereby demand was set aside - Therefore, in terms of the sub clause (ec) of clause (B) of section 11B ibid, the refund claim filed after one year from the relevant date is clearly time bar - From said section, it is clear that if any appellant pay duty, interest and 25% penalty no notice needs to be issued and this benefit was explicitly availed by appellant as they have made the submission before Adjudicating Authority - Since appellant have availed this benefit, it is clear that appellant has consciously paid duty, interest and 25% penalty - Hence it cannot be said that the amount paid is not duty and Pre-deposit - This is a case of refund of duty and interest and the same is governed by Section 11B ibid - Hence, being time bar not admissible to the appellant: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2021-TIOL-515-CESTAT-MUM

Kankariya Automobiles Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & C

ST - The issue relates to non-discharge of tax liability, as provider of 'business auxiliary service', which was confirmed by original authority as payable under proviso to section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994, along with interest thereon under section 75 ibid, besides imposing penalties under section 76, 77 and 78 ibid - The appellant, an authorized dealer and service centre for motor vehicles, had provided space for insurance companies to solicit customers of insurance contracts on the vehicles sold by them - The decision in re Pagariaya Auto Centre , followed in several decisions of Tribunal, has clearly determined the taxability of receipts from insurance companies operating at the premises of motor vehicle dealers - Tribunal found no justification proffered for in support of the claim of appellant that the exclusion applies to them - Therefore, taxability of receipts in the hands of appellant is no longer in dispute - Appellant had discharged tax liability and interest on 14th March 2012 which precedes issue of SCN - In the light of section 73(4) of Finance Act, 1994, which is the sole ground for denying recourse to section 73(3) ibid, it is clear that the appellant has discharged tax liability in the manner contemplated by section 73(3) ibid, upon intimation by the jurisdictional central excise officers - Consequently, the appellant is not liable to any penalty under Finance Act, 1944: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-514-CESTAT-DEL

Rakesh Luthra Vs CC

Cus - The appellants when arrived at IGI Airport, New Delhi from Bangkok were found carrying hand bags - These bags when scanned were found to contain gold bars - A SCN was issued on appellants proposing not only the seizure of recovered gold but also recovery of requisite customs duty along with interest and proportionate penalties - As per Section 129(A) Customs Act, 1962, Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of an order which relates to any goods exported or imported as Baggage - The appellants have brought the gold from outside India into their handbags without requisite declaration as required under section 78 of Customs Act - The act of appellant is held as 'Import as Baggage' - The High Court of Judicature at Madras in case of Payangadi Moidu Mohammed Ali - 2017-TIOL-202-HC-MAD-CUS have also taken the same view - Accordingly, it is held that since appeal relates to Baggage, the same is not maintainable before Tribunal - Appellant is at liberty to move the appropriate remedy before the Authority who is competent to decide in respect of an order which relates to Baggage: CESTAT

- Appeals disposed of: DELHI CESTAT