Cus - Premium investigating agencies are fighting and levelling allegations against each other - Tardy, casual and irresponsible attitude of both departments - CBI to investigate: HC

Cus - Clearance from ICD - CGST department says petitioner is informer whereas Customs department says petitioner, hand-in-glove with officials smuggled the goods - DG of both Departments should have intervened and settled the dispute: HC

GST - Mere fact that a number of tasks have been entrusted through a single contract would not make it a 'composite supply' - Supply made by each cost centre is to be considered as independent supply of goods and services - Revenue appeal allowed: AAAR

GST - Entry 6 of 12/2017-CTR exempts services provided 'by' the Government and not services provided 'to' the Government - Fund manager services provided by applicant on behalf of government not exempted: AAR

GST - Services by way of storage or warehousing of ginned cotton bales is not exempted under Entry 24B of 12/2017-CTR; attracts CGST@9%: AAR

TNVAT - Best judgment assessment resorted to based solely on report of Enforcement Wing is unsustainable: HC

2021-TIOL-30-AAAR-GST

BEML Ltd

GST - Respondent is a Public Sector Undertaking, engaged in manufacture of wide range of products to meet the needs of mining, construction, power, irrigation, fertilizer, cement, steel and rail sectors - They are also one of the leading manufacturers of rail and metro coaches - They had sought a ruling as to whether the supplies made by Cost Centres C [ Delivery and receipt of indigenous manufacturing ], D [ Commissioning and Acceptance of trains/ cars in Depot ], E [ Taking over of unit/train for revenue services ] and G [Supply of Unit Exchange spares, mandatory spares and consumable spares and special tools testing and diagnostic equipment ] are independent supplies of goods and services or composite supply with principal supply of goods - AAR in its order dated 6 th April 2021 [ 2021-TIOL-136-AAR-GST ] had held that supplies made by the applicant [now, respondent] under Cost Centres C, D, E and G form a composite supply with principal supply being the supply of intermediate cars on which GST shall be payable at the rate of 5% vide Entry 237 of Notification 1/2017 dated 28.06.2017 upto 30.09.2019 and thereafter at the rate of 12% vide Notification No. 14/2010 dated 30.09.2019 - Revenue is in appeal against the said order of AAR, before the AAAR.

Held : Lower Authority has erred in interpreting the creation of cost centres as per the contract as artificial creations to enable cash flow - When interpreting the nature of a contract, the form of the agreement is not important, it is rather the substance which has to be seen - The parties may use any words they like to suit their intention and it is, therefore, imperative that the agreement may not be taken as it is but its nature/substance has to be seen to arrive at the correct conclusions - In this case, although a single contract has been made for supply of goods and services, the clear-cut demarcation of activities of supply of goods and supply of services by each Cost Centre clearly demonstrates the intention of the contracting parties that each of the cost centres C, D, E and G is an independent supply centre undertaking either a supply of goods or a supply of service - Hence, Authority is unable to subscribe to the views of the lower Authority and the Respondent that the supply of goods and services encompassed as per this contract are naturally bundled - The mere fact that a number of tasks have been entrusted to the Respondent through a single contract would not make it as 'composite supply' in terms of Section 2(30) of the CGST Act, 2017 - The obligations of supplies envisaged in the contract are distinct and separable and hence the separate activities of supply of goods and supply of services have to be viewed independently on its own merits - Therefore, supplies made by Cost Centres C, D, E and G to M/s BMRCL are to be considered as independent supplies of goods and services - Cost Centre “C” - Delivery and Receipt of indigenous manufacturing is supply of goods attracting GST @5% up to 30.09.2019; Cost Centre “D” - Commissioning and acceptance of trains/ cars in depot is supply of services attracting GST @18%; Cost Centre “E” - Taking over of unit/ train for revenue service is supply of services attracting GST @18%; Cost Centre “G” - Supply of unit exchange spares, mandatory spares and consumable spares and special tools, testing and diagnostic equipment is supply of goods attracting GST @18%/28% as applicable: AAAR

- Appeal allowed: AAAR

2021-TIOL-236-AAR-GST

Kakkirala Ramesh

GST -  Applicant is Providing storage services to different customers and also to the Cotton Corporation of India which consists of storage of ‘Fully Pressed Cotton Bales' - They submit that Cotton Corporation of India is objecting to levy of GST on storage service by relying on Circular No. 16/16/2017-GST issued by the Central Warehousing Corporation - Therefore, vide the present application, an advance ruling is requested on the following question viz.  Whether the Godown Rent collected from the CCI is exempted as per the amending Notification 21/2019 - Central Tax (Rate) Dated 30.09.2019 based on the Circular No.16/16/2017-GST.

Held:  A plain reading of the entry  24B of amending notification 21/2019-CTR  suggests that raw vegetable fibres such as cotton, flags, jute etc. are included for exemption under this service head - Obviously, this entry aims to exempt produce of the farmer which is in its raw or unmanufactured stage - Furthermore, while exempting support services to agriculture etc., only such processes which make the agricultural produce marketable for the primary market by the farmer are included in these processes - CCI has purchased raw cotton from farmers in the primary market and then processed it in ginning mills on job work basis - CCI has paid tax on ginning of cotton and pressing into bales - Hence it cannot be treated as raw cotton and, therefore, it cannot be claimed that the cotton stored by CCI in the warehouse of the applicant falls under Entry 24B of amending 21/2019-CTR - Accordingly, warehousing services rendered by the applicant to CCI does not fall under Entry no. 24B and hence are taxable @9% CGST & SGST each: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-235-AAR-GST

Telangana State Technology Services Ltd

GST - Applicant is acting as a fund manager on behalf of IT E&C Department, Telangana State in executing e-procurement process - A pplicant is of the opinion that he is acting as a pure agent on behalf of the State government which is floating tenders amounting to supply of services and such supply may not attract tax under CGST Act, 2017 -  Hence, they seek a ruling as to (1) Whether the e-Procurement transaction fee collected on behalf of IT E&C Department of Telangana State Government towards online tenders' results in supply of goods or services or both, within the meaning of supply as defined?; (2) Whether the Tax liability arises on e-procurement transaction fee collected on behalf of State Government Department i.e., IT E&C department? And (3) Whether this services made by State Government Department falls under Entry No.6 of exemption of Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) Dated 28th June, 2017? 

Held: A careful reading of the said Entry 6 in the Notification 12/2017-CTR reveals that this entry pertains to services provided "by" the Government and not services provided "to" the Government - The applicant is providing services to the Government, therefore the services provided by the applicant to the Government are not exempt under this Notification - Further the services provided by the applicant on behalf of the Government to business entities is covered by the exception to the above entry, therefore such services also are not exempt: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-2027-HC-MAD-VAT

Sankara Traders Vs CTO (ST)

Whether in case of best judgment assessment, the AO can rely on reports of Enforcement Wing officers - NO: HC

- Assessee's writ petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2029-HC-P&H-CUS

Paramjit Singh Vs Inspector of Customs

Cus - Petitioner seeks an extension of interim bail granted to him vide order dated 01.10.2021 on the ground that his wife, a cancer patient, is in her last stage.

Held: Without embarking upon the merits of the case, Bench is of the view that it would be just and appropriate to extend the interim bail till the next date of hearing i.e. 16.11.2021: High Court

- Application allowed: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2028-HC-P&H-CUS

Sunil Dutt Vs Department of Customs

Cus - Petitioner is enrolled as a G - Card Holder by the Department of Customs on behalf of M/s. Safe Cargo Clearing Services - Case of the Customs department is that on 09.04.2021, the consignment of prohibited goods was released/cleared manually in an illegal manner by Rambir Singh Gahlaut (Superintendent) and Sandeep Kumar (Inspector) of Customs Department while hand-in-glove with the importer Prabhjot Singh, GCard Holder that is, the petitioner - Sunil Dutt and Paramjit Singh, a conduit facilitating the import of goods on behalf of the importer without payment of custom duty - Alleged offences under the Customs Act - Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail.

Held: Court finds that it is very strange and surprising that 02 Departments i.e. Department of Customs, Customs Commissionerate, Ludhiana - respondent No.1 and Anti-Evasion Unit, Central Goods & Service Tax, Commissionerate, Ludhiana - respondent No.2, are fighting tooth and nail regarding fixing the liability as to how the consignment was cleared manually without making any entry by the Customs Department and as per stand of the Customs Department, there is a collusion of the official of the CGST Department with the petitioner and the other accused and in that process, the CGST Department is posing the petitioner as a Secret Informer/Source and has even filed a Secret Note under the signatures of Joint Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate, Ludhiana, giving a clean chit to the petitioner - Sunil Dutt - Though the officers of Customs Department as well as the CGST Department, derives their powers from the respective Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 and both Departments are part of premium investigating agencies, however, instead of fighting and levelling allegations against each other, the office of the Director General of both the Departments, should have intervened and settled the dispute - Taking note of the tardy, casual and irresponsible attitude of both the departments, Bench finds it to be a fit case where the matter needs to be referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for conducting further investigation of the case and fix liability of the erring official(s) - It is directed that an Officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police will conduct a preliminary enquiry and submit a report within a period of 30 days - Matter to be listed again on 13.12.2021: High Court

- Matter listed: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT