Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

I-T - Review petition declined where petitioner omits to establish grounds for invoking such jurisdiction: HC

I-T - Alternate remedy qua writ Court is self-imposed restraint and it is not absolute Rule: HC

I-T - Additions framed under amended provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r/w Section 43B are not tenable where relevant AY precedes year of amendment: ITAT

I-T - Assessee should not suffer due to non-filing of material information for reasons beyond assessee's control : ITAT

I-T - Order of CIT(A) in computing disallowance after excluding investments which are not related to earning of dividend income is not improper : ITAT

I-T - Provisions of Sec 14A or Rule 8D cannot be interpreted to mean that entire quantum of tax exempt income is to be disallowed : ITAT

I-T- Sec 23 - reasonable rent is to determined not exceeding standard rent fixed under rent control law: ITAT

I-T - Valuation report by bank for sanctioning of loan cannot solely be a ground for CIT(A) giving direction to AO u/s 150(1) to reopen assessment for another AY, not subject-matter of appeal before CIT(A) : ITAT

I-T - When existence of R & D facility is not disputed, merely for non-issuance of approval for certain period in prescribed Form 3CM by competent authority, weighted deduction claimed u/s 35(2AB) cannot be denied : ITAT

GST - MMRDA is a government entity - Reimbursement of expenses such as salaries, rent, training, staff welfare expenses etc. received by applicant for pure services rendered to MMRDA is exempt: AAR

GST - Top-Up Insurance/Parental Insurance Premium recovered from employees does not amount to 'supply of service': AAR

GST - 'Pushti', which is a powdered mixture of Ragi, Rice, Wheat, Green gram, Fried gram, Moong dal, and Soya in different proportions, is classifiable under HSN 1106; attracts Nil tax if unbranded and @5% if otherwise: AAR

GST - 'ASSET' held by respondent cannot be said to be service provided to schools, much less services relating to conduct of examination by such schools - Exemption not available - Revenue appeal allowed: AAAR

2021-TIOL-259-AAR-GST

Maha Mumbai Metro (M3) Operation Corporation Ltd

GST - Applicant is incurring various expenses such as Salary & Wages for employee, Contribution to provident Fund, Training expenses, Canteen expenses, Advertisement expenses, Manpower expenses etc. - Currently, no revenue is generated by applicant by incurring these expenses in relation to Operation and Maintenance activity since at present no such activities have started to be undertaken by the applicant - All the expenses incurred by applicant are reimbursed by MMRDA at cost and no additional payment is done by MMRDA - Therefore, the applicant seeks a ruling as to whether -  (i) Whether GST is applicable on reimbursement of expenses such as salaries, rent, training, staff welfare expenses etc.? & (ii) If above answer is affirmative, at what rate GST should be charged?

Held:  Applicant is rendering Pure Services to MMRDA -   MMRDA is constituted and established by the State Government of Maharashtra with 100% participation by way of Equity or Control to carry out the function entrusted to it by the State Government viz. Preparation of Regional Development Plans, Providing financial assistance for significant regional projects, Providing help to local authorities and their infrastructure projects, coordinating execution of projects and/or schemes in MMR, etc. in the State of Maharashtra and, therefore, MMRDA is clearly covered under the definition of 'Government Entity' - Pure services supplied by the applicant can be covered under clause 1, of the Twelfth Schedule, pertaining to Articles 243W of the Constitution, “by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a Municipality under article 243W of the Constitution” -  and, therefore, as per the provisions of Entry No. (3) of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(R) dated 28.06.2017 the said amounts received by the applicant are not liable to tax - GST is, therefore, not applicable on reimbursement of expenses such as salaries, rent, training, staff welfare expenses etc.: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-258-AAR-GST

Tata Power Company Ltd

GST - Applicant has sought an advance ruling on the following question - Whether the recovery of an amount towards Top-up and parental insurance premium from the employees, amounts to a supply of any service under Section 7 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017? Held: Authority finds  that the activity undertaken by the applicant like providing of mediclaim policy for the employees and their parents through the insurance company neither satisfies conditions of section 7 to be held as "supply of service" (insurance service) nor is it covered under the term "business" of section 2(17) of CGST ACT 2017 - Hence, the applicant is not rendering any services of health insurance to their employees' parent and; therefore, there is no supply of insurance services in the instant case of transaction between employer and employee - Held that recovery of the Top Up Insurance/Parental Insurance Premium from employees does not amount to "supply of service" under Section 7 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-257-AAR-GST

Devanahalli And Hosakote Taluks Mspc

GST -   Applicant is registered as a “Society” [Mahila Supplementary Production and Training Center (MSPC)] under Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and has sought advance ruling in respect of the following questions - (i) Classification of Goods, HSN Code and Rate of Tax on ‘Pushti', a mixture of Ragi, Rice, Wheat, Green gram, Fried gram, Moong dal, and Soya in different proportions. (ii) Does Circular No. 149/05/2021-GST dated 17.06.2021; apply to Mahila Supplementary Production and Training Center (MSPC), as MSPC is supplying food to CDPO for which the end user is anganwadi  centers - Applicant states that the Society is formed with the motive of social welfare and not monetary benefits.
Held:  Since the applicant's product ‘pushti' is also a powdered mixture of pulses and cereals, in view of the notification 1/2017-CTR and the clarification Circular No. 80/54/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018, the same may be classified under HSN 1106 - Applicant is purchasing and supplying only goods and not into supply of any service - Since Notification No. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) , dated 28.06.2017 deals with supply of services which are exempted, the same cannot be applied to supply of goods as in the case of the applicant - Since the Notification No. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) is not applicable to the applicant's case, Circular No. 149/05/2021-GST, dated 17.06.2021 also is not applicable - ‘Pushti', which is a powdered mixture of Ragi, Rice, Wheat, Green gram, Fried gram, Moong dal, and Soya in different proportions, is classified under HSN code 1106 - If unbranded, it attracts Nil GST as per S. No. 78 of notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and if branded and packed, it attracts 5% GST as per S. No. 59 of Schedule I of notification No. 1/2017-Central Taxes (Rate) - Circular No.149/ 05/ 2021-GST dated 17.06.2021, does not apply to MSPC as the applicant is into supply of goods: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-32-AAAR-GST

Educational Initiative Pvt Ltd

GST - AAR by its order dated 2 July 2020 had held that  Educational assessment examination (ASSET) with its variants provided by the applicant to school/educational organization is exempted from payment of GST under Sr. No. 66(b)(iv) of the Not. No.  12/2017-CT (rate) dated 28.06.2017 and entry No. 69(b)(iv) of Not. No.  9/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as well as equivalent SGST Notification - Revenue is aggrieved by this order and is in appeal before the appellate authority. Held: A s per Entry at Sl. No. 66(b)(iv) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), 'services provided to an educational institution, by way of, services relating to admission to, or conduct of examination by, such institution' is exempted from GST - The services being provided by the applicant are admittedly not relating to admission to educational institution, therefore, it needs to be examined whether the services being provided by the applicant are 'services provided to an educational institution, by way of services relating to conduct of examination by such institution' - This matter can be decided by determining whether it can be said that ASSET is conducted by the schools or otherwise, without going into the question whether the ASSET is 'examination' or 'assessment' and without deliberating upon the difference between the terms 'examination' and 'assessment' - In case of ASSET, the answers given by the students are assessed by the applicant and not by the schools - Further, the result of the ASSET is also prepared by the applicant - On the basis of assessment of the answers given by the students, the applicant provides results, which is accompanied by a detailed analysis, listing out students' strength and weaknesses - The applicant also provides practice tests to the students, concentrating on their weak points; also provides answers to the exam, with elaborate explanation, to enhance the self learning process and to equip students with skills to avoid misconceptions in future - In this process also, the schools have no role - It appears from the entire scheme of the ASSET that the schools have a minimal role - In the terms and conditions attached with the School Summary Form (EB / ARO) 2019 submitted by the applicant, one of the conditions is that, “Fees from the students should be charged as per the offer availed by your school” - It, therefore, appears that the schools are required to collect the fees for ASSET from the students, as determined by the applicant and remit the same to the applicant - It appears that the schools are offered 10% Discount towards Administration cost - It is, therefore, evident that the schools are not conducting the ASSET, rather the schools are facilitating the applicant to conduct ASSET for which the schools get some amount towards administration cost - Reliance placed by the GAAR on the CBIC 'Flyer' is found to be misplaced - Further, when the ASSET is found to be conducted by the applicant and not by the schools, the phrase “relating to” used in sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of Sl. No. 66 of Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) cannot be so interpreted as to enlarge the scope of the said entry to include ASSET in its scope, which otherwise is not covered - Held, therefore, that ASSET being held by the applicant cannot be said to be service provided to schools, much less services relating to conduct of examination by such schools - Therefore, exemption as provided under Entry at Sl. No. 66(b)(iv) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) as amended is not available to ASSET. Conclusion - Appeal filed by the department is allowed - Appellate authority modifies the Advance Ruling dated 02.07.2020 of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling and holds that ASSET (Assessment of Scholastic Skills through Educational Testing) conducted by M/s. Educational Initiative Private Limited is not covered within Entry at Sr. No. 66(b)(iv) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and corresponding Entry of Notification No. 12/2017-State Tax (Rate) and hence not exempted from payment of Goods and Services Tax: AAAR

- Appeal allowed: AAAR

2021-TIOL-2162-HC-MAD-CX

ITC Ltd Vs CESTAT

CX - The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent to entertain the appeal filed by petitioner without any pre-deposit - By the impugned order, the Tribunal has called upon the petitioner to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax liability in terms of amended Section 35F of CEA, 1944 - Irrespective of the fact whether the issues is covered on merits or not and covered by an order of Tribunal for the previous period, petitioner is required to pre-deposit 7.5% of disputed tax and/or penalty or both together at the stage of first appeal before second respondent and another sum of 2.5% totalling to 10% at the stage of Appeal before Tribunal - The idea of rationalizing this amount to a statutory minimum is to spur final hearing of appeal by Tribunal and Commissioner (A) - Further, Tribunal is really not concerned with merits of the case and therefore, cannot waive the amount - Therefore, it is not possible under the scheme of amendment to the Act for the petitioner to expect the Tribunal to adjudicate the same - The challenge to the impugned communication on the score has to fail - Since the petition is predicated and a different relief is sought for and is confined to only the issue relating to pre-deposit, Court is unable to grant the relief as prayed for notwithstanding few decisions of other High Courts granting relief to the assessees as the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is intended to effectuate the law and not abrogate it - The total amount of duty as confirmed by Deputy Commissioner as affirmed by Commissioner (A) impugned before Tribunal Tribunal is about Rs.10,95,70,702/- - Therefore, petitioner may obtain a certificate to the effect that the amount of Rs.2.32 Crores paid by them has not been adjusted against any of the duty liability or refunded back to the petitioner - If such certificate is obtained, such certificate shall be produced before Tribunal who shall treat the same towards 10% of mandatory deposit under Section 35F of CEA, 1944 and number the appeal and list then for final hearing: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-727-CESTAT-DEL

Association Of Synthetic Fibre Industry Vs UoI

ST - It is the case of appellant that in its refund claim, it had voluntarily reduced the utilised cenvat credit and accordingly, claimed the lesser of eligible refund amount and balance cenvat credit at the end of quarter - It was also pleaded that in de novo O-I-O, while computing the refund of unutilised cenvat credit as per the formula prescribed in Notfn 5/2006-CE(NT), the adjudicating authority had once again reduced the utilised credit, which had resulted in reducing the same amount twice - It is the case of Revenue that appellant had utilised the cenvat credit towards DTA clearance, they were entitled to refund only the cenvat credit that remained unutilised and that the appellant had not placed any documentary evidences in support of its claims - It is also alleged that the appellant had not cleared the nexus test and hence the disallowance was sustained in First appeal - It is settled that w.e.f. 01/04/2011, the Board has itself done away with the nexus test vide its Notfn 27/2012-CE(NT) and hence the disallowance for want of nexus cannot sustain - To this extent therefore, the impugned order is set aside - It is now required to examine whether the reduction of utilised credit for domestic clearances has been done twice - The only option is to remand the matter back to the file of adjudicating authority before whom the appellant shall furnish all such evidences as well as computations to establish that it has already reduced voluntarily the utilised cenvat credit and if satisfied, the adjudicating authority shall work out the refund in accordance with law - Once the refund is granted, interest under Section 11BB which is automatic shall also be granted: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-726-CESTAT-BANG

SAP Labs India Pvt Ltd Vs CCT

ST - It is the case of appellant that in its refund claim, it had voluntarily reduced the utilised cenvat credit and accordingly, claimed the lesser of eligible refund amount and balance cenvat credit at the end of quarter - It was also pleaded that in de novo O-I-O, while computing the refund of unutilised cenvat credit as per the formula prescribed in Notfn 5/2006-CE(NT), the adjudicating authority had once again reduced the utilised credit, which had resulted in reducing the same amount twice - It is the case of Revenue that appellant had utilised the cenvat credit towards DTA clearance, they were entitled to refund only the cenvat credit that remained unutilised and that the appellant had not placed any documentary evidences in support of its claims - It is also alleged that the appellant had not cleared the nexus test and hence the disallowance was sustained in First appeal - It is settled that w.e.f. 01/04/2011, the Board has itself done away with the nexus test vide its Notfn 27/2012-CE(NT) and hence the disallowance for want of nexus cannot sustain - To this extent therefore, the impugned order is set aside - It is now required to examine whether the reduction of utilised credit for domestic clearances has been done twice - The only option is to remand the matter back to the file of adjudicating authority before whom the appellant shall furnish all such evidences as well as computations to establish that it has already reduced voluntarily the utilised cenvat credit and if satisfied, the adjudicating authority shall work out the refund in accordance with law - Once the refund is granted, interest under Section 11BB which is automatic shall also be granted: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: BANGALORE CESTAT