|
2022-TIOL-701-HC-MP-GST
Rajdhani Security Force Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - On account of non-filing of return, the GST number allotted to the petitioner was cancelled on 19.06.2019 - Against cancellation, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.4 on 30.01.2021 and which was dismissed as time barred vide order dated 23.03.2021, therefore, the present petition.
Held: Appeal was preferred almost after one and half years from the date of order of cancellation of registration - Section 107(1) of GST Act provides that an appeal can be preferred within a period of three (3) months from the date of the order, while Section 107 (4) of the Act stipulates that the Appellate Authority, if satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the period of limitation of 3 months, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month - Thus, the total period during which the appeal ought to have been filed was four months from the order cancelling the registration - However, despite lapse of four months, the appeal was not preferred and no sufficient reasons for not filing the appeal in time were disclosed - There was an unexplained delay of 1 ½ years in filing the appeal - Bench is of the considered view that the respondent has not committed any error while dismissing the appeal - Petition is dismissed: High Court [para 6.1, 6.2, 7]
- Petition dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-22-AAAR-GST
Tej Kumar Jain
GST - Appellant is planning to start a business related with purchase of old and used motor vehicles and then sale of these motor vehicles after refurbishment - Appellant submitted that they will be selling old and used refurbished car and will not claim any ITC, hence for the purpose of discharge of GST on its supply, it is covered by the provisions of Notification No. 8/2018-CT (Rate) inasmuch as per the said notification, tax in excess of tax payable on the margin is exempt and according to the Explanation to the notification, the value that represents the margin of supplier shall be the difference between the selling price and the purchase price and where such margin is negative, it shall be ignored - Authority for Advance Rulings, Rajasthan has answered the question in negative and held that the Explanation (ii) undoubtedly/clearly used the word "purchase price" not the "purchase cost" of goods; that it means only the amount paid by the applicant at the time of purchase of used cars can be considered as "purchase price" and there is no provision in the said notification to include the cost of refurbishment in the purchase price; that there is no reason to include cost of refurbishment in the purchase price for calculation of margin - Aggrieved with this ruling, the appellant is before the AAAR. Held: From the plain reading of the explanation (ii) to the notification No. 8/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25th January, 2018, it is noticed that the explanation (ii) clearly used the word 'purchase price' not the 'purchase cost' of the goods - It means only the amount paid at the time of purchase of used and old cars can be considered as 'purchase price' for the purpose of this notification - Appellant has placed reliance on various case laws passed by Courts related to other Acts and there is no need to discuss the same in view of the clear provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 - Appeal is, therefore, dismissed: AAAR
- Appeal dismissed: AAAR
2022-TIOL-21-AAAR-GST
Consulting Engineers Groups
GST - AAR has held that Project Management Consultancy services provided to Rajasthan Urban Drinking Water Sewerage and Infrastructure Corporation (RUDSICO) under Rajasthan Secondary Towns Development Sector Project is pure services and is in relation to function entrusted to a Municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution - However, the recipient of the service is not a Governmental Authority, therefore, they are not eligible for exemption under Notification no. 12/2017 - Central Tax (rate) - Aggrieved, appeal filed. Held: AAR Rajasthan held that out of the three conditions required to be satisfied for being entitled for the NIL tax rate under notification 12/2017 -CTR, only two conditions are satisfied by the appellant viz. services provided are pure services and the services are in relation to any function entrusted under Article 243G of 243W of the Constitution of India - Therefore, main dispute to be decided by this forum is whether the third condition viz. whether recipient of the service viz. Rajasthan Urban Drinking Water Sewerage & Infrastructure Corporation Limited (RUDSICO) qualifies as "Governmental authority" or not - To satisfy as Government authority more than 90% holding of equity should be with only "Government" not with any other entity established by the Government - As per section 2(53) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 "Government" means the Central government - In Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 "Government" means the government of Rajasthan - A statutory body, corporation or an authority as a judicial entity is separate from the State and cannot be regarded as the Central or a State Government and also does not fall in the definition of 'local authority' - Thus, regulatory bodies and other autonomous entities would not be regarded as "government" for the purposes of the GST Acts - Holding of equity control of RUDSICO by Jaipur Development Authority and Rajasthan Housing Board cannot be treated as holding of equity control by government - Accordingly, AAAR holds that RUDSICO is not a Governmental Authority, therefore, appellant is not eligible for exemption under notification no. 12/2017 -Central tax (Rate) - Appeal rejected: AAAR
- Appeal rejected: AAAR
2022-TIOL-20-AAAR-GST
Utsav Corporation
GST - Appellant is engaged in supply of solar energy-based products under various contracts and on the basis of purchase orders from customers with or without installation service - Appellant had sought an advance ruling on the question of classification and GST rate on sale of solar energy products such as Solar Water pumping system as a whole, sale of one of the products on standalone basis, and sale of the products under various combinations to be undertaken by them and supply of parts of the system along with installation - AAR held that the tax rates would be as follows Solar Panels (@5%), Solar Pump (@5%), Solar Controller (@18%), Structure (Ch 7308 @18%), Solar Water Pumping System (mixed supply and highest rate of GST will be applicable amongst the goods supplied), Solar panel + solar controller + Solar pump and such combinations is a mixed supply and highest rate of GST will be applicable), Supply of solar water pumping system as a whole comprising of goods (Solar peel + Solar controller + Solar Pump + Structure) is a works Contract service attracting tax @18% - Aggrieved with the ruling given by AAR, the appellant has filed appeal. Held: Appellant is supplying solar energy based bore well water pumping system and also carrying out the activity of provision of installation and commissioning of such systems - Hence, the appellant is supplying solar energy based devices and also providing the specified services, therefore, the condition as mentioned under respective entries of both the notifications 1/2017 -CTR and 11/2017 -CTR are satisfied in the instant case - Held, therefore, that the supply of solar energy based bore well water pumping systems as a whole alongwith installation and commissioning of such systems involves both supply of goods and services is a composite supply (and is not a Works Contract service) in terms of entry No. 234 of Notification No. 1/2017 -Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017 read with entry No. 38 of Notification No. 11/2017 -Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017 with rate of GST as prescribed under these entries - Effective rate of GST for the composite supply will work out to 8.9% [(5% x 70%) plus (18% x 30%)] as per the explanation given below entry No. 234 of Schedule I of Notification No. 1/2017 -CTR - However, with the amendments effected vide Notification No. 06/2021 -Central Tax (rate) dated 30.09.2021 and Notification No. 08/2021 -Central Tax (rate) dated. 30.09.2021, the rate of tax on 'goods' portion stands increased from 5% to 12% and accordingly, the effective rate of GST for the-period post 30.09.2021 will stand increased to that extent viz. 13.80% - Rate of GST applicable to the mixed supply of goods in different possible combinations as proposed by the appellant would be the rate which would be the highest of rates of GST applicable on standalone supply of individual items forming part of the proposed mix and, therefore, the finding of the AAR to this extent is, accordingly, upheld - Appeal disposed of: AAAR
- Appeal disposed of: AAAR
2022-TIOL-19-AAAR-GST
Shri Vinayak Buildcon
GST - Appellant is engaged in the supply of services of construction of residential houses on pure labour basis to M/s Sanwaliya Build Creation LLP who is engaged in construction of houses under the Affordable Housing Scheme under the Chief Minister's Awaas Yojana-2015 of the Government of Rajasthan which has been framed to achieve the objective of "Affordable Housing for All" under the Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana (PMAY) of the Government of India - No supply of material or goods is involved in the scope of work that has been assigned on sub-letting basis by the builder to the instant appellant - Appellant had sought a ruling on the following question - Whether the services provided by the applicant falls under the exemption entry at SI. No 10 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) , dated 28-06-2017 and eligible for exemption from payment of GST - AAR rejected the application holding that supply of goods or services undertaken by the appellant is prior to the date of filing, hence, application is not maintainable - Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. Held: Appellant did not file any application seeking advance ruling on the question of applicability of exemption in terms of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(R) to the services proposed to be provided by him to the builder, either before or at the time of commencement of the supply of service on 01.04.2019 - Thereafter also, no application seeking advance ruling was filed by them even on the date of signing the written agreement on 13.12.2019 or during the entire period of currency of the agreement which finally came to an end on 31.03.2021 while the appellant continued to provide services under the agreement - Authority also finds that while making a prayer for a stay during pendency of the appeal, it has been stated that the appellant is still paying GST despite falling under exempted services - This submission of the appellant in itself is a testimony to the fact that the appellant was supplying the services and paying tax in accordance with the legal provisions and the question of availability of exemption did not come to their mind during the entire period of the agreement and even after end of the agreement period on 31.03.2021 - In fact, the application seeking advance ruling was submitted or 06.07.2021 only - Application seeking advance ruling as defined under clause (a) of section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017 on any question as provided under sub-section (2) of section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017 could have been made in relation to the supply of services either proposed to be undertaken or being undertaken by the appellant but in any case the definition of advance ruling does not permit making of an application in relation to the supply of services already undertaken for a long period of two years in pursuance of an agreement which had expired long before the making of the application seeking advance ruling - Stretching the meaning of the phrase 'being undertaken' to such an extent where the point of filing the application seeking advance ruling would fall well beyond the entire period of the supply of services under the agreement would not only be against the spirit of advance ruling itself but also frustrate the very objective of seeking an advance ruling - Held therefore, that the order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the AAR rejecting the application seeking advance ruling by holding that the subject application for advance ruling made by the applicant is not maintainable is upheld - Appeal rejected: AAAR
- Appeal rejected: AAAR |
|
