GST - Section 10(1) of the Act, 2017 - Words ‘preceding financial year' - Court had by its order dated 11.11.2020 - 2021-TIOL-1554-HC-AP-GST declared that insofar as the financial year 2017- 2018 under GST regime is concerned, the preceding financial year would be 2016-2017 under the VAT regime for the purpose of collection of tax under the GST Act, 2017 and held that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit under the composite scheme and confirmed the findings of the authorities concerned -  Bench had negated the plea of the Petitioner holding that the collection of tax under GST Act, 2017 is not in addition to the provisions of the VAT but this being introduced as a substitute to VAT Act to deal with both goods and services, so as to maintain uniformity across the length and breadth of the country and, accordingly, confirmed the order of the 2nd Respondent - Present application seeks review of the Order dated 11.11.2020, passed in W.P. No. 10350 of 2020, wherein this Court dismissed the Writ Petition confirming the Order of the Joint Commissioner (ST), Appellate Authority under GST Act, Vijayawada, who i n turn upheld the Order of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Circle-II Division, Suryaraopeta, Vijayawada - Counsel for Revenue opposed the application mainly on the ground that, in a review, even if the order is erroneous, the Court cannot review the same unless an error is apparent on record, which is not so in the instant case; that the Bench which heard the Writ Petition dealt with the aspects being now raised and came to a conclusion and if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the same, remedy lies elsewhere but not by way of a Review.

Held:  Scope of reviewing an order is very limited -  The argument that was advanced at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition was with regard to inclusion of VAT regime for the purpose of deciding the tax to be paid under Section 10(1) of GST Act - In the Review Petition, it is now urged that Section 10 encompasses Section 73 and 74 of GST as well and in the absence of any fraud, the authorities erred in invoking Section 74 of the GST Act and imposing 100% penalty - Averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition does not anywhere refer to the plea now taken, though such plea was available at the time of filing of the Writ Petition, more so, when it involves only interpretation of the provisions of GST - Without taking such plea, namely, that 100% penalty can be imposed only when there is fraud or wilful concealment, in the Review Application such a plea is sought to be raised - It is not as if that such a plea was not available at the time filing of the Writ Petition - Even otherwise, in paragraph no.12 of the judgment, the Court held that the option exercised by the Petitioner was self-declaratory, which requires sometime for the authorities to verify and ultimately found it to be incorrect - The order under review would clearly indicate that intentional and wilful non-disclosure of crucial facts can be inferred from the self-declaration made in the web-portal - Viewed from any angle, Bench does not find any grounds to interfere with the order impugned in the review -  Review application is dismissed: High Court [para 24 to 26] 

- Application dismissed: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

GST - IGST Refund - Petitioner seeks a Mandamus to direct the respondent to sanction a sum of Rs.24,72,018/- as refund on the exports made by the petitioner during July, 2017, September, 2017 and October, 2017 - It is the specific case of the petitioner that though they had correctly declared the details in the monthly returns in Form GSTR-1 regarding the exports made on payment of tax by debiting the input tax credit, a mistake was committed by the petitioner in GSTR-3B under Rule 61(5) of the Rules, 2017; that the petitioner should have filled the details in Form GSTR-3B in column 3.1(b) but, by mistake, has given the details of the export as outward taxable supply (other than zero rated, nil rated and exempted).

Held: The export incentives have been given to encourage exports, so that there is inward remittance of foreign currency - The procedure prescribed under the aforesaid Rules is not intended to defeat such legitimate export incentives, if indeed on facts there is export on payment of integrated tax under the provisions of IGST Act, 2017 r/w CGST Act, 2017 - Procedures under Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017 cannot be applied strictly to deny legitimate export incentives that are available to an exporter - Writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to get the data directly from the petitioner and from their counterparts in the customs department and if indeed there was an export and a valid debit of tax by the petitioner on the exports made to foreign buyers, the refund shall be granted: High Court [para 10, 11, 12]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

GST - Applicant is incorporated with the aim to streamline and provide services in the marine industry by offering end to end support services to overseas shipping lines/charterers such as crew related activities, documentation support services, administrative functions and other customary activities when entering/exiting the Indian ports to its foreign clients - They will be offering support services to their customers located outside India on a principal-to-principal basis - The customers are in the business of chartering vessels for transportation of goods into India and moving goods outside India and for the provision of aforesaid services, they will render services to vessels/ ship-owners to ensure smooth operations while the vessel/ship is in India - Their main intention is to provide end-to-end solution to their overseas customers in the form of assisting/supporting while the vessel(s) arrive in India - Applicant seeks a validation that such 'support services' are classifiable under SAC Code 9985.

Held: It is seen that the applicant extends vessel related services, supporting the shipper to facilitate the entry/exit of the vessel in the Indian Ports, i.e., the services are more in the nature of 'support services for transport of vessels' and more aptly will be classifiable under SAC 9967 and is liable to CGST @ 9% as per SI. No. 11(ii) of Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate) , dated 28.06.2017 - It is seen that the services extended are to enable the vessel reach the port; leave the port and undertaking repairs/ requirements of the vessels' crew when such vessel is in the Indian territory - In other words, the proposed services are rendered in respect of the vessels which are physically available in the Indian Territory and, therefore, the proposed services are squarely covered under Section 13(3) of the IGST Act inasmuch as the place of supply of service is the location where the services are actually performed, which is the taxable territory - Condition of the place of supply being outside India is not satisfied in the case at hand and, therefore, the proposed supply is not an 'Export of Service' as per Section 2(6) of IGST Act, 2017: AAR 

- Application disposed of: AAR