2022-TIOL-943-HC-KOL-GST
Suraj Singh Vs Asstt. Commissioner
GST - Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the basis of a SCN under Section 74 of WBGST Act, 2017, on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice by not providing opportunity of personal hearing in spite of specific request made by petitioner - Impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded back to officer concerned for passing a fresh order after giving opportunity of personal hearing to petitioner within four weeks: HC
- Matter remanded: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-942-HC-MAD-GST
Peetee Coach Builders Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner has challenged the impugned show cause notice dated 15.12.2020 of the 4th respondent on the ground that the impugned notice is contrary to the circular No.52/26/2018-GST, dated 09.08.2018 - Petitioner submits that they are engaged in job work service and merely carry on the bodybuilding on the chassis and, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay tax at proportionate rate of 28% as has been proposed in the impugned show cause notice.
Held: It is true that the Circular issued by the CBIC is binding on the authorities, however, whether the circular is applicable or not is a matter, which has to be considered on merits of the facts and circumstances of the case - Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a reply before the 4th respondent to the impugned show cause notice within a period of 60 days - The 4th respondent shall pass an order independently within a period of 30 days thereafter, after considering the applicability of clarification in Circular No. 52/26/2018-GST , dated 09.08.2018 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, New Delhi to the facts of the case - It is needless to state that before passing such orders, the petitioner shall also be heard: High Court [para 7, 8]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-941-HC-KOL-GST
Kinaram Vintrade Pvt Ltd Vs State of West Bengal
GST - Petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned action of the respondent, WBGST Authority concerned blocking the Input Tax Credit (ITC) of the petitioner on 28.5.2022 available in the Electronic Ledger in question without intimating the petitioner the recorded reasons before taking such harsh action, has filed the present petition.
Held: Petition is disposed of by holding that the impugned action of the respondent WBGST Authority taking impugned coercive action of blocking of the petitioner's Input Tax Credit (ITC) without intimating to the petitioner the recorded reasons for such action is illegal and not sustainable in law and is in violation of the principles of natural justice - In future, in every case of blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC), WBGST authority shall communicate to the assessees the order of blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) along with recorded reason - Petition disposed of: High Court
- Petition disposed of: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-83-AAR-GST
Vaighai Agro Products Ltd
GST - Applicant has sought an advance ruling as to whether GST rate applicable for Job work service in relation to manufacture of Coconut Oil and Coconut De-oiled cake/ Rice Bran Oil and De-oiled Rice Bran is 5%.
Held: It is seen that the State authorities have already made investigations regarding the taxability of the products for which Advance Ruling is sought for and the questions raised by the applicant in their Advance Ruling application is one of the grounds raised in the Appeal filed by the Department against the order passed by the State Tax officer, Intelligence, O/o Deputy Commissioner (ST) Intelligence, Madurai seeking re-assessment - In view of the specific embargo of Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 , the Advance ruling application submitted by the applicant cannot be admitted by this Authority as the proceedings are pending on the issues on which the Advance Ruling is sought for: AAR
- Application rejected: AAR
2022-TIOL-82-AAR-GST
2Com5 Foundation
GST - NEEM is a Central Government initiative for enhancing the employability of the graduate/diploma holder in any technical/non-technical stream - Applicant\NEEM agent as a facilitator would extend support for mobilizing the trainees under NEEM Scheme - For that purpose, NEEM agent enters into agreements with various companies/organizations (Industry Partner) who impart actual practical training to the students - For carrying out these functions, Applicant gets fixed administrative fees per candidate from the Industry partner - Applicant seeks an Advance Ruling on applicability of GST on Reimbursed amount i.e. Stipend received from Industry Partner to be distributed to the trainees at actuals.
Held: Applicant is only acting as an intermediary in collecting the stipend from the Industry Partners and then disbursing the same to the trainees in full without making any deductions from the stipend before disbursement 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 Industry Partners against which stipend is payable - 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: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2022-TIOL-26-AAAR-GST
Dubai Chamber of Commerce And Industry
GST - Appellant Dubai Chamber of Commerce, Liaison Office, Mumbai connects businesses in India with business partners in Dubai - AAR held that the fact that the appellant is receiving consideration from its Head Office in excess of expenses incurred by it, the appellant cannot be treated as a non-profit organization; that the appellant is providing "intermediary services" for which it is liable to pay GST; that the Activities performed by 'DCCI LO' shall be treated as supply under GST Law; DCCI LO is required to obtain GST registration and is liable to pay GST - Aggrieved, appeal filed beforeAAAR.
Held:
+ Appellant can be construed as an 'agent' of their Head Office located in Dubai for the reason that they are undertaking the impugned activities at the behest of their Head Office wherein they participate and represent in various seminars, conferences, trade fairs, or exhibitions, in the capacity of a representative of their Dubai Head Office for attaining the purpose and objectives of their Principal, i.e. their Dubai Head Office.
+ Appellant is merely acting as a link between the businesses in India and Dubai by sharing the details of the potential business partners of India or Dubai, as the case may be, or by making references to, or introduction of the Dubai business entities to the Indian businesses and vice-versa, or by acting as an information centre for providing details regarding any updates taking place in the business regulations of Dubai, the potential area of growth and business trends, etc.
+ Appellants are not arranging or facilitating the actual supply of any goods or services or both, or securities between the Indian businesses and Dubai businesses, the transactions which may or may not take place between them. Therefore, Authority is of the view that merely acting as link for communication between the Indian businesses and the Dubai businesses, where they are not undertaking any arrangement or facilitation of supply of any goods or services or both, or securities between the business entities of the two countries, will not render them as an "intermediary" between the Indian businesses and the Dubai businesses.
+ It is pertinent to mention that Appellants are not receiving any fee or consideration either from the Indian Businesses or from Dubai Businesses for any of the activities undertaken by them, which adds to the aforementioned proposition that neither the Indian Businesses nor the Dubai Businesses are recipients of the Appellant's services in terms of the definition of the recipient provided under Section 2(93) of the CGST Act, 2017. However, Appellants are receiving consideration from their Dubai Head Office only, and not from any business entities of either India or Dubai, thereby, making their Dubai Head Office as the sole recipient of their service.
+ It can, therefore, be safely concluded that the Appellants are not acting as an "intermediary".
+ Appellants are charging from their Dubai Head Office, a single price or consolidated amount, i.e., reimbursement of the monthly expenses on cost-to-cost basis. Thus, on the basis of the above attributes, it can be concluded that the bunch of activities undertaken by the Appellant is nothing but the "mixed supply" as provided under Section 2(74) of the CGST Act, 2017.
+ It is conspicuous that the Appellant, inter-alia, are organizing various seminars, conferences, other interactive events for Indian Business entities and Dubai Business entities/ delegates for the better understanding of the business landscapes in India and Dubai, and for promoting and projecting Dubai as an international business hub as a part of the diplomatic mission of their Dubai Head Office.
+ Such activities of the Appellant can be grouped under the category of "support services" having the Service Accounting Code "998596" which has the description as "Events, exhibitions, conventions and trade shows organization and assistance services".
+ Further, the other activities of the Appellant such as sharing information with their Dubai Head Office about the regulation updates, policy framework, business trends, potential areas of business in India and activities like participation in the various seminars, conferences, trade fairs, exhibitions, etc. as a representative of the DCCI H.O. for promoting Dubai as an attractive international business hub, and for attracting foreign investors in Dubai and that of organizing various webinars for the Indian and Dubai businesses, can be grouped under support services having Service Accounting Code "998599" and having description as "Other support services nowhere else classified".
+ Thus, the Appellants are providing support services to their Dubai Head Office, which attracts GST at the rate of 18% (CGST @9% + SGST@9%) in terms of item (iii) of the entry at Sl.No. 23 of the Notification No. 11/2017-C.T.(Rate), having the description "Support services other than (i) and (ii) above".
+ It is concluded that the host of activities carried out by the Appellant will come under the ambit of "Supply" as provided under Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017, which, inter-alia, covers all forms of supply of goods or services or both made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business.
+ Since, the Appellants are, inter-alia, undertaking numerous activities pertaining to the organization of the various events in the nature of seminars, conference, round table discussions, etc., the place of supply in such cases will be the place where such events have been held.
+ Since the Appellants are organizing such events in India, the place of supply of such services, provided by the Appellant, will be in India, i.e., in the taxable territory. As the event-based support services, which are grouped under the SAC 998596, attract IGST at the rate of 18%, i.e., the highest rate of tax among all the elements of the bunch of services provided by the Appellant to their Dubai Head Office, the host of services provided by the Appellant will be deemed to be supply of this specific event-based support service classified under SAC 998596, and, accordingly, the Appellant will be liable to pay IGST on the entire amount received from Dubai Head Office, DCCI-H.O.
+ It is concluded that the Appellants are required to obtain GST registration, and pay IGST on the entire amount received from their Dubai Head Office for providing the said mixed supply of support services.
+ The host of activities performed by the Appellant at the behest of their Dubai Head Office will come under the ambit of "Supply" in terms of Section 7(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, and are required to take GST registration, and discharge their IGST liability, if any, on the amount received from their Dubai Head Office.
- Appeal is dismissed: AAAR
