2022-TIOL-1042-ITAT-JAIPUR

Sine International Enterprise Vs CIT

Whether denial of registration u/s 12AA can be validly challenged where the claimant itself withdrew its application seeking registration - NO: ITAT

- Appeal allowed: JAIPUR ITAT

2022-TIOL-1041-ITAT-PUNE

Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna Vs ACIT

Whether power of revision u/s 263 is validly exercised, where AO omits to enquire into certain exemption claimed by assessee & so renders the original assessment order to be erroneous & prejudicial to Revenue's interest - YES: ITAT

- Appeal dismissed: PUNE ITAT

2022-TIOL-1040-ITAT-CHD

Kumari Shiwangi Vs CCIT

On appeal, the Tribunal considers the order passed by the AO and finds that the AO duly applied mind while recording findings in respect of each of the issues at hand. In such circumstances, the Tribunal finds that power of revision need not be exercised since the original assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue's interest.

- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH ITAT

2022-TIOL-108-AAR-GST

ITL-KCPL JV

GST - Design and construction of roads and utility services of TP-1 area as per Schedule A and B together with Project facilities as specified in Schedule C consists of TP Road network with additional DP roads including street lighting and CD; structures; potable water supply system; recycled water supply system; storm water system; sewerage and industrial effluent collection system; ducting and space planning for electrical, ICT and Gas network; utility compound development and SCADA system - Above mentioned works are not covered under the definition of 'composite supply' u/s 2(30) of the Act, 2017 since they are not naturally bundled service and are also not supplied in combination with each other - Inasmuch as construction of road of TP-1 area and other utility services are independent work contract services - Thus all the services of which contract order has been given to the applicant is covered under the category of Work Contract Services as defined u/s 2(119) of the Act - Therefore, supply of construction of road of TP-1 area is WCS and covered under Entry no. 3(iv) of 11/2017-CTR and is liable to GST @12% from 01.07.2017 to 17.07.2022 and from 18.07.2022 @18% since the entry has been deleted by notification 3/2022-CTR - Furthermore, supply of construction of utility services involves components of goods and services and hence is covered under WCS @18%: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2022-TIOL-32-AAAR-GST

Sri Sairam Gopalkrishna Bhat

GST - Appellant is a professor of law at the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) and engages in classroom teaching and training for students, the payments for which are made by government - Appellant is also engaged inproviding training on law and legal awareness to government departments, ministry and public sector organisations - appellant is also engaged by organisations to impart training to their employees/students through lectures onthesubtleties of law in a recreational manner - Appellant took registration in 2019-2020 since the revenue from training had exceeded Rs.20 lakhs and has paid GST - Appellant later cancelled the registration w.e.f 26.09.2019 - In order to ascertain whether the services rendered by him amounts to a taxable supply, the appellant approached AAR and by its order dated 21st January 2022, the AAR ruled as follows - Income earned from conducting guest lectures amounts to taxable supply of services as per entry no. (ii) of Sl. 21 of 11/2017 -CTR; in the absence of details of the recipients of service, the same is classifiable under SAC 9983 and is taxable @18% GST - Aggrieved with the said ruling, the present appeal is filed with an application for condonation of delay of 65 days citing unavoidable personal reasons and seeking the benefit of paragraph 5(III) of the apex court ruling in Cognisance for extension of Limitation order dated 10 January 2022.

Held: The impugned Advance ruling order was received on 19.02.2022 and the time limit of 30 days for filing the appeal as per s.100(2) will be 21.03.2022 - However, the appeal has been filed on 26.05.2022 - By its order dated 10.01.2022, the Apex Court brought an end to the indefinite extension of the period of limitation and permitted the exclusion of the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 for purpose of computing limitation and made it clear that the period of limitation would start from 01.03.2022 - Therefore, the period between 20.02.2022 to 28.02.2022 would stand excluded for computing the period for filing appeal and hence the appeal ought to have been filed within 30 days by 30.03.2022and the further period of 30 days condonable by the AAAR would be 29.04.2022 - Since the appeal has been filed on 26.05.2022, beyond the condonable period (by 27 days) as allowable to the AAAR, the appeal cannot be admitted - As the appeal cannot be allowed to be presented on account of time limitation, the question of discussing the merits of the case also does not arise - The directions at para 5(III) of the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022appliesonly to those cases where the period of limitation as prescribed under any general or special laws for judicial or quasi judicial matters has expired during the period 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 and only in such cases, the apex court has directed that all persons will have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022 - This case falls under para 5(I) of the Apex Court order, hence para 5(III) does not apply: AAAR

- Appeal dismissed: AAAR