I-T - Transaction involving interest between sister concerns & assessee cannot partake of nature of either deposit or loan though interest might have been paid thereon : ITAT

I-T - AO can be said to have exceeded his jurisdiction in enquiring into issues beyond scope of limited scrutiny, if case before him is not converted to complete scrutiny: ITAT

I-T - Payment of PF & ESI which was not made within due date prescribed under PF & ESI Act, merits disallowance u/s 36(1)(va), even if it has been filed before due date of filing return of income: ITAT

I-T - Any rectification order is required to be passed either suo moto by AO or at behest of assessee, upto four years from end of F.Y in which assessment was completed, in terms of Sec 154(7): ITAT

GST - Applicant seeks a ruling on whether Developer can charge GST for developing a plot - Applicant has no locus standi; application rejected: AAR

GST - Appellant is an agent of MoHUA as they are in business of supply of commercial built-up space on behalf of latter; is a taxable person; no exemption as activity cannot be treated as a function of Municipality: AAAR

2023-TIOL-56-AAR-GST

Yogendra Bansidhar Bhatt

GST - Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 r/w sections 95(a), (c), and 103 - Application is filed seeking a ruling primarily on whether the Developer can charge GST for developing a plot - In this case, the applicant, as a recipient of supply is seeking a ruling on leviability of GST on the supply made by the developer – Applicant, in the present proceeding, is neither a supplier of the goods/services nor is the ruling sought on Input Tax Credit in respect of the supply received by the applicant - In fact, it is the supplier who may seek an advance ruling in the matter - This being the factual matrix, AAR finds that the applicant has no locus standi in seeking a ruling – Application rejected: AAR

- Application rejected: AAR

NBCC India Ltd

GST - AAR held that the applicant is liable to pay GST on construction of GPRA (i.e. dwelling units), GPOA (i.e. office spaces), commercial space and supporting infrastructure, such as local convenience shopping centre, banquet hall/ community centre, creche, schools, hospital/dispensary, ATM/Banks, parking facilities, parks and play grounds etc. at the specified locations in place of old existing buildings, while providing services on behalf of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA); that the said services are not exempted as it does not relate to any function entrusted to a municipality under Article 243 W of the Constitution as prescribed under S. No 4 of Notification No. 12/2017 -CTR and even after amendment by Notification No 14/2018 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 26.07.2018, whereby only services provided by "governmental authority" are exempted and which does not cover the MoHUA; thatfurther, MoHUA, Government of India is not a Municipality under Articles 243P and 243Q of the Constitution; moreover, such services are being provided to business entities, exemption under S. No. 6 of the said Notification is also not admissible - Aggrieved by this order of AAR [= 2018-TIOL-207-AAR-GST ], the appellant is before the AAAR. Held : Combined reading of the definitions of both the ‘supplier' and the ‘agent' as given in section 2(5) and Section 2(105) respectively of the CGST Act, 2017 makes it clear that the appellant is an agent of MoHUA as they are in the business of supply of commercial built-up space on behalf of latter - Therefore, he is a taxable person as defined under Section 2(107) of CGST Act, 2017 and is liable to discharge the tax liability as per statutory provisions - It is clear from the Explanation (i) to Section 22 and Clause (vii) of Section 24 of the CGST Act, 2017 that the appellant is required to be registered while acting as an agent for supply of services and is a "taxable person" as per Section 2(107) of the CGST Act, 2017 - In the present case, the appellant is selling the commercial built-up space to the private entities and this activity cannot be treated as a function of Municipality, as envisaged under article 243W of the Constitution of India which provides powers, authority and responsibilities of the Municipalities -There is no force in the claim of the appellant that the functions of Municipalities given in Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution covers construction of commercial built-up space in the redevelopment projects - Moreover, the commercial built-up spaces are for the purpose of sale to individual buyers who will use them for their commercial gain and this, by no stretch of imagination, can be termed as a facility meant for use of common public - As per the statutory provisions appellants are liable to pay GST on the services supplied under GST regime i.e. w.e.f. 01.07.2017, even if a part of the consideration had been received prior to 01.07.2017 - It is clear that there is no merit in the appeal filed by M/s NBCC(India) Ltd. against the Order No. 07/DAAR/2018 dated 05.10.2018 passed by Delhi Authority for Advance Ruling - The said Order is proper and legal and there is no reason to interfere with it - Appeal dismissed: AAAR

- Appeal dismissed: AAAR

2023-TIOL-294-CESTAT-MAD

CGST & CE Vs Parryware Roca Pvt Ltd

CX - Assessee is engaged in manufacture of Ceramic articles - They have availed CENVAT Credit of service tax paid by their Head Office situated at Chennai and distributed the same in capacity of input service distributor - Three SCNs were issued to them proposing to deny credit for November 2007 to September 2008 - One of contentions raised by Department is that input service credit availed under category of business auxiliary services which is accounted in nature of reimbursement of freight charges, manager salary is not eligible for credit - The category of service is not disputed - During relevant period, definition of input services had a wide ambit as it included the words 'activity relating to business' - The view taken by Commissioner (A) that credit on the impugned services is eligible is legal and proper - The second ground raised in appeal is that Head Office of assessee has distributed entire input service credit to manufacturing unit at Ranipet - Even if services are availed at Head Office, same is available for credit since it is not necessary that input services should be consumed in factory itself - Another ground raised by Department is that the credit has been distributed to one unit only - Prior to amendment in 2012, Rule 7 did not provide any manner of distribution of input service credit - An assessee had an option to decide distribution of credit - The Commissioner (A) has directed to reverse credit which is attributable to trading activity - Though Rule 6 (3A) was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2008, Commissioner (A) has correctly noted that assessee is not eligible for credit availed on common input services used for trading activity - Prior to 01.04.2008, the law did not provide a method for calculation of reversing credit attributable to trading activity - When the formula has been put in effect as per Rule 6(3A) from 01.04.2008, adoption of said formula to resolve situation where credit has been availed on trading activity does not require interference - Commissioner (A) has given direction to assessee to furnish before Department work sheets of proportionate credit relating to trading activity within a period of one month - It is also directed to furnish Chartered Accountant Certificate to support veracity of figures - The Commissioner has taken most possible view to resolve the situation - No illegality or infirmity found in such directions - Appeal is devoid of merits: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT

Nitin Gandhi Vs CC

Cus - Issue involved is, whether penalty of Rs. 5 lakh under Section 112(a) of the Act and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 114AA of the Act have been rightly imposed - Appellant was mostly acting at the instructions of his employer Mr. Hemant Gandhi - It appears from evidence on record that appellant was not aware that fire crackers (restricted goods) are being imported under guise of E-glass of spec chopped strand mat (B-grade) - However, it appears that appellant had some inkling that Mr. Hemant Gandhi is resorting to dubious means or unethical practice, as he instructed the appellant to represent himself as Niting Chadda instead of Nitin Gandhi before CHA - Further, Hemant Gandhi had promised to give Rs. 20,000/- per container to the person who will allow import in their name by using their IEC - Thereafter, appellant contracted Mr. Roshan Singh and arrange for use of his IEC in name of Roshan Singh and Company, for which appellant promise to give Rs. 10,000/- per container to Mr. Roshan Singh and thus was making Rs. 10,000/- per container out of the amount of 20,000/- - It is evident that appellant was also receiving 10,000/- for making arrangement for import through Mr. Roshan Singh - Appellant have not resorted to use of any documents knowing it befalls or forged - Penalty under Section 114AA is set aside and the penalty under Section 112(a) is reduced to Rs. 1 lakh - Thus, impugned order stands modified: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT

LGW Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

ST - Appellants are in appeal against impugned order wherein Commissioner (A) has dismissed their appeal as time barred in terms of Section 85 (3) of Finance Act, 1994 - It is undisputed by appellants that they have filed appeals before Commissioner (A) against O-I-O beyond six months time limit prescribed under Section 85 (3) of Finance Act, 1994 as observed by Commissioner (A) - Appellant has filed appeals beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 85 (3) of Finance Act, 1994 - Accordingly, no infirmity found with impugned order and same is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeals dismissed: KOLKATA CESTAT