|
2023-TIOL-578-HC-TRIPURA-GST
SR Constructions Vs UoI
GST - The petitioner has fulfilled all conditions of work contracts as he is providing work contract services under a contract for construction of building of a Hotel wherein transfer of property in goods is involved in execution of such contract - The Hotel Polo Pvt. Ltd. is immoveable property - So, petitioner has been providing work contract services to the owner of hotel and not for it's own - Further, in providing taxable work contract services for said construction of Hotel Building, he is entitled to take Input Tax Credit on Goods and Services being utilized for providing taxable work contract services - So, petitioner do not fall within the definition of Section 17(5)(c) of CGST Act, 2017 - Demand raised and penalty imposed under Section 74(1) of CGST Act, 2017 is ultra vires, contrary to law and thus, impugned order passed by appellate authority affirming the order passed by adjudicating authority is set aside and quashed: HC
- Writ petition allowed: TRIPURA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-577-HC-MUM-GST
Kamlesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of Maharashtra
GST - Petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus ordering and directing the Respondents, their subordinates, servants and agents to forthwith permit recording of voluntary statements of the Petitioner under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 under the presence of Advocate at visible but not audible distance during interrogation at reasonable office working hours, which may be video-graphed at the Petitioner's cost - Counsel for respondent submitted that respondent no.2 has no objection to the aforesaid. Held: Petition allowed by permitting the petitioner's Advocate to remain present at the time of recording of the petitioner's statement at a visible, but not at an audible distance - Bench also permits videography of the said petitioner's statement, at the cost of the petitioner - A copy of the said videography shall be handed over to the petitioner after show cause notice is issued - Petition is accordingly allowed and as such, disposed of: High Court [para 6, 7]
- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-78-AAR-GST
White Gold Bullion Pvt Ltd
GST - Applicant has sought a ruling on the following questions - Whether the applicant who after purchasing second hand gold in the form of jewellery / parts of jewellery, from unregistered individuals sells, after melting the same, in the form of lumps / irregular shapes of gold, without changing the nature, (i.e.,) Gold remains gold, to registered / unregistered dealers, has to pay GST on the margin difference between the sale price and purchase price as stipulated in Rule 32(5) of CGST Rules, 2017 and whether the HSN Code for Old Gold Jewellery purchased and after melting the purchased old gold jewellery is 7113? Held: When the applicant melts the gold jewellery into gold lumps, the nature of goods changes inasmuch as the characteristics of the articles and the classification changes - Tariff heading 7113 pertains to jewellery and parts thereof of precious metal which includes gold jewellery and tariff heading 7108 pertains to gold in unwrought or semi-manufactured forms such as gold lumps or irregular shapes of gold - Gold jewellery is a distinct category of article having distinct characteristics and is not same as gold lumps - Since the processing done by the applicant changes the nature of goods, they do not satisfy the second condition mentioned in rule 32(5) and hence are not eligible to avail the benefits of Rule 32(5) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Held, therefore, that the applicant cannot pay GST on the margin difference between the sale price and purchase price as stipulated in Rule 32(5) of CGST Rules, 2017 - HSN Code for Old Gold Jewellery is 7113 and after melting into gold lumps or irregular shapes of gold the HSN Code is 7108: AAR
- Application disposed of : AAR
2023-TIOL-15-AAAR-GST
Eden Real Estates Pvt Ltd
GST - Construction of residential apartments - P rospective buyers are given an option to acquire car parking space along with the apartment being booked by them and accordingly the buyers who opt to avail the car parking facility are charged a certain sum towards the car parking space and the same forms part of the total consideration charged by the Appellant from the prospective buyer - Applicant had sought to know as to whether such a supply is to be treated as a composite supply of construction of residential apartment service or the same is a distinct supply u/s 7; if not treated as a composite supply, the rate of tax applicable on such charges collected; if such apartments are sold after receipt of completion certificate whether the amounts collected would also be treated as a non-GST supply; whether taxability would change if the customer had not opted for car parking space while booking the under construction apartment but later opts for the same after the completion certificate was obtained - AAR, by its order dated 22 December 2022 had inter alia held that s upply of services of right to use car parking space is a separate supply and not to be construed as a composite supply of construction of residential apartment services - supply would be taxable @ 18%: AAR; that in respect of Apartments sold after receipt of completion certificate, the amounts collected for right to use of car parking space will not be treated as non-GST supply and GST is payable on such services; that even if the customer had not opted for car parking space at the time of purchase of apartment but sought the same after the apartment had received Occupation certificate, yet tax is payable on such supply of services of right to use of car parking space - Aggrieved by this ruling, the appellant is before the appellate authority. Held: The amount charged by the appellant for right to use of car/two wheeler vehicle parking space, though not permissible as per RERA, constitutes a separate supply under the GST Act and the appellant is, therefore, liable to pay tax @ 18% on such supply - I t is evident that sale/right to use car parking service and construction services are separate services which are not dependent on sale and purchase of each other - Therefore, sale/right to use car parking is not naturally bundled with construction services and hence, it can not be treated as composite supply of construction services - WBAAR Ruling No. 19/WBAAR/2022-23 dated 22.12.2022 is confirmed - The appeal thus fails: AAAR [para 14, 17, 18]
- Appeal rejected: AAAR |
|
