GST – Rectification/revision of Form GST TRAN 2 electronically or manually – There is no ground as to why, a person filing Form GST TRAN 2 should not be allowed to revise Form GST TRAN 2 after its initial filing. – TMI Updates – Highlights
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST – Started By: – Prem Choudhary – Dated:- 21-2-2019 Last Replied Date:- 23-2-2019 – Dear Expert please advice on input tax credit is eligibility , One Manufaturing Company has 5 manufaturing units in different states and all unit has maintaining separate books and return in GST . And every month each unit is raising tax invoice on other units for cost incurred / facilities provided to employee of other units by using SAC -998599 Other Support Service . However in Cost allocation invoice the component of following cost is also included :- Taxi Hire charges:- ( providing unit has paid GST under RCM) Fooding charges Hotel bills Medical support etc please advice other unit can eligible of ITC of all components under Other Support Service. –
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
fied that that law may be State subject or Central subject. This amendment can be helpful to you, if you make efforts in the light of this latest amendment. – Reply By Prem Choudhary – The Reply = Thank you for reply, Sir i want highlight that in case of Taxi hire charges GST is paid by providing units under RCM and debited to COST and Cost of Taxi hire allocate to other unit in SAC – 998599 'Other Support Services .. . The other unit has filling the return and paid IGST as Other Support Services in GSTR-1. Our query is, whether COST recipient state can eligible IGST Credit (paid by other unit) . And amendment in Sec-17(5) is not applicable because this service is not obligatory in other Law.. – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = Refe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Nitika Aggarwal – Dated:- 21-2-2019 – UTILISATION OF ITC AFTER INSERTION OF SEC 49A In midst of changes vide CGST Amendment Act, 2018 there is an insertion of new sections i.e. 49A and 49B in CGST Act, 2017, which has paved its way in new direction. Let s analyze the impact of the same on the industry:- Section 49(5) of CGST Act, 2017 provides the set off policies against the liabilities of CGST, IGST, SGST and UTGST from Input tax credit available. Prior to amendment in CGST Act, 2017 via CGST Amendment Act, 2018, Section 49(5) of the act reads as under:- Section 49(5) of CGST Act, 2017:- (5) The amount of input tax credit available in the electronic credit ledger of the registered person on account of- (a) integrated tax shall first be utilised towards payment of integrated tax and the amount remaining, if any, may be utilised towards the payment of central tax and State tax, or as the case may be, Union territory tax, in that order; (b) the cent
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
better understanding the aforesaid provision of the act:- Example 1:- When ITC of IGST is available and IGST liability is NIL ITC ITC Amount Liability 1st Adjustment 2nd Adjustment Balance to be Paid in Cash Balance ITC IGST 200 – CGST 200 350 Rs.200-200 (CGST ) ₹ 150-150 (IGST) SGST 200 250 ₹ 200-200 (SGST ) ₹ 50-50 (IGST) Example 2:- When ITC of IGST is available along with the liability of IGST ITC ITC Amount Liability 1st Adjustment 2nd Adjustment Balance to be Paid in Cash Balance ITC IGST 200 50 Rs. (50-50) (IGST) 150 CGST 200 350 ₹ 200-200 (CGST ) ₹ 150-150 (IGST) SGST 200 250 ₹ 200-200 (SGST ) 50 – However, the aforesaid position of set off against the ITC available after insertion of section 49A and 49B vide CGST Amendment Act, 2018 has been changed. Let s analyze the same. The aforementioned sections have been reproduced as under for the sake of ready reference:- Utilisation of input tax credit subject to certain conditions 49A. Notwi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
TC ITC Amount Liability 1st Adjustment 2nd Adjustment Balance to be Paid in Cash Balance ITC IGST 200 0 – CGST 200 350 ₹ 200-200 (IGST ) ₹ 150-150 (IGST) – 50 SGST 200 250 ₹ 200-200 (SGST ) 50 – Example 2:- When ITC of IGST is available along with the liability of IGST ITC ITC Amount Liability 1st Adjustment 2nd Adjustment Balance to be Paid in Cash Balance ITC IGST 200 50 (50-50) IGST CGST 200 350 Rs (150-150) (IGST ) ₹ 200-200 (CGST ) SGST 200 250 ₹ 100-100 (SGST) – 50 – Now, this shall lead to accumulation of input tax credit on account of CGST, SGST and UTGST, which was fully utilized prior to insertion of section 49A. Cash flows of trade dealers might wedged or jammed due to the aforementioned changes in the act. In case of any query/information, feel free to write back to us. (DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and AJA. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional ad
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN – Dated:- 21-2-2019 – Registration Section 22 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( Act for short) provides for registration by every supplier under the Act. Section 22(1) of the Act that every supplier shall be liable to be registered under this Act in the State or Union territory, other than special category States, from where he makes a taxable supply of goods or services or both, if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds Rs.20 lakhs. The proviso to section 22(1) provides that where such person makes taxable supplies of goods or services or both from any of the special category States, he shall be liable to be registered if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds Rs.10 lakhs. The Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act, 2018 inserted second proviso to Section 22(1). The second proviso provides that the Government may, at the request of a special category State and on the recommendations of th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
sis. Person The aggregate turnover of the following persons exceeding the threshold limit is liable to registration as supplier under GST Act- an individual; a Hindu Undivided Family; a company; a firm; a Limited Liability Partnership; an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, in India or outside India; any corporation established by or under any Central Act, State Act or Provincial Act or a Government company as defined in clause (45) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 any body corporate incorporated by or under the laws of a country outside India; a co-operative society registered under any law relating to co-operative societies; a local authority; Central Government or a State Government; society as defined under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 trust; and every artificial juridical person, not falling within any of the above. Special category States Explanation (iii) to section 22 defines the expression special category States as the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ption. The increased threshold is for the benefit of micro, small and medium enterprises. Effective date The revised threshold limit as adopted by the States and the Union Territories will take effect from 01.04.2019. Option of States The following States/UTs opted to increase the threshold limit to ₹ 40 lakhs from ₹ 20 lakhs- Chhatisgarh; Jharkhland; Delhi; Bihar; Maharashtra; Andhra Pradesh; Gujarat; Haryana; Goa; Punjab; Uttar Pradesh; Jammu & Kashmir; Assam; Himachal Pradesh; Karnataka; Madhya Pradesh; Odisha; Rajasthan; Tamil Nadu; and West Bengal. The following States/UTs opted to increase the threshold limit to ₹ 20 lakhs from ₹ 10 lakhs- Puducherry; Meghalaya; Mizoram; Tripura; Manipur; Sikkim; Nagaland; Aunachal Pradesh; Uttarakhand. Kerala and Telengana maintain status quo position. However time is up to 31.03.2019 to give their option to increase the threshold limit or maintaining status quo. Reference: Business line – Articles – Knowledge Sharing
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2019 (2) TMI 1311 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Penalty u/s 78 of FA – Tax paid on being pointed out – Appellant also willing to deposit the amount of interest u/s 75 ibid – no suppression of facts – construction services – amendment in the provisions – lot of confusion amongst the builders – Held that:- The provisions under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, are pari materia – In the matter of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills [2009 (5) TMI 15 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that unintentional and bona fide non-payment of duty does not entail penalty under Section 11AC of the Act of 1944 – Similarly, in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi v. Kisan Mouldings Limited [2010 (9) TMI 451 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], following the ratio of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that since it is a case of bona fide mistake and there was no intention to evade
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Sharma, Member (Judicial) Appellant: Shri Jitu Motwani, Advocate Respondent: Shri M.P. Damle, Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER The instant appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 26.3.2018 passed by the Principal Additional Director General, DGPM, WRU, Mumbai in Order-in-Appeal No. MUM/DGPM/ WRU/APP-53/2017-18. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the Appellants are liable for penalty u/s. 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The Appellant are engaged in the business of construction of residential complexes as well as renting of immovable property. The said construction activity has been brought under the service tax only w.e.f. 1.7.2010 by way of amendment in the existing Construction of Complex Services under section 65(105)(zzq) and (zzh) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the said amendment was challenged by the Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry before the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay by way of writ petition on the ground that the activiti
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he relevant period. Thereafter much belatedly a show cause cum demand notice dated 21.6.2016 was issued to the Appellant demanding the service tax amount, which according to the department the appellant had short paid by ₹ 1,47,072/- for the period from 1.3.2012 to 31.3.2015, alongwith interest u/s. 75 and penalty u/s.78 of the Finance Act, 1978. 3. Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that in the instant appeal they are only challenging the imposition of penalty u/s.78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He also submitted that the Appellant are willing to deposit the amount of interest u/s. 75 ibid. According to him, the appellants were not aware about the final order of the Hon ble High Court and therefore they did not deposit the service tax. But immediately after pointing out by the anti-evasion team, in the month of March, 2012 itself they deposited a sum of ₹ 19,79,927/- towards service tax despite the fact that they did not collect the said amount from their customers/buyer
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rnished inaccurate value of such taxable service, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to service tax and interest, if any, payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed twice, the amount of service tax sought to be evaded by reason of suppression or concealment of the value of taxable service or the furnishing of inaccurate value of such taxable service : Provided that if the value of taxable service (as determined by the Central Excise Officer on assessment) in respect of which value has been suppressed or concealed or inaccurate value has been furnished exceeds a sum of twenty-five thousand rupees, the Central Excise Officer shall not issue any direction for payment by way of penalty without the previous approval of the Collector of Central Excise. Xxx xxx xxx 80. Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases. – Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of section 76, section 77, section 78, or section 79, n
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
evasion team visited the office of the appellants in the month of March, 2012 and informed them about the decision of the Hon ble High Court and pointed out that they have not paid the service tax, immediately the appellants in the month of March, 2012 itself paid the service tax of ₹ 19,79,927/- upto date. Thereafter they are discharging their service tax liability regularly. After the decision of the Adjudicating Authority, the appellant has deposited the balance amount of service tax of ₹ 1,47,072/- in the month of February, 2017 which remained outstanding due to the calculation error for the period from 1.3.2012 to 31.3.2015. It is clear that the Appellants were under bonafide belief that the writ petition is still pending and that s why they did not discharge the service tax liability in the month of January, 2012 on the disposal of writ petition. In a similar matter, this Tribunal in the matter of Interjewel Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Mumbai; 2015(40) STR 759 (Tri.-Mumbai) de
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
tember, 2006, nothing prevented them from issuing protective demand notices in order to safeguard the revenue. As has been already reproduced hereinabove, we find that bulk of the show cause notices were issued by the Revenue Department in 2011 invoking the periods as indicated against the details of individual appellants. In our view, the demand of the Service Tax liability by invoking the extended period in all these cases will not survive as Revenue was well aware of the activity of the appellant of remitting the payments to the broker as commission through proper banking channels, which has been mentioned in writ petition before the Hon ble High Court. In our considered view, the Revenue Department having filed an affidavit before the Hon ble High Court in response to the writ petition filed by the appellant, invocation of extended period seems to be not in consonance of the law, and it has to be held that the Revenue authorities were aware of the fact that the appellant have remit
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
lties under the various sections of the Finance Act inasmuch, they could have entertained the bona fide belief as to that their writ petition may be decided in their favour. Invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, we find that the appellants have made out justifiable reason for setting aside the penalties imposed on them. Invoking the said provisions of Section 80 of the Act, we set aside the penalties imposed on all the appellants herein to that extent the appeals are allowed. 6. The provisions under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, are pari materia. In the matter of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills (supra) the Hon ble Supreme Court has laid down that unintentional and bona fide non-payment of duty does not entail penalty under Section 11AC of the Act of 1944. Similarly, in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi v. Kisan Mouldings Limited – (2010) 15 SCC 100 = 2010 (260) E.L.T. 167 (S.C.), fol
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2019 (2) TMI 1375 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Extension of the date for issuing show cause notice after detention/seizure of the goods – appellant submits that in this case, the appellant were not issued the Show Cause Notice and given opportunity to be heard before extending the time limit for issuance of Show Cause Noptice under provisions of Customs Act – whether after the amendment of Section 110(2) of Customs Act by Finance Act, 2018 is there any need for issuance of the Show Cause Notice before the extension is permitted by another six months on the reasonable ground by the Commissioner/adjudicating authority? – Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
–
Held that:- Clause 90 of the Bill seeks, to amend Section 110 of the Customs Act so as to give power to extend the period for issuing Show Cause Notice in case of seized goods by a further period of six months to case in cases where no order for provisional release of goods has been passed.
–
After amendment not only the Sh
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
eing disposed of by this common order. The details of the adjudication order are as under : S.No. Bill of Entry Name of Importer Date of detention/seizure 1. 6045058 & 6046267 dated 19.4.2018 M/s Swees Gems & Jewelery 26.4.2018/8.8.2018 2. 6044641 & 6045969 dated 19.4.2018 M/s Aardhya Impex 26.4.2018/8.8.2018 2. In all these cases, the appellants have imported the consignment of rough diamond (precious stone) from Hong Kong and filed Bills of Entry for their clearance through ICD, Jaipur thereof. During the scrutiny of aforesaid Bills of Entry by DRI, it was found that the imported consignment of rough diamond were heavily overvalued and accordingly, those were seized for further investigation on 8.8.2018 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as Customs Act ) under the reasonable belief that the same was liable for confiscation under the provisions of Section 111 of Customs Act as the IEC holder were not found to be actual importer and also the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
to be heard before extending the time limit for issuance of Show Cause Noptice under provisions of Customs Act. 4.1 He referred and relied upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of I.J. Rao, Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Bibhuti Bhushan Bagh – 1989 (42) ELT 338 (SC) wherein it is held that extension of six months period for issuance of Show Cause Notice cannot be done by the Commissioner without hearing the appellants. This decision also refers to the post decisional hearing by the Collector but only in such cases where service of notices evaded. This has not been the case with the appellants. Further even after the impugned order of extension the time limit for issue of Show Cause Notice was passed appellants have not been granted even post decisional hearing although the request for the same was made in the writing by them. 4.2 He also relied upon the decision of Harbans Lal Vs. Collector of Customs – 1993 (67) ELT 20, wherein it is held that by extending the tim
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
hers – 1998 (36) ELT 91 (Bom.). 4.4 The ld. Advocate also submitted that the amendment to the provisions of Section 110(2) of Customs Act by Finance Act, 2018, will not alter the situation as for grant of personal hearing before the extension of Show Cause Notice. He, accordingly, prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allow release of seized goods for the violation of the provisions of Section 110(2) of Customs Act. 5. Ld. AR, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and stated that the provisions of Section 110(2) of Customs Act, after being amended by Finance Act, 2018, wherein ON SUFFICIENT CAUSE BEING SHOWN has been replaced by FOR REASONS TO BE RECORDED IN WRITING, for extension of time period for a further period not extending six months and inform the person concerned from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of period so specified. He, therefore, argued that in the requirement for issuance of Show Cause Notice before extending the time period by anothe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d by another six months on the reasonable ground by the Commissioner/adjudicating authority. To resolve the controversy, it will be appropriate to refer the Section 110(2) before the amendment and also after the amendment vide Finance Act, 2018. The same is reproduced as under : Section 110(2) before Section 110(2) after Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized: Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the [Commissioner of Customs] for a period not exceeding six months Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no (2) notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the period for issuing Show Cause Notice in case of seized goods by a further period of six months to case in cases where no order for provisional release of goods has been passed. We find that similar issue has been decided by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 75047-75048/2018 dated 17.1.2019 in the case of S.R.K. Metal & Industries & Pink Commercial, wherein it is held as under: Our attention was also drawn towards the decision of Sardar Kulwant Singh vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, wherein it is held that an order extending period of issue of Show Cause Notice under Section 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, without giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected party is illegal. Further, the requirement of issue of Show Cause Notice issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act in such a case was held to be a must relying upon the various judgments referred as above. Relying on these judgments, we find that the seized goods ar
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
erefore, the person from whom the goods have been seized, is entitled to notice of the proposal before Adjudicating Authority for the extension of original period of the six months under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act subject to the restriction that he is not entitled to the information about the investigation which is in possession of the Investigating Agency as there can be no right in any person to be informed whose goods during the investigation material collected against him and there is no need for maintaining the investigation proceedings. This view has been affirmed in the I G Rao case referred (supra). The provisions of Section 110(2) before and after the amendment is as identical but for on sufficient cause being shown has been replaced with reasons to be recorded in writing extends such period , for a period not exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such goods were seized before expiry of the said period. Careful analysis of the provision makes it clear tha
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
. This is also cleared from statements of objects in the Finance Act as discussed above. 13. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is in violation in this provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act has held in the various decisions discussed above. We have also seen the note sheet order of the Ld. Commissioner in this case. It is seen from the order that the Commissioner while extending the time period has only gone by the letter of DRI and not put up to him by his office without examining the merits of the such extension and recording his own finding. His finding is only two worded finding which is GC issued dated 26/06/2018 Sd- M Chandra This proves that there is no independent application of mind by the Commissioner (Port) for the extension of Show Cause Notice even by accepting his assertion that the only requirement is that the Principal Commissioner/ Commissioner of Customs made for the reasons to be recorded in writing, extends such period to further
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2019 (2) TMI 1452 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – TMI – Attachment of bank accounts – input tax credit – power of Commissioner to order provisional attachment – section 83 of the CGST Act – Held that:- Under section 83 of the CGST Act, the Commissioner is empowered to order provisional attachment for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue. In the facts of the present case, while a liability of ₹ 14.62 crores had been estimated at the time when the order under section 83 of the CGST Act came to be passed, the present estimate is ₹ 16.24 crores. Thus, the petitioner, upon conclusion of any proceedings that may be taken pursuant to the proceedings under sections 67, 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, may be liable to pay such amount.
–
Admittedly, the petitioner has already reversed input tax credit to the tune of ₹ 13,28,00,000/ – In the opinion of this Court, considering the amount paid by reversing input tax credit, the interest of the Revenue is suffici
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ira. 4. Thereafter, by an order dated 07.02.2019, this Court had directed the bank accounts bearing No. 50100183156858, 07481000002985, 02950100018863, 02950200000513, 02950300028287, 02950100009696 and 02950600021500 to be released from attachment, as the attachment orders were without any authority of law. Accordingly, the attachment over all those bank accounts came to be lifted. 5. The petitioner now seeks a direction to the respondents to release the attachment over the remaining bank accounts being current accounts bearing No. 02950500013045, 02950200000772 maintained with the Bank of Baroda, Kapadwanj, accounts No. 917020026366404 and 917040037200382 maintained with the Axis Bank, Nadiad and accounts No. 50200024114832 and 50200033690085 maintained with HDFC Bank, Kapadwanj as well as accounts No. 02950600021450, 02950600021591, 02950600021899, 02950600022187, 02950300039429 and 02950300040500 maintained with the Bank of Baroda. 6. Heard Mr. A.S. Mishra, learned advocate for the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e amount was ₹ 14.62 crores. 9. The impugned orders of provisional attachment have been made in exercise of powers under section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the CGST Act"). Section 83 of the CGST Act inter alia provides that where during the pendency of any proceedings under sections 67, 73 or 74, the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue, it is necessary so to do, he may, by an order in writing attach provisionally any property, including bank account, belonging to the taxable person in such manner as may be prescribed. 10. At the time when the impugned orders under section 83 of the CGST Act came to be passed, according to the respondent, an amount of ₹ 14.62 crores would have been due and payable by the petitioner upon conclusion of the proceedings that may be initiated pursuant to the proceedings under section 67, 73 or 74 of the Act. 11. Under
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2019 (3) TMI 26 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Valuation – part of final goods cleared to sister unis – related party transaction or not – Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000 – Held that:- In the first instance, the appellants have been taking a stand that they are not governed by CAS-4 standards and are not required to produce CAS-4 certificates. On the other hand, we are also unable to fathom the method and manner of working of the differential duty liability adopted by department. If they were not satisfied with appellant’s method of cost construction they should have themselves appointed a Cost Accountant as permitted in Central Excise law to ascertain the cost of production and worked out the assessable value as 115% / 110% of such cost, as the case may be, to demand any duty liability. Instead, a very discernible shortcut, not supported by any provision of law, was adopted, namely, adding 15% to their invoice prices.
–
Ther
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
. 40374/2019 – Dated:- 21-2-2019 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri K.S. Jain, Managing Director For the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of Diesel Generating sets. Pursuant to audit, it appeared to the department that while appellants were clearing their final products, they also cleared such excisable goods manufactured by them to their sister units, where the goods were consumed in the manufacture of final products. It also appeared that in respect of such goods cleared by them, they had not determined the value in terms of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000 [hereinafter referred to as the Rules 2000) and worked out the value at 115% of cost of production for the period upto 04.08.2003 and from 05.08.2003 onwards at 110% of cost of production. CAS-4 certifi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ellants are in appeal before this forum. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant Shri K.S. Jain, their Managing Director submitted that the issue is revenue-neutral since whatever the duty was paid by the appellant would have been taken as credit by their other unit. He also submits that demand is time-barred for the reason that the issue was under correspondence between the jurisdictional Range Officer and the appellants from 08.03.2004 and they had time and again clarified that they are not required to produce the CA-4 certificate. 3. On the other hand, Ld.A.R Shri S. Govindarajan submits that for all clearances to their sister unit appellants were required to clear the goods at 115% / 110% of the cost of production as per CAS-4 standards which is certified by the Cost Accountant. In spite of repeated reminders, appellants failed to produce necessary proof that the assessable value has been adopted on the basis of such CAS-4 nor have they produced a c
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e contention of the appellants that this issue in any case is revenue-neutral. That averment is supported by a slew of case laws / decisions of higher appellate forum. This very Bench in the case of Anglo French Textiles Vs CCE Puducherry 2018 (360) ELT 1016 (Tri.-Chennai) has held as under : 5. On considering the fact that the goods are cleared to the sister unit and also the fact that the appellant is eligible for credit on the duty paid, the entire exercise is a revenue neutral situation as contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellant. This being the case, even if the appellant is directed to pay duty, other sister unit would be eligible for the credit. In the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. (supra), in a similar situation, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held that when there is revenue neutrality, the demand of duty is unsustainable. 6. We find that it is a fit case to set aside the demand on the basis of revenue neutrality which we hereby do. The impugned order is set aside an
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2019 (3) TMI 183 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – TMI – Attachment of property – Recovery of amount of Government dues payable by the petitioner – Held that:- This court is of the view that since the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit an amount of ₹ 40,00,000/- in cash as well as furnish sufficient bank guarantee to secure the interest of the revenue in the above proceedings, the request made by the learned advocate for the petitioner requires to be accepted – the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed in part. – R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1444 of 2019 Dated:- 21-2-2019 – MS HARSHA DEVANI AND DR A. P. THAKER, JJ. For The Petitioner : MR ANAND NAINAWATI (5970) For The Respondents : MR NIRZAR S DESAI (2117) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Rule. Mr. Nirzar Desai, learned Senior Standing Counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has c
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
for granting stay against further recovery by the Central Excise department. It appears that the petitioner was not served with the copy of the said order and hence, the same could not be complied with and accordingly, by an order dated 9th June, 2005, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for noncompliance of the pre-deposit order. It is the case of the petitioner that they did not receive copy of the order passed by the Tribunal and it is only when they were delivered a letter dated 14.8.2018 directing them to pay up the dues of Central Excise duty, interest and penalty arising out of the orders-inoriginal, that the petitioner learnt about the passing of the order by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for restoration on 9.10.2018, which is pending before the Tribunal. 3.1 In another matter, the Tribunal by an order dated 12.11.2014, observed that the first appellate authority directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of ₹ 13,00,000/- as against the con
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
0,00,000/- in respect of the demands raised under the orders-in-original, which are subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) respectively. 5. Mr. Anand Nainawati, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in order to secure the interest of the revenue, the petitioner would deposit ₹ 40,00,000/- (rupees forty lakh) in cash and also submit a bank guarantee of ₹ 1,10,00,000/- (rupees one crore and ten lakh). The learned advocate further submitted that the respondents may be directed not to encash the bank-guarantee for a period of two months in case adverse orders are passed by the Tribunal as well as the Commissioner (Appeals). He has also submitted that the respondents may also be directed to provide quantification of the interest amount calculated by them stating as to how they have arrived at the figure of ₹ 1,50,00,000/-. 6. Mr. Nirzar Desai, however, insisted that the entire amount be deposited in cash in place of a ba
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2019 (3) TMI 420 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Imposition of penalty u/s 78 of FA – service tax along with interest paid on being pointed out – suppression of facts or not – Held that:- The Revenue has failed to bring any evidence to show that the appellant had in fact indulged into the activities of fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement, suppression etc. with intent to evade payment of service tax. On the contrary it is admitted fact that the service tax liability is not disputed by the Appellant and the same has been discharged with applicable interest, for delayed payment, much more before the initiation of proceedings.
–
Mens rea has to be proved for invoking the extended period of limitation and also for imposing penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Mere inaction to declare what was supposed to be declare d under the law does not lead to suppression of facts. Similarly, mere non-payment of short- payment of duties or taxes cannot be construed as with an intent to ev
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Appeal is the imposition of penalty u/s. 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The appellants are engaged in activities of consignment business and trading business as a consignment agent and trader of products of M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and their group companies. The dispute is the availment of ineligible Cenvat Credit by the Appellant of ₹ 13,85,751/ – during the period from September, 2011 to February, 2012. According to the department, the discrepancy was discovered during the process of EA 2000 audit and it is an admitted fact that on being pointed out by the department, the appellant has paid the entire Service Tax amount of ₹ 13,85,751/ – with interest of ₹ 1,04,876/ – immediately. But despite that the department issued show cause notice to the appellant and the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax liability of ₹ 13,85,751/ – alongwith interest and penalty. 3. I have heard ld. counsel for the appellant and ld. Authorised Represe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
service tax. He also submitted that the question of fraud, willful mis – statement or suppression of facts does not arise since immediately upon pointing out the shortfall by the department, the appellant paid the entire amount with interest without even waiting for the show cause notice and that they have been following all norms and have been filing Service Tax Returns in form ST-3 regularly. According to him, the short payment of service tax occurred due to the inadvertence of the clerk who was filing the returns for the appellant during the disputed period and there has been no evidence of fraud or suppression. The ld. authorized representative appearing on behalf of revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. He also submitted that the discrepancy would not have come to the light but for the detailed verification of the Cenvat register by Audit and that it cannot be considered as a bonafide mistake. The error is deliberate and intentional and, therefore, he pr
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ase falls within section 73(4) and not under section 73(3) ibid. It is settled legal position that if the assessee deposited the service tax liability with interest before the issuance of show cause notice then the provisions of section 73(3) ibid gets attracted. It is true that section 73(4) keeps operation of section 73(3) out of the purview, in cases where the service tax has not been levied, paid, short-levied or short- paid by reason of fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement etc. but nevertheless, the law does not treat all cases of fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement, suppression of facts etc. and on this issue I am getting support from the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in the matter of Commissioner of C.Ex., Visakhapatnam vs. Tirupathi Fuels Pvt. Ltd.; 2017(7) GSTL 142 (AP), wherein the Hon ble High Court in a similar matter, where the assessee paid the service tax with interest before the issuance of show cause notice, set aside the penalty
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ns, willful misstatement, suppression of facts, etc., alike. 17. Keeping this in mind, if we go through the order- in-original, it could be found that the respondent- assessee paid the service tax to the extent of ₹ 40,39,751/- along with interest to the tune of ₹ 12,42,633/-. This amount was paid even before the show cause notice, dated 22.04.2010, was issued. It is only in Paragraph 15(iii) and 15(iv) that the adjudicating authority has recorded a finding that the respondent- assessee willfully suppressed the true and correct value of the freight incurred. But, the findings recorded in Paragraph 15 (iii) and 15(iv), in our considered view, are not sufficient to enable the Department to fall back upon sub-section (4) of Section 73, so as to keep the application of Section 73(3) out of the reach of the respondent-assessee. Hence, we do not think that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the CESTAT were wrong in deleting the penalty. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 5. The Reve
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ely and not by mere references. The appellant has shown their bona fide by paying the service tax alongwith interest thereon immediately admitting their unintentional lapse. Considering the facts involved, I have come to the conclusion that the authorities below have failed to brought on record any evidence to prove suppression or mala fide intention on the part of the appellant and, therefore, no case has been made out for invoking the provisions of Section 78 ibid. Consequently, in my considered view, this was a fit case for not issuing a show cause notice for recovery of tax as provided for in Section 73(3) ibid. Accordingly, while upholding the tax liability of the appellant with interest which the appellant has already paid, I find that the penalty imposed based on the proceedings initiated is not justifiable. Consequently, I waive the penalty imposed on the appellant and the appeal is allow ed on the above terms. (Pronounced in Court on 21/02/2019) – Case laws – Decisions – Jud
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST – Started By: – Madhavan iyengar – Dated:- 20-2-2019 Last Replied Date:- 23-2-2019 – A Company recovers from its employees ₹ 500 per month per employee towards bus transportationQuery: What is the GST rate to be applied on the bus amount recovery is the rate of tax to be applied on basis of bill received from bus contractor @12% or we need to charge GST@18% being general service rate – Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani – The Reply = in my view, 18%. – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = Sh.Ganeshan Kalyani Ji,. How you justify 18% rate ? For enrichment of my knowledge pl. – Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani – The Reply = Company is providing a support service to the employee and therefore it cannot charge 12%. the applicable rate for support se
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST – Started By: – Madhavan iyengar – Dated:- 20-2-2019 Last Replied Date:- 24-2-2019 – In case of sponsorship fees paid by a manufacturing company to an agency for purpose of sponsor of event related to employee national awards for the rcm paid on sponsorship can credit of rcm be availed by company as eligible credit under gst – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = In my view, this activity conforms to the condition of ITC using in the course of business or furtherance of business.Hence ITC is allowed under RCM. – Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani – The Reply = Yes, the credit is eligible. – Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN – The Reply = If the sponsorship services is for the furtherance of business ITC is eligible. – Reply By Madhavan iyengar
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST – Grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail – wrongful availment of input tax credit – the applicant does not deserve to be protected by prearrest bail – TMI Updates – Highlights
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Rate of tax – GST – Started By: – Abhimanyu Juneja – Dated:- 20-2-2019 Last Replied Date:- 20-2-2019 – Please tell about Rate of Tax and HSN Code of Wastage known as Gad which is wastage of oil when c
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST – Started By: – SURYAKANT MITHBAVKAR – Dated:- 20-2-2019 Last Replied Date:- 24-2-2019 – If we received material from unregistered dealer can we treat that Nil Rated Supply under GSTR3B. – Reply By Spudarjunan S – The Reply = Dear Sir,No. Only goods with 0% rate of tax are called Nil rated in the general parlance. Materials received from URD can't said to be a nil rated supply unless the actual rate of tax for such materials is 0%. – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = I concur with th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST – Started By: – Prashanth Jadhav – Dated:- 20-2-2019 Last Replied Date:- 23-2-2019 – Dear Sirs/Madam,We had sold IT hardware and goods in the month of March 2018.The customer has held our GST amount and paid the base price of the product.Informing that I have to pass an Input Tax credit.Can the customer withhold the tax for such a long time.Or he should pay and then approach the National Anti profiteering Authority========================================I had submitted a query a few months ago and the members of the Forum were kind enough to reply.ID: Issue ID: 114184:We had received a Purchase Order for supply of IT Hardware goods in February 2017. With the delivery Date being 05/07/2017.The Purchase Order Had Expired after this date
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nder the GST regime for the whole chain (Supplier, Distributor and Importer)Please let us know if the customer is correct in his claim that it attracts anti profiteering clause.===================================================Warm regards, – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = As per Section 9 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 it is statutory duty of taxable person to collect GST and deposit with Govt. Tax is Govt. exchequer and cannot be withheld beyond due date. 20th of the following month is the last date to deposit and make payment into Govt. account from electronic cash ledger or credit ledger. Thereafter, interest will be charged from the defaulter. Also read definition of Time of supply under Section 12 of CGST Act,2017. You are supplier so y
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST – Started By: – kodhanda Ramakrishna – Dated:- 20-2-2019 Last Replied Date:- 23-2-2019 – A Company is a manufacturing company primarily manufactures Sponge Iron, Billets and TMT Bars which are falling under chapter 72 and applicable GST rate is 18%. Each product has separate manufacturing divisions namely Sponge Iron Division, Steel Melting Shop (SMS) Division and Rolling Mill Division respectively and collectively called as Integrated Steel Plant (ISP) and final product is TMT Bars. The company has a captive power plant with a capacity of 60 MWH. The basic raw materials for power plant are Coal/Coal fines, Char and Waste Heat generated from Sponge Iron Division. 15MWH from waste heat generated from sponge iron division, 5MWH from char
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Ganeshan Kalyani – Dated:- 20-2-2019 Last Replied Date:- 6-3-2019 – What is GSTR-3B? GSTR-3B is a simplified summary return and the purpose of the return is for taxpayers to declare their summary GST liabilities for the tax period and the discharge of these liabilities in a timely manner. A normal taxpayer is required to file GSTR-1 & GSTR-3B returns for every tax period. Who needs to file the GSTR-3B? All normal taxpayers and casual taxpayers are required to file the GSTR-3B every time there is an extension of due dates of filing for GSTR-1 and GSTR-2. Where can I file GSTR-3B? GSTR-3B can be filed from the returns section of the GST Portal. In the post login mode, you can access it by going to Services > Returns > Returns Dashboard. After selecting the financial year and tax period, GSTR-3B, (if applicable), in the given period will be displayed. By when do I need to file GSTR-3B? Specified due dates for filing of GSTR-3B is 20th day of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
od. One is required to Confirm after entering data in each section in GSTR-3B. Will the GST System save the confirmed data if a taxpayer exits without completing the form? No, to ensure that the furnished data is saved in a partially complete GSTR-3B, a tax payer is required to click on Save GSTR-3B before closing the form. I applied for GST registration on 25th September 2018 after crossing the threshold limit on 23rd August 2018. The registration certificate was issued to me on 5th October 2018. I am not able to select the return period of August 2018 on my Returns dashboard. Why? You cannot select the return period prior to the effective date of registration. In such case, effective date of registration is 25th September 2018. You should declare all your liabilities and other details (w.e.f. 23rd August 2018) in the first return filed by you. I have already filed GSTR-3B, but now I want to make some modifications. Can I file an amendment? GSTR-3B once filed cannot be revised. Adjust
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ST inward supplies? You can enter details of outward exempt/ nil rated/ non GST inward supplies in table 3.1(c) and 3.1(e) Exempt, nil and Non GST outward supplies. How can I file nil GSTR-3B? You can file nil GSTR-3B by navigating to Services → Returns → Returns Dashboard. Select the Financial Year and Returns Filing Period and click the GSTR-3B tile. Select Yes for option A 'Do you want to file Nil return?'. You can file nil GSTR-3B by affixing the applicable signature. Can I reset GSTR-3B? No, you cannot reset GSTR-3B. I am facing problem while filing Form GSTR-3B, even though I have entered all details in it. After submitting the form, all values are automatically reflecting as Zero and the status of the Form is showing submitted. Why? This issue has occurred because you have tried to make payment, without saving the details added in Form GSTR-3B. You must always save the form, before proceeding towards making payment. Source: www.gst.gov.in – Reply By Hiren Patha
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST – 09/2019 – Dated:- 20-2-2019 – Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Notification No. 09/2019 – Central Tax New Delhi, the 20th February, 2019 G.S.R. 136 (E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 168 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) read with sub-rule (5) of rule 61 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereafter in this notification referred to as the said rules), the Commissioner, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby makes the following further amendments in notification number 34/2018 – Central Tax, dated the 10th August, 2018, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-sec
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2019 (2) TMI 1252 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – Refund of unutilized Credit – export of services – Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – rejection on the ground of nexus and also on the ground of non production of documents – Held that:- Appellant admits that they were not able to produce the documents but will be able to do so now. These documents, when submitted by the appellant, need to be considered by the adjudicating authority to decide the admissibility of refund on this count.
–
Denial on account of nexus – Held that:- once the credit of CENVAT is allowed, refund of the same cannot be denied. In fact when the CENVAT credit is wrongly availed, the same needs to be recovered from the appellant, by issuing of an appropriate show cause notice.
–
As far as the cases where credit was taken when the specific service clearly excluded from Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004 is concerned, it is true that the credit first be denied. However, where the appellant is not entitled to the credit in t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
are on the same issue in respect of the same appellant and hence are being disposed of together. 2. The appellant herein exports software services. They avail the CENVAT Credit on inputs and input services under CCR 2004. After so availing, they have filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of inputs and input services which were used in export of services. These refund claims were allowed partly and rejected partly by the original authority. Aggrieved, the appellants filed appeal before the first appellate authority, who, vide the impugned orders, partly allowed the appeals and partly rejected the same. Hence, these appeals. 3. Ld. Consultant for the appellant submits that refund was sought to be denied to them mainly only on four grounds (i) that there was no nexus with the output services which they have exported, (ii) the input service credit was ab initio not available to them because it was excluded from the scope of input services as per Rule 2(l
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
period because they had misplaced their records but have since been able to find all the records and will be able to justify each of their claim with proper documentation as required. 4. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the first appellate authority and explains that to the extent relief was admissible, they were given relief by the first appellate authority. Insofar as the credit which is sought to be denied on the ground that it is specifically excluded under Rule 2(l), it is his assertion that once the credit is not admissible at all, if the appellant has wrongly availed the credit this does not entitle him to the refund of credit. As far as non production of documents is concerned, he would submit that the appellant had submitted some documents before the lower authority and was granted refund to that extent, but had failed to submit some more documents. Subsequently, at the first appellate stage, appellant submitted some more documents and were granted the refund to that extent b
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
redit of ₹ 70,881/- on the ground of lack of nexus with the output service and an amount of ₹ 7,05,215/- on the ground that the documents were not submitted or that they were excluded under Rule 2(l) as input services. The first appellate authority has allowed refund of ₹ 57,786/- which was rejected on the lack of nexus and denied refund of ₹ 13,095/- on the ground that the appellants have not insisted on the input credit. Of the credit of ₹ 7,05,215/- rejected by the lower authority, he allowed a refund of ₹ 1,07,625/- and denied the credit of ₹ 5,97,590/- mainly on the grounds that the documents were not submitted or that the service in question was specifically excluded under Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004. (c) Appeal No. ST/30066/2018: In this appeal, the lower authority denied the credit of ₹ 42,386/- on the ground of nexus with the output service and an amount of ₹ 21,72,572/- on the ground that documents were not produced or that the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
4 is concerned, it is true that the credit first be denied. However, where the appellant is not entitled to the credit in the first place, it is inconceivable to refund the same. This pertains to such cases where the rule specifically excludes certain types of services from the scope of input service. As far as the cases where the invoices were not in the name of the appellant are concerned, what is relevant is whether the appellant had received those services in production of their output services, even if there is some error/omission in the name and address in the invoices. As long as the input services/inputs were actually used by the appellant in production of their output services, credit cannot be denied merely on the ground that invoice was not in their name. This requires examination of records in respect of each of such invoices to ascertain factual position. In view of above, I find this is fit case to be remitted back to the adjudicating authority to decide as follows: (a) W
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2019 (2) TMI 1450 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – TMI – Release of seized vehicle alongwith the goods – Sub-section (1) of Section 129 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act read with sub-Section (3) of Section 68 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Held that:- We dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.3 to take a decision on the representation dated 25.01.2019 (Annexure P-2), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. – Civil Writ Petition No. 4263 of 2019 Dated:- 20-2-2019 – MR
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and under Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act read with sub-Section (3) of Section 68 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Tax along with penalty was imposed upon the owner of the goods. M/s R.R. Enterprise have deposited 10% of the amount of tax demand on 31.08.2018 and 25.10.2018. Thereafter, he made a request to respondent No.3 for releasing the goods alongwith vehicle in question whereas the same was rejected by respondent No.3 on 15.10.2018 (Annexure P-3) and direction was issued to deposit the entire amount of tax and penalty for release of the same. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a representation to respondent No.3, being registered owner of the vehicle in question, f
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2019 (2) TMI 1481 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Imposition of penalty – invocation of provisions of Rule 15(2) of the Rules read with Section 11AC of the Act – Held that:- It is an admitted fact on record that based on the Books of Accounts maintained by the appellant, the Central Excise Officers observed that the discrepancies regarding availment of irregular credit. It is not the case of Revenue that the appellant had suppressed such facts regarding availment of CENVAT Credit, which were made known to the department through external sources or otherwise – Admittedly, there is no element of suppression, mis-statement, fraud etc, on the part of the appellant in defrauding the Government revenue. Therefore, the department has wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 11A(4) of the Act, for issuance of show-cause notice and confirmation of the adjudged demand – penalty set aside – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. E/88036/2018 – A/85363/2019 – Dated:- 20-2-2019 – Mr
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
1,85,104/- should not be demanded and recovered under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The matter was adjudicated by order dated 10.02.2017, wherein the original authority had confirmed the Cenvat demand of ₹ 1,85,104/- along with interest and also imposed equivalent amount of penalty on the appellant under Rule 15(2) of the Rules read with Section 11AC of the Act. On appeal against the adjudication order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 19.04.2018 has upheld confirmation of the adjudged demand. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The authorized representative appearing for the appellant submits that due to inadvertence, CENVAT Credit was wrongly taken by the appellant and on detection of such mistake by the audit wing, such irregularly availed CENVAT Credit was reversed and due intimation of such effect was fil
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
for Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. In this case, the appellant is not contesting the Cenvat demand along with interest confirmed against it. The scope of grounds of appeal is limited only for consideration of the issue whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, can the provisions of Rule 15(2) of the Rules read with Section 11AC of the Act be invoked for imposition of penalty. 6. It is an admitted fact on record that based on the Books of Accounts maintained by the appellant, the Central Excise Officers observed that the discrepancies regarding availment of irregular credit. It is not the case of Revenue that the appellant had suppressed such facts regarding availment of CENVAT Credit, which were made known to the department through external sources or otherwise. Since the adjudged demand was proposed for recovery based on records maintained by the appellant, the demand notice should have been
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2019 (2) TMI 1602 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – TMI – Imposition of IGST – appealable order under Section 107 of Punjab General Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 – Held that:- We dispose of the present petition by permitting the petitioner to file an appeal assailing the order dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure R-2) before the Appellate Authority. It is however, clarified that in case any appeal is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be decided by the Appellate Authority expeditiously after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. – CWP-29501-2018 Dated:- 20-2-2019 – MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate with Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocate Fo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
unt of ₹ 75,060/- as penalty upon the petitioner. 3. It was stated by learned counsel for the State that the goods have been released and the amount of tax and penalty has been deposited by the petitioner. It was further stated that the impugned order is appealable under Section 107 of Punjab General Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of the present petition by permitting the petitioner to file an appeal assailing the order dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure R-2) before the Appellate Authority. It is however, clarified that in case any appeal is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be decided by the Appellate Authority expeditiously after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST – States – 21/2019-GST – CT/GST-14/2017/198 – Dated:- 20-2-2019 – GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX :: ASSAM :: KAR BHAWAN NOTIFICATION No. 21/2019-GST The 20th February, 2019 No.CT/GST-14/2017/198.-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 168 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, (Assam Act No. XXVIII of 2017) read with sub-rule (5) of rule 61 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereafter in this notification refe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2019 (3) TMI 147 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA – TMI – Withdrawal of Advance ruling application – Held that:- The Application in GST ARA form No. 01 of Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Dudh Mahasangh Maryadit Mumbai vide reference ARA NO. 100 dated 14.12.2018 is disposed of as being withdrawn unconditionally. – GST-ARA-100/2018-19/B-21 Dated:- 20-2-2019 – SHRI B. TIMOTHY, ADDL. AND SHRI B. V. BORHADE, MEMBER PROCEEDINGS (Under section 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) The present application has been filed under section 97 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by the Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Dudh
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
