Author: admin_gst

2019 (2) TMI 878 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Imposition of penalty – non-payment of service tax – tax with interest paid on being pointed out – Held that:- The Appellant although has not charged service tax from his clients but despite that paid the entire service tax amount prior to the receipt of the Show Cause Notice and also paid the entire interest before the issuance of the order-in-original, this is a fit case to invoke the provision of Section 80 ibid.
–
This is a case where the Appellant has been able to show reasonable cause for delayed payment under bonafide belief as to taxability to service – the penalties imposed on the Appellant cannot be sustained – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – APPEAL NO: ST/87915/2018 – A/85277/2019 – Dated:- 13-2-2019 – Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) Appellant: Shri Saurabh P. Rairikar, Chartered Accountant Respondent: Shri Onil Shivdikar, Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER This appeal has been filed from the impugned order d

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

03/2017 was passed confirming the demand of interest and penalty under section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal the learned Commissioner vide impugned order dated 07/11/2017 rejected the appeal filed by the Appellant. 3. Heard learned Chartered Accountant for the Appellant and Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and perused the records. 4. The Appellant herein is not disputing the Service Tax liability and interest and rather it is an admitted fact that he has paid the entire Service Tax demand before the service of Show Cause-cum-demand Notice on the Appellant and also paid the interest before the service of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. It is a specific case of the Appellant that he has not recovered Service Tax from his clients but despite that as soon as he comes to know about his service tax liability he pays the same from his own pocket. 5. According to him, initially he was not aware about the Service Tax liability and hence, neither

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ability and therefore the penalty under Section 77 and 78 ibid has been rightly imposed upon the Appellant. He also submitted that it has been laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions that mandatory penalties are imposable even if duty is paid prior to issuance of Show Cause Notice. 6. It is not disputed that the Appellant has paid the Service Tax before the service of Show Cause Notice and also paid the entire interest before the issuance of order-in-original passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the Appellant on being informed about their liability to pay service tax have been readily accepted and discharged his liability in full and the same is not disputed. The law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court which has been referred to by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order clearly mentions that penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act is mandatory subject to the caveat that non-payment of service tax was a conscious and/or deliberate act on

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

read as under: 80 (i) notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Section 76, Section 77 or Section 78, no penalty shall be imposable on the assesee for any failure referred to in the said provisions, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. In terms of the aforesaid section an assesee can plead for waiver of imposition of penalties levied under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Act if he is able to demonstrate a reasonable cause for non-payment of service tax. Reasonable Cause means an honest belief founded upon reasonable grounds. The reason cited by the Appellant for non-payment of service tax at the relevant time is ignorance of the provisions of service tax liability. He has also claimed that due to misunderstanding, he has neither collected any service tax from his clients nor paid the service tax to the Government. This fact clearly establishes the fact that the Appellant had no malafide intention not to pay service tax. It is also

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

2019 (2) TMI 920 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – TMI – Whether the Tribunal is constituted or not? – Held that:- List this matter on 28th February, 2019 – On that date in addition to standing counsel some responsible officers of the State from Lucknow as well as G.S.T. Council will appear in this matter. – Writ Tax No. – 655 of 2018 Dated:- 13-2-2019 – Bharati Sapru And Piyush Agrawal JJ. For the Petitioner : Nishant Mishra,Vipin Kumar Kushwaha For the Respondent : A.S.G.I.,Anant Kr. Tiwari,C.S.C.,Om

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

2019 (2) TMI 936 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – SSI Exemption – Reversal of CENVAT Credit – amount equivalent to the Cenvat Credit contained in respect of inputs received for use in the manufacture of final product, which are lying in stock as on 1.4.20007 – proviso of Rule 11(2) & 11(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – option exercised for exemption of Excise duty, under N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003.
–
Held that:- Reliance placed in the appellant own case for the earlier period COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NASHIK VERSUS M/S TIRUPATI PIPES & ALLIED INDS. PVT. LTD. [2009 (12) TMI 1020 – CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that while opting for SSI exemption the assessee is not required to reverse the CENVAT Credit.
–
Appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – APPEAL NO: E/87658/2018 – A/85278/2019 – Dated:- 13-2-2019 – Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) Appellant: Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate Respondent: Shri A.B. Kulgod, Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER The issue to be de

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

s letter dated 1.4.2007 informed that during the year 2006-07, the aggregate value of all excisable goods cleared by them for home consumption comes to ₹ 3,84,64,932/-. Therefore during the ensuing financial year 2007-08, they are entitled to avail full exemption from central excise duty, on their clearances upto an aggregate value of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- and have therefore opted out of Cenvat/Modvat facility w.e.f. 1.4.2007. They also informed the department about the position of Cenvat credit account as on the date of opting out of Cenvat and balance of inputs and finished goods containing the Cenvat credit lying with them as on 31.3.2007. 3. As per the department, the appellant after given the option letter to the competent authority, have cleared the excisable goods so manufactured at nil rate of duty of central excise including Ed. Cess & H.S. Ed. Cess from their factory by availing the benefit of aforesaid notification, even though they did not fulfill the condition la

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ules made thereunder, The Adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings vide Order-in- Original dated 2.2.2017 while relying upon the decision of this Tribunal vide order No. A/797/09/SMB/C-IV, dated 15.12.2009 in appellant s own case, on the identical issue, for earlier financial year. The Adjudicating authority also relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court. The Adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings vide Order-in-in the matter of CCE, Pune vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria; reported in 1999(112) ELT 353 (SC) while dropping the proceeding initiated by the revenue against the Appellant. On Appeal filed by the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Tax and Central Excise, Nasik vide impugned order dated 27.3.2018 partly allowed the Appeal filed by Revenue and reduced the demand to ₹ 8,26,078/- alongwith interest. 4. I have heard ld. Counsel for the appellant and ld. Authorised Representative for the Revenue and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant sub

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

guish them on some flimsy ground. The ld. Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of Revenue defended the findings recorded in the impugned order and after reiterating the same, prayed for dismissal of Appeal. 5. From the tenor of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), I am of the view that the course adopted by him is not justified. Judicial propriety demands that when there is an order of higher forum available, that too in assessee s own case, the same has to be followed by the lower authority unless certain distinguishing features are pointed out by such lower authority or the order of the higher authority is reversed or suspended. Nothing of this sort has happened in the present case. It is true that the department has preferred an Appeal before the Hon ble High Court against the order of this Tribunal. However, the Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to monetary limits. This fact itself is not sufficient to empower the Commissioner to take different view and not

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ms of the exemption, it is to be noted that exemption is in terms of notification issued from year to year and not in terms of Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules. There is no reference or incorporation of the condition of Rule 9(2) in those notifications. That apart, Rule 9(2) cannot be interpreted in a manner as to undermine the indefeasibility of Modvat credit. A reading of the said rule would make it clear that what is required in terms of the rule is to determine the Cenvat credit taken on the inputs in stock and debit it from the credit balance, "if any , lying in assessee s credit, and further credit balance, "if any , lapsing and not recall of Modvat credit already utilised correctly. If the Rule contemplated additional cash payment on account of balance in Cenvat credit being insufficient, the Rule would not have qualified the credit balance as balance if any . The addition of those words make it clear that Cenvat credit balance alone is contemplated and no additional p

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

id by them on those inputs when these final products were chargeable to excise duty. It has further been found that there was no one to one relationship of the inputs used and the final products manufactured and cleared from the factory. It has rightly been held that the credit of duty paid on inputs cannot be confined to a particular raw material to which the credit is related and out of which a final product is manufactured. Therefore, it has been rightly held that the assessee-respondent were not required to reverse the Cenvat credit of ₹ 88,731/- The judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Dai Ichi Karkaria case has been correctly applied. There is thus no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed. 6. This Tribunal also while deciding the appeal filed by the appellant for the earlier financial year, vide order No.A/797/09/SMB/C-IV, dated 15.12.2009, relied upon the decision of the Hon ble High Court in the matter of CNC Commercial Ltd.(supra) and held as under:-

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – ORDER No. 1/2019-State Tax – Dated:- 13-2-2019 – GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT ORDER/ No. 1/2019-State Tax Shimla-2 the 13th February, 2019 No. EXN-F(10)-33/2018.-WHEREAS, sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (10 of 2017) (hereafter in this Order referred to as the said Act) provides that- (i) a registered person engaged in the supply of services, other than supply of service referred to in clause (b) of paragraph 6 of Schedule II to the said Act, may opt for the scheme under the said sub-section; (ii) a person who opts for the said scheme may supply services (other than those referred to in clause (b) of paragraph 6 of Schedule II to the said

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

in difficulties have arisen in giving effect to the provisions of Section 10; NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 172 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and in supersession of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2017, No. 01/2017-State Tax, dated the 15th November, 2017, published in the Gazette of Himachal Pradesh, vide No. EXN-F(10)- 39/2017, dated the 18th November, 2017, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the State Government, on recommendations of the Council, hereby makes the following Order, namely: – 1. Short title.-This Order may be called the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Diffi

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – Order No. 01/2019-State Tax – Dated:- 13-2-2019 – GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL FINANCE DEPARTMENT REVENUE THE WEST BENGAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTIES) ORDER, 2019 No. 235-F.T. Dated, Howrah, the 13th day of February, 2019 Order No. 01/2019-State Tax WHEREAS, sub-section (1) of section 10 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (West Ben. Act XXVIII of 2017) (hereinafter in this Order referred to as the said Act) provides that- (i) a registered person engaged in the supply of services, other than supply of service referred to in clause (b) of paragraph 6 of Schedule II to the said Act, may opt for the scheme under the said sub-section; (ii) a person who opts for the said scheme may supply services

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

bility for the aforesaid scheme, causing hardships to a lot of small businesses and because of that, certain difficulties have arisen in giving effect to the provisions of section 10; NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 172 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and in supersession of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2017, No. 1803-F.T. [Order No. 01/2017-State Tax], dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Kolkata Gazette, Extraordinary, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Governor, on recommendations of the Council, is pleased hereby to make the following Order, namely: – 1. Short title. – This Order may be c

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – Order No. 02/2019-State Tax – Dated:- 13-2-2019 – GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL FINANCE DEPARTMENT REVENUE THE WEST BENGAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (SECOND REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTIES) ORDER, 2019 No. 236-F.T. Dated, Howrah, the 13th day of February, 2019 Order No. 02/2019-State Tax WHEREAS, sub-section (4) of section 52 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (West Ben. Act XXVIII of 2017) provides that every operator who collects the amount specified in sub-section (1) shall furnish a statement, electronically, containing the details of outward supplies of goods or services or both effected through it, including the supplies of goods or services or both returned through it, and the amount collected under sub-section (1)

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

2019 (2) TMI 1492 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Interest on delayed payment – case of appellant is that no demand has been raised in the show cause notice and there cannot be interest demand without any demand raised for the tax amount – Held that:- It is not disputed that the appellant admitted its liability of Service Tax on the amount over and above the MGM and paid the same before the issuance of show cause notice and due to which the show cause notice was issued for demand of interest only and confirmation of demand and Service Tax and appropriation of the amount paid as Service Tax was not warranted.
–
Admittedly, there is delay in payment of Service Tax and once the duty is admitted, interest cannot be detached from the duty liability. The liability to pay interest arises when the assessee is liable to pay duty on the day which is prescribed but failed to pay the same. The liability to pay interest arises from the date, the duty is payable till the date it is paid. By such late p

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Commissioner (AR) for respondent ORDER The present appeal has been filed from the impugned order dated 01/03/2018 passed by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Thane Rural, Mumbai. The core of the dispute in this appeal is liability to pay interest on delayed payment. 2. The relevant facts are that the appellant had given space in their malls to various retailors/ persons who sold their goods by using the infrastructure of the mall/outlets. For using this facility, the retailors/persons had entered into Minimum Guarantee agreement with the Appellant, according to which they have to pay a fixed percentage of sales or a Minimum Guarantee Money (MGM) to the appellant. They had to ensure that the minimum amount of income is generated so that appellant gets a sufficient share. In case the minimum income was not generated, the person using the space had to pay the differential amount as MGM. In respect of the MGM charged and received by the Appellant they had paid Service Tax under

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ated 18/05/2016 confirmed the demand of interest of ₹ 13,73,698 and also imposed penalty under Section 78 ibid. On appeal filed by the appellant, the learned Commissioner reduced the interest liability from ₹ 13,73,698/- to ₹ 10,38,028/- and dropped the penalty under section 78 ibid. 4. I have heard Learned Counsel for Appellant and Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and perused the record. Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that he is confining his arguments towards interest liability only and not challenging the Service Tax liability which has already been paid by the appellant. He further submitted that no demand has been raised in the show cause notice and there cannot be interest demand without any demand raised for the tax amount. He also submitted that the appellant always had unutilized balance lying in the CENVAT credit account and they have immediately reversed the credit on being pointed out by the Department and, therefore no interest i

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 reads as under: "(l) The service tax shall be paid to the credit of the Central Government,- i) By the 6th day of the month, if the duty is deposited electronically through internet banking; and ii) By the 5th day of the month, in any other case, Immediately following the calendar month in which the payments are received, towards the value of taxable services: Provided also that the service tax on the value of taxable services received during the month of March, or the quarter ending in March, as the case may be, shall be paid to the credit of the Central Government by the 31st day of March of the calendar year." Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 reads as under: (4) The CENVAT credit may be utilized for payment of- (a) any duty of excise on any final product; or (b) an amount equal to CENVAT credit taken on capital goods if such capital goods are removed as such; or (d) an amount under sub-rule (2) of rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 20

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

lance in their Cenvat account at all time during the period of dispute, no interest is payable. In the aforesaid matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has had that Rule 14 of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 specifically provided that where Cenvat credit has been taken or utilized or has been erroneously refunded, the same along with interest would be recovered from the manufacturer or the provider of the output service. Therefore, on the happening of the any of the three aforesaid circumstance such credit becomes recoverable with interest. 6. Admittedly, there is delay in payment of Service Tax and once the duty is admitted, interest cannot be detached from the duty liability. The liability to pay interest arises when the assessee is liable to pay duty on the day which is prescribed but failed to pay the same. The liability to pay interest arises from the date, the duty is payable till the date it is paid. By such late payment or delayed payment, the Revenue is deprived of the duty. The

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

M/s. CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION CO (P) LTD. Versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (WORKS CONTRACT) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM – 2019 (2) TMI 1524 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Vires of clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Sub Section 2 of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Act, 2017 – jurisdiction or powers to levy, assess and collect tax under the Kerala Value Added tax Act, 2003 – repeal of statutes – transition provisions – Held that:- The issue decided in the case of M/S. SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) -1, AND OTHERS [2019 (2) TMI 300

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

alue Added Tax Act 2003, and, A. Declare that clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Sub Section 2 of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Act, 2017 (Act 20 of 2017) is illegal and ultra vires Article 246A of the Constitution of India, Section 19 of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 and the Kerala State Goods and services Act, 201 7 (Act 20 of 2017) and is accordingly to be rendered void and un-enforceable. B. Declare that sub section 3 of section 174 of the Kerala State goods and Services Act 2017 (Act 20 of 2017) in so far as it provides for application of Section 4 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act 1125 (Act VII of 1125) providing for saving of the Kerala Value Added tax Act, 2003 and w

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 and/or also consequent to the introduction of the Kerala State Goods and Services Act, 2017 (Act 20 of 2017). D. Declare that the amendment as per the Kerala Finance Act, 2018 (Act V of 2018 dated 31.3.2018) vide sub clause 4 of section 10 therein to the third proviso to sub section (1) of section 25, by substituting the words and figures 31st March 2018 with the words and figures 31st March, 2019 is void, unconstitutional and without authority of law and is unenforceable. E. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or such other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, quashing Exts.P3 and P4 assessment orders. F. Issue a Writ of Prohibition, or such other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, restraining the respond

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

2019 (2) TMI 1526 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, ODISHA – TMI – Rate of IGST – Imported of specified Equipments delivered to the Eligible Institutions – liability of IGST on such imported Equipments by the OEM suppliers of imported equipment – Applicability of 51/1996-Customs, Dt. 23.07.1996 read with Notification No-43/2017-Customs, Dt: 30.06.2017 – Held that:- The applicability of Notification No. 51/96-Customs dated 23.07.1996 as amended vide Notification No-43/2017-Customs, Dt: 30.06.2017 to “OEM Suppliers” needs to be examined. In this case, the OEM supplier is a supplier located in India and the supply of equipments by such supplier to the specified Research Institutions is undeniably a case of domestic supply. The nature of such domestic supply can be intrastate or interstate depending on the location of such supplier. The equipments supplied might have been imported from other countries and such import might be with the sole intention of supply to some pre-determined Researc

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

. So, by any stretch of the imagination, the said notification read with notification no. 43/2017-customs dated 30.06.2017 cannot be extended to the OEM suppliers.
–
Whether the decision of the GST Council granting the exemption is binding on the Department in the absence of non-issuance of corresponding Notification by the Central/State Government to give effect to such decision of the Council? – Held that:- Obviously the decision of GST Council is final and binding on the State and Central Government and accordingly, as per the decision of the council, Notification No.51/96-customs dated 23.07.1996 was amended providing for exemption from levy of IGST on import of goods. GST council is a constitutional body to formulate GST policies and to make recommendation to the Union and the State. Accordingly, every notification, circular or orders issued by the Central and State Governments are duly vetted by the GST Council. However issues pertaining to rate of tax and tax concessions/ ex

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

supply of all the specified goods as mentioned above whether imported or indigenous. – 07/ODISHA-AAR/2018-19 Dated:- 13-2-2019 – SRI ANAND SATPATHY, AND SRI NILANJAN PAN, IRS, MEMBER Present for the Applicant – Pramod Kumar Panda, FCA ORDER NO. 07/ODISHA-AAR/2018-19 DATED 13.02.2019 Subject: GST Act, 2017-Advance Ruling U/s 98 on Applicability of Notification issued under the provisions of GST Act and Determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both 1.0 M/s. Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Berhampur (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant ) assigned with GSTIN 21AABA10732K1Z5 having registered address At- Transit Campus, Govt. ITI, Engineering School Road, Berhampur, Odisha-760010 have filed an application on 06.12.2018 under Section 97 of CGST Act, 2017 & OGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of CGST Rules 2017 & OGST Rules, 2017 in Form GST ARA-01 seeking an Advance Ruling on Applicability of Notification issued under the provision

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

OEM suppliers of imported equipment, and, b) Whether the decision of the GST Council granting the exemption is binding on the Department in the absence of non-issuance of corresponding Notification by the Central/State Government to give effect to such decision of the Council, and c) Whether the concessional rate of GST/IGST at the 5% vide Notification No-45- CGST(Rate), Dt:14.11.2017 and Notification No-47-lGST(Rate), Dt:14.11.2017 are applicable only for supply of specified Indigenous Equipments to the eligible Institutions fulfilling conditions as specified under Column-(4) of the said notification with effect from 15.11.2017. 3.0 The facts of the case having a bearing on the questions. 3.1 As submitted by the Applicant, it is engaged in imparting Science Education and Research training to students and has commenced BS-MS (for 5 years) Course leading to Post-Graduate Degree. It is also conducting PhD program in various stream of Sciences from August, 2016. 3.2 As per the understand

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

titutions. 3.6 The Government of India vide Notification No. 43/2017-Customs, Dt: 30.06.2017, amended the said Notification No-51/1996, Dt: 23.07.19 by substituting the words, brackets and figures, Integrated Tax leviable thereon under sub-section (7) of Section-3 for the words and figures additional duty leviable thereon under Section-3 . 3.7 It is importing Scientific Equipment s either directly from Original Equipment Manufacturer or through the Agent of the OEM suppliers in India. In case of direct import, the Applicant is availing concessional Customs Duty and exemption of IGST as per NN-43/2017-Customs, Dt:30.06.2017. However, in case the same imported Equipments are procured through the OEM Agents in India, the Applicant is denied with the IGST exemption by the OEM Suppliers due to non-issuance of any specific exemption notification by the Central Government under the IGST Act to give effect to the decision of the 14th. GST Council Meeting Dt: 18/19 May, 2017 exempting IGST for

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

the Notification No. 51/1996-Customs, Dated. 23.07.1996 read with Minutes of the 14th.GST Council meeting, ICS T should not be levied on equipments imported by the OEM Agents located in India for delivery to the specified institutions including the Applicant. 4.3 The concession granted vide NN-45-CGST-Rate, Dt: 14.11.2017 notified under Section-11(1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 and NN-47-lGST-Rate, Dt: 14.11.2017 notified under Section 6(1) of the Integrated Goods and Services Act, 2017 which came into force from 15.11.2017 is applicable to supply of all specified equipments, imported or otherwise, to the specified Institutions with effect from 15.11.2017. 5.0 Personal Hearing was fixed on 22.01.2019. Shri Pramod Kumar Panda, FCA and Shri Una Sujit, Representative of the Applicant appeared for personal hearing. They re-iterated the stand taken earlier in the written submission and filed fresh written submission during personal hearing. The jurisdictional officers from S

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ustoms, Dt: 23.07.1996 read with Notification No-43/2017-Customs, Dt: 30.06.2017 and Minutes of the 14th GST Council Decision Dt: 18th. 119th. May,2017 is applicable for specified Imported Equipments delivered to the Eligible Institutions and the Applicant is not liable to pay the IGST charged on such imported Equipments by the OEM suppliers of imported equipment, ; b) Whether the decision of the GST Council granting the exemption is binding on the Department in the absence of non-issuance of corresponding Notification by the Central/State Government to give effect to such decision of the Council, and c) Whether the concessional rate of GST/IGST at the 5% vide Notification No-45-CGST(Rate), DI 14.11.2017 and Notification No-47-lGST(Rate), Dt: 14.11.2017 are applicable only for supply of specified Indigenous Equipments to the eligible Institutions fulfilling conditions as specified under Column-(4) of the said notification with effect from 15.11.2017. 6.1.2 The jurisdictional officer of

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

he Customs Tariff Act 1975 and the point of taxation is same as the point of levy of customs duty. Section 2(10) of the IGST Act defines import of goods meaning bringing goods into India from a place outside India. Accordingly, levy of IGST on goods imported under Proviso to Section 5(1) is strictly limited to import of goods into India and such levy has to happen at the time of customs clearance only. Hence, Notification No.51/96-Customs dated 23.07.1996 is very much applicable to the Applicant in case of import of goods. 6.1.4 The applicability of Notification No. 51/96-Customs dated 23.07.1996 as amended vide Notification No-43/2017-Customs, Dt: 30.06.2017 to OEM Suppliers needs to be examined. In this case, the OEM supplier is a supplier located in India and the supply of equipments by such supplier to the specified Research Institutions is undeniably a case of domestic supply. The nature of such domestic supply can be intrastate or interstate depending on the location of such supp

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ther IGST or CGST and SGST depending on the nature of the supply transaction as per the location of the supplier. In both the cases, the liability to pay GST is on the supplier and not on the Applicant. In the absence of liability there cannot be a claim for exemption. The Applicant can avail the exemption benefit only if it goes for direct import or purchase before the goods being imported into the country cross the Customs frontier of India. In that case, the GST liability will be on the importer (in this case the Applicant) and exemption from the said liability can be claimed and availed. The Applicant cannot claim exemption from the liability of another taxable person. 6.1.5 Further, Notification No. 51/96-customs dated 23.07.1996 is restricted to importers like Public funded research institution or a university or an Indian Institute of Technology or Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore or a Regional Engineering College, other than a hospital. In the instant case, the intended b

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ion, circular or orders issued by the Central and State Governments are duly vetted by the GST Council. However issues pertaining to rate of tax and tax concessions/ exemption have to be as per the statutory notifications. 6.3.0 The last question of the Applicant is Whether the concessional rate of GST/IGST at the rate of 5% vide Notification No-45-CGST(Rate), Dt:14.11.2017 and Notification No-47-IGST(Rate), Dt:14.11.2017 are applicable only for supply of specified Indigenous Equipments to the eligible Institutions fulfilling conditions as specified under Column-(4) of the said notification with effect from 15.11.2017. In this regard, it is clarified that Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) vide the aforesaid notifications exempts in access of 5% (2.5% in case of CGST) the specified goods as listed under column (3) of the said notification to specific institutions subject to the conditions as specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) Of the said no

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

specified Equipments as listed under column (3) of the aforesaid notifications and the said notifications are not applicable to the OEM suppliers of imported equipment. 2. The scope of issuing a ruling u/s 98 of the OGST/CGST Act is limited to the extent prescribed in sub-section (2) of Section 97 of the OGST/CGST Act. A ruling on whether the decision Of the GST Council granting the exemption is binding on the Department in the absence of non-issuance of corresponding Notification by the Central/State Government is not within the competence and mandate of the Authority of Advance Ruling constituted u/s 96 of the OGST Act. 3. Concessional rate of GST/IGST at 5% vide Notification No-45-CGST (Rate), Dt. 14.11.2017 and Notification No-47-IGST (Rate), Dt 14.11.2017 is applicable to the goods mentioned at Para 6.3.0 as above whether imported or indigenous. The applicant or the jurisdictional officer, if aggrieved by the ruling given above, may appeal to the Odisha State Appellate Authority f

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

2019 (3) TMI 22 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Revision of returns for the assessment year 2016-17 in the light of Section 42(2) of the KVAT Act, 2003 – Held that:- Reliance placed in the case of EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM AND ANOTHER [2018 (8) TMI 1773 – KERALA HIGH COURT], where it was held that respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to revise the returns for the assessment year 2015-16 – petition disposed off following the decision of the above case. – WP (C). No. 38606 of 2018 Dated:- 13-2-2019 – JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, has sought the following reliefs: (i) To issue a Wri

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

2019 (3) TMI 100 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – CENVAT Credit – common inputs used in dutiable as well as exempt goods – iron ores – reversal of 6% of iron ores in terms of Rule 6(3A) of CCR 2004 – whether the iron ore fines are to be treated as excisable goods manufactured by the appellant which are exempted by virtue of exemption notification and correspondingly whether an amount needs to be reversed under Rule 6(3) of CCR 2004? – Held that:- W.E.F. 01.03.2015, the reversal under Rule 6(1) of CCR is necessary even in respect of non excisable goods which are cleared for consideration from the factory – post 01.03.2015, even for iron ore fines, reversal of CENVAT Credit is necessary.
–
As the matter is a decided matter on merits, there is no need to go into the question of limitation.
–
Appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – APPEAL No. E/30725/2018 – A/30206/2019 – Dated:- 13-2-2019 – Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. S. Vishnu Priya, Advocate for the Ap

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

pted and the CENVAT Credit is availed on inputs used in manufacture of their final product as well as iron ore fines, they are required to reverse 6% of the value of the iron ore fines in terms of Rule 6(3A) of CCR 2004. 2. After following due process, the Ld. Lower authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 46,87,791/- in respect of the iron ore fines which were cleared by the appellant during the period September 2011 to March 2015 under Rule 6(3) of CCR 2004 read with Rule 14 and Section 11A(5) of Central Excise Act, 1944. He also confirmed a demand of interest on the aforesaid amount under section 11 A and impose a penalty under Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act 1944 read with Rule 15(2) of CCR 2004. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the first appellate authority who upheld the Order-in-Original in toto and rejected the appeal. Hence this appeal. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the two tests which must be passed before a product gets charged to central excise duty

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ted and dutiable products. Since they are not manufacturing Iron Ore Fines, they cannot be considered as exempted excisable products. She relies on the case of Maa Mangla Ispat Pvt. Ltd. [2013(293)E.L.T. 380 (Tri.-Del.)], Seleno Steels Limited [2013(287)E.L.T. 93 (Tri.-Del.)], Nav Durga Fuels Pvt. [2016(340)ELT 526 (Tri.-Del.)] and Aarti Sponge & Power Limited [2017(350)E.L.T. 268 (Tri.-Del.)] and asserts that in all these cases on the identical issue, it has been held that iron ore fines which emerges during the process of manufacture of sponge iron from iron ore are not manufactured and no CENVAT credit on the common inputs and input services used needs to be reversed under Rule 6(3) of CCR 2004 with respect to the iron ore fine sold by such manufacture. She asserts that their case is identical. She also contests the demand on the question of limitation and draws the attention of the Bench to the para No. 13 of the show cause notice which shows that the only basis for issuing the

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ence is clarificatory in nature and has to be applied to cases prior to issue of this notification as well. He further argues that the entire manufacturing process of iron ore begins with breaking of iron ore into smaller parts and feeding them into blast furnace. This process of breaking iron ore lumps itself is integral part of manufacturing process and it cannot be treated as a process separate from the manufacture. Therefore, iron ore fine which emerges during the process of breaking of iron ore lumps into smaller parts are to be considered as emerging out of manufacture. Therefore, iron ore fines are indeed manufactured by the appellant, as a joint product along with pig iron. The iron ore fines have also been specifically mentioned in the Central Excise Tariff and therefore should be considered s excisable goods. But for the exemption notification, they would have been liable to pay excise duty. Because of the exemption notification, they were exempted and therefore the appellant

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

by virtue of exemption notification. It is the case of the appellant that they are not manufacturing iron ore fines at all. I find that in identical matters coordinate the Benches of Tribunal have taken a view in the case of Maa Mangla Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), Nav Durga Fuels Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Soleno Steels Ltd. (supra) and Aarti Sponge & Power Limited (supra). It was felt in all these cases that reversal of CENVAT Credit under Rule 6(3) of CCR 2004 is not necessary with respect to iron ore fine which emerges during the process of iron ore. I respectfully follow the ratios of these decisions. I have also considered the contention of Ld. DR that w.e.f. 01.03.2015, the reversal under Rule 6(1) of CCR is necessary even in respect of non excisable goods which are cleared for consideration from the factory. I find it so. I, however, do not agree with his contention that his explanation is deemed to have retrospective effect in the absence of any specific intention on the aforesaid noti

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

M/s. SANGEETHA JEWELLERY Versus THE STATE TAX OFFICER S.G.S.T. DEPARTMENT, ADIMALI, IDUKKI, THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO TAXES, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES CUSTOMS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NEW DELHI, THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 2019 (2) TMI 829 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Calling for records – applicability of time limitation under Section 25 of the KVAT Act, 2003 – vires of clauses (d) and (e) of Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 – existence of powers under erstwhile Entry 54 post 15.09.2017 – the decision in the case of M/S. SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE TAX

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction to stay any further steps pursuant to Ext.P1 pre-assessment notice. iii. To declare that clauses (d) and (e) of Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 are inconsistent and contradictory with the provisions of Section 19 of the Constitution One Hundred and First Amendment Act, 2016 and hence they are ultravires to the Constitution of India. iv. To declare that the powers under erstwhile Entry 54 do not exist post 15.09.2017 and therefore the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act cannot be enforced after 15.09.2017 so long as the old Entry 54 has not been saved. v. To declare that when the provisions of Constitution are inconsistent with the provisions of a statute

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

M/s. MALIKA VEETIL AGENCIES Versus THE STATE TAX OFFICER SGST DEPARTMENT, PUNALUR, THE NODAL OFFICER FOR STATE GST STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAXES, TAX TOWER, KILLIPPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THE NODAL OFFICER/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, KOCHI, THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAXES, TAX TOWER, KILLIPPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE) , MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI – 2019 (2) TMI 916 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Unable to upload FORM GST TRAN-1 within the stipulated time – input tax credit – migration to GST regime – Held that:- The Government of India has issued Circular No.39/13/2018-GST, dated 03.04.2018, for “setting up an IT Grievance Redressal Mechan

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

x available to its credit at the time of migration, the petitioner had to upload FORM GST TRAN-1 within the stipulated time. The petitioner asserts that though it attempted to upload the form within the time, it failed because of some system error. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions for taking credit of the available input tax. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, as well as the learned Standing Counsel, besides perusing the record. 3. The Government of India has issued Circular No.39/13/2018-GST, dated 03.04.2018, for setting up an IT Grievance Redressal Mechanism to address the grievances of taxpayers due to technical glitches on GST Portal. Paragraph 5 of the circular outlines the proc

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

e process of law 5.4 These applications shall be collated by the nodal officer and forwarded to GSTN who would on receipt of application examine the same. GSTN shall after verifying its electronic records and the applications received, identify the issue involved where a large section of tax payers are affected. GSTN shall forward the same to the IT Grievance Redressal Committee with suggested solutions for resolution of the problem. (italics supplied) 4. Not only the petitioner but also many other people faced this technical glitch and approached this Court. Both the learned counsel submit that this Court on earlier occasions permitted the petitioner to apply to the Nodal Officer concerned to have the issue resolved. 5. So, here too, the p

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST – Started By: – Kaustubh Karandikar – Dated:- 11-2-2019 Last Replied Date:- 12-2-2019 – Against supply of services for export, the amount is received by the supplier in foreign currency. There is a gain in this transaction to the supplier due to exchange rate fluctuation. Is the supplier liable to pay GST on the gain due to exchange fluctuation? If no under which provisions? – Reply By SANJAY JAIN – The Reply = As per CGST Rule 34, the exchange rate prevailing at the time of supply will be

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST – Started By: – Ravikumar Doddi – Dated:- 11-2-2019 Last Replied Date:- 12-2-2019 – Dear sir,In GST Portal while filing for GST Registration bank account details were removed, in our case department has issued show cause notice for non furnish of bank details, how can we submit where there is no facility to provide the bank details, is there any order/ notification/circular disabling the bank details from the GSTn while filing registration, if any pl share – Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJ

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST – Started By: – JIGAR SHAH – Dated:- 11-2-2019 Last Replied Date:- 11-2-2019 – If a land owner has entered into a joint development agreement with the builder and has also registered himself under GST, but the receipts are not certain, what will be taken as taxable value to charge GST and what will be time of supply?Should we consider date of joint development agreement as time of supply, if so what will be taxable value to charge GST? – Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN – The Reply = In m

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST – Started By: – Ethirajan Parthasarathy – Dated:- 11-2-2019 Last Replied Date:- 12-2-2019 – Query A dealer has some unutilized GST input tax in electronic credit ledger. From a particular date, the goods dealt by him becomes non taxable and hence writes off the balance of input tax in electronic ledger. Can this write off be disallowed u/s 43B , since relevant input taxes were incurred in earlier years or can be disallowed as Prior Period expenses . – Reply By SANJAY JAIN – The Reply = Inst

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST – Started By: – Ethirajan Parthasarathy – Dated:- 11-2-2019 Last Replied Date:- 12-2-2019 – A dealer has some unutilized GST input tax in electronic credit ledger. From a particular date, the goods dealt by him becomes non taxable and hence writes off the balance of input tax in electronic ledger. Can this write off be disallowed u/s 43B , since relevant input taxes were incurred in earlier years or can be disallowed as Prior Period expenses . – Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN – The Repl

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

F.No 334/335/2017 – GST – Started By: – RAVI ANJANEYULU – Dated:- 11-2-2019 – Can any one provide the F.No 334/335/2017 TRU dated 18.12.2017 regarding Non applicability of RCM for SEZMail Id : raviraj

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST – Started By: – Ethirajan Parthasarathy – Dated:- 11-2-2019 Last Replied Date:- 17-2-2019 – A dealer in Karnataka buys Goods from Maharastra. The transporter in Maharastra has charged freight of 10000 for moving goods from Maharastra to Karnataka. Is dealer in Karnataka liable to pay CGST and SGST or IGST on freigh charges of 10000 under RCM – Reply By Mahadev R – The Reply = If transporter is GTA, then dealer in Karnataka is liable to pay GST. IGST would be payable as the place of supply a

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

2019 (2) TMI 737 – THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – TMI – Profiteering – supply of Trousers – benefit of reduction in the rate of tax not passed on – contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 – Held that:- There was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and hence the anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted – Also, there is no increase in the per unit base price (excluding tax) of the above product and therefore the allegation of profiteering is not sustainable in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Application dismissed. – 09/2019 Dated:- 11-2-2019 – Sh. B. N. Sharma, Chairman, Sh. J. C. Chauhan, Technical Member And Ms. R. Bhagyadevi, Technical Member For the Applicant No. 1 : None For the Applicant No. 2 : Sh. Anwar Ali T.P., Additional Commissioner, DG Anti-Profiteeing ORDER 1. The present report dated 08.11.2018 has been received from the Directorat

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

as referred to the DGAP vide minutes of its meeting dated 02.07.2018 for detailed investigations under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 3. The DGAP has stated in his report dated 08.11.2018 that the "Trousers" (Denim Jeans Design 899) (HSN Code 62034200), were exempted from Central Excise Duty, vide Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.072004 and attracted only VAT @ 5%. After implementation of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, the tax on the above product was fixed @ 5%. The pre-GST & the post-GST sale invoice-wise details of the applicable tax rates and the base prices (excluding VAT or GST) of the said product supplied by the Respondent are mentioned in the table below:- S. No. Description of the Product Pre-GST Post-GST Base Price (Rs.) Tax Rate (VAT) Tax Amount (Rs.) Total Selling Price (Rs.) Base Price (Rs.) Tax Rate (VAT) Tax Amount (Rs.) Total Selling Price (Rs.) 1. ""Trousers" 847.62 5% 42.38 890 847.62 5% 42.38 890 4. The DGAP has submitted in its r

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

of the DGAP and the documents placed on record and find that the only issue that needs to be dwelled upon is as to whether there was a case of reduction in the rate of tax and whether the provisions of section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 are attracted in this case. 8. Perusal of Section 171 of the CGST Act shows that it provides as under:- (1). Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. 9. It is clear to us from the perusal of the facts of the case and the evidence on record that there was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and hence the anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted. Also, there is no increase in the per unit base price (excluding tax) of the above product and therefore the allegation of profiteering is not sustainable in terms of Section 171 of the CGST

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

2019 (2) TMI 738 – THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – TMI – Profiteering – supply of “Shirts” – benefit of reduction in the rate of tax not passed on – contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 – Held that:- The product was exempted from the Central Excise Duty, vide Notification No. 30/2004- CE dated 09.07.2004 and only attracted VAT @ 5%. After implementation of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, the tax rate of the above product was fixed @ 5%. Therefore, there was no reduction in the rate of tax and hence provisions of provisions of section 171 are not attracted in this case.
–
As far as the submission of the Applicant No. I regarding deduction of an amount of ₹ 9.5 on account of CST from the pre-GST price is concerned the same does not appear to be correct as the Kerala State Screening Committee has failed to explain under which provisions of the Kerala CST Act, 2017 it can be deducted. Moreover, there has been increase in

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

profiteering, vide the minutes of it's meeting held on 08.05.2018 had referred the present case to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, alleging profiteering by the Respondent on the supply of "Shirts" (Design 689), by not passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax at the time of implementation of the CST w.e.f. 01.07.2017. Thus it was alleged that the Respondent had indulged in profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. In this regard, the Kerala State Screening Committee has relied on two invoices issued by the Respondent, one dated 2&05.2017 (Pre-GST) and the other dated 02.09.2017 (Post-CST). 2. The above application was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering and was referred to the DGAP vide minutes of its meeting dated 0207.2018 for detailed investigations under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 3. The DGAP has stated in his report dated 05.11.2018 that the &

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

sions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have not been contravened and the allegation of profiteering by the Respondent was not established 5. The above Report was considered by the Authority in it's meeting held on 13.11.201d and it was decided that since there was no complainant/other applicant in this case, the Kerala Screening Committee be asked to appear before the Authority. Kerala Screening Committee was given three opportunities to plead the case on 28.11.2018, 08.01.2019 and 28.01.2019 but none appeared on the stipulated dates. 6. The Applicant No. I i.e. the Kerala State Screening Committee, vide its letter dated 25.01.2019 has observed that the Impact Shirts were exempted from the Central Excise Duty vide Notification No. 30/2004- CE dated 09.07.2004 but in this transaction, CST @2% was also involved and when this CST element of ₹ 9.5 was reduced from the base price of ₹ 649.52/- in the pre-GST sale, still there was increase of ₹ 9.5 in the sale of po

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

tracted in this case. 10. As far as the submission of the Applicant No. I regarding deduction of an amount of ₹ 9.5 on account of CST from the pre-GST price is concerned the same does not appear to be correct as the Kerala State Screening Committee has failed to explain under which provisions of the Kerala CST Act, 2017 it can be deducted. Moreover, there has been increase in the rate of inter-state tax as the CST was increased from 2% to 5% of IGST in respect of such sales. Therefore, the claim made by the Applicant No. I is misplaced and hence it cannot be accepted. 11. Based on the above discussions it implies that there was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01.07.2017, hence the anti- profiteering provisions contained in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted. Hence, we do not find any merit in the application filed by the above Applicants and accordingly the same is dismissed. 12.A copy of this order be sent to both the Applicants a

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

2019 (2) TMI 739 – THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – TMI – Profiteering – supply of “Socks” – benefit of reduction in the rate of tax not passed on – contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 – Held that:- There was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and hence the anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted – application dismissed. – 11/2019 Dated:- 11-2-2019 – Sh. B. N. Sharma, Chairman, Sh. J. C. Chauhan, Technical Member And Ms. R. Bhagyadevi, Technical Member For the Applicant No. 1 : None For the Applicant No. 2 : Sh. Anwar Ali T.P., Additional Commissioner, DG Anti-Profiteeing ORDER 1. The present report dated 08.11.2013 has been received from the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are t

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 3. The DGAP has stated in his report dated 08. Il .2018 that the "Socks" (Jockey Socks 7052 FS ASSTD) were exempted from Central Excise Duty, vide Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 and attracted only VAT @ 5%. After implementation of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, the tax rate of the above product was fixed @ 5%. The pre-GST & the post-GST sale invoice-wise details of the applicable tax rate and the base prices (excluding VAT or GST) of the said product supplied by the Respondent are mentioned in the table below:- Table S. No. Description of the Product Pre-GST (Invoice No. 19 dt. 01.04.2017) Post-GST (Invoice no. GB 1608 dt 09.10.2017) Base Price (Rs.) Tax Rate (VAT) Tax Amount (Rs.) Total Selling Price (Rs.) Base Price (Rs.) Tax Rate (VAT) Tax Amount (Rs.) Total Selling Price (Rs.) 1. Socks (Jockey Socks 7052 FS ASSTD) 94.29 5% 4.71 99 94.29 5% 4.72 99.01 Tax Pre-GST (%) 5% Tax Post-GST (%) 5% 4 The DGAP has submitted in his report that

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

e of profiteering. 7. We have carefully considered the Report of the DGAP and the documents placed on record and find that the only issue that needs to be dwelled upon is as to whether there was a case of reduction in the rate of tax and whether the provisions of section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 are attracted in the case. 8. Perusal of Section 171 of the CGST Act shows that it provides as under:- (1). "Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices." It is clear from the perusal of the facts of the case that there was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and hence we find that the anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted and therefore we do not find any merit in the application filed by the above Applicants and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 10. A copy of

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

2019 (2) TMI 828 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Detention of goods – for each invoices, separate e-way bill has not been generated – Held that:- It is to be noted that, it is not a case where e-way bill does not mention all the invoices. There may be practical difficulty for the Department in tracking the invoices, when multiple number of invoices mentioned in the e-way bill generated.
–
The goods and vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on executing a bond – petition disposed off. – WP(C).No. 3957 of 2019 Dated:- 11-2-2019 – Mr. Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque For the Petitioner : By Advs. Sri. Aji V. Dev, Smt.O.A. Nuriya, Sri. Alan Priyadarshi Dev And Sri.M.G. Shaji JUDGMENT Petitioner is a dealer. The goods and vehicle have been d

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – 23/GST-2 – Dated:- 11-2-2019 – HARYANA GOVERNMENT EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT Order The 11th February, 2019 No. 23/GST-2.- WHEREAS, sub-section (4) of section 52 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (19 of 2017) provides that every operator who collects the amount specified in sub-section (1) shall furnish a statement, electronically, containing the details of outward supplies of goods or services or both effected through it, including the supplies of goods or services or both returned through it, and the amount collected under sub-section (1) during a month, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, within ten days after the end of such month; AND WHEREAS, certain operators, were unable to obtain registrat

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =