Author: admin_gst

GST – States – G.O. Ms. No, 156 – Dated:- 12-12-2018 – NOTIFICATIONS BY GOVERNMENT COMMERCIAL TAXES AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE TAMIL. NADU GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 [G.O. Ms. No, 156, Commercial Taxes and Registration (B1) 12th December 2018, Karthigai 26, Vilambi, Thiruvalluvar Aandu-2049.] No. II(2)CTR/1036(b)/2018 WHEREAS. sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Tamil Nadu Act 19 of 2017) (hereafter in this Order referred to as the said Act) provides that every registered person, other than an Input Service Distributor. a person paying tax under Section 51 or Section 52, a casual taxable person and a non-resident taxable person. shall furnish an annual return for

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

isions of the said section; NOW. THEREFORE. in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 172 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act. 2017. the Governor of Tamil Nadu, on recommendations of the Council, hereby makes the following Order, to remove the difficulties. namely:- 1. Short title.-This Order may be called the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2018. 2. In Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, after sub-section (2). the following Explanation shall be inserted, namely:- "Explanation.- For the purposes of this Section. it is hereby declared that the annual return for the period from the 1st July, 2017 to the 31st March. 2018 shall be furnished on or before the 31st Ma

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Government Entity or not – Power Supply Infrastructure Development work – CIDCO is covered under the definition of the term ‘Government Entity’ as per Notification No. 31/2017

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Requirement of registration – applicability of the GST Act – receipt of fees from members by the Lions Club of Poona, Kothrud – the amounts collected as ‘fees’ from the member

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Shyam Agarwal – Dated:- 11-12-2018 Last Replied Date:- 14-12-2018 – Sir, Mr.A providing Intermediary services to foreign company received an Advance on 02.09.18 for (50% advance) 500$ at ₹ 71/- & paid GST on ₹ 35,500/- Now Mr.A completed a provision on 31.10.18 & also raised invoice on 31.10.18 for 1000$ (for full value) & Rate of $ on 31.10.18 were ₹ 74/-.Now as on 31.10.18,whether Mr.A is liable for GST on ₹ 37,000/-(i.e on 500$ x ₹ 74/-) or on ₹ 38,500 (i.e.on difference between 1000$xRs.74/- Less: ₹ 35,500/-value taken at the time of Advance? – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = On ₹ 37500/- tax is to be paid and not on ₹ 38,500/- as per Section 12 (2) of CGST Act. – Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani – The Reply = 12(2) The time of supply of goods shall be the earlier of the following dates, namely:- (a) the date of issue of invoice by the supplier or the last date on which he is req

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

be the time of supply of services. (Date that is 31.10.2018) Receipt of advance is subject to supply of services. Service has been supplied on 31.10.18. Here you cannot adopt hybrid procedure. So correct rate exchange for payment of tax is ₹ 74/- for whole amount and not part amount (50%). Moreover, what is crucial is the invoice has been issued within 30 days of the supply/completion of service.Rule 34(2) of CGST Rules clears the doubt to the effect that hybrid procedure cannot be adopted. Lacunae or doubt, if any, is also dispelled by way of Rule 34(2) of CGST Rules. In a nutshell, you are absolutely right. Tax is to be paid on 38500/- as sought for. – Reply By Shyam Agarwal – The Reply = Thanks Kasturi Sir, you are really always source of inspiration for all of us. Please clear one thing in Rule 34 of CGST rules which states that the rate of exchange for determination of value of taxable services shall be the applicable rate of exchange determined as per the generally accepte

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

mphasize on the time of supply i.e. date of invoice if issued with in prescribed period. Rule and Section are not contradictory. You cannot take benefit of the wordings, whichever is earlier . When I posted my first reply I did not go through Rule 34. Rules are framed to clarify Act. When Rule says the date of supply is determinant factor for taxable value, the date 31.10.18 is decisive factor. Rest you may seek opinion of other experts. – Reply By Shyam Agarwal – The Reply = Sir, thanks for clarify my doubt in interpretation of Rule 34 read with Section 13. Please consider one more situation, suppose in above case, if supplier does not issue invoice within the time limit prescribed under section 31(2) of CGST act i.e. If Invoice is issued after completion of 30 days from the date of completion of service. Then still the answer will be same i.e.for entire service rate of exchange will be the date 31.10.18 (which is date of completion of service) or for part of service the date will be

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

is to be adjusted or refunded subject to the terms and conditions executed between service provider and service receiver.Amount received on 2.9.18 does not conform to the legal definition of ' PAYMENT . Since the invoice has been issued on 31.10.18, there is no room for 'but' and 'if'. Now past cannot be undone. Hypothetical situation Had you received full payment in advance on 2.9.18, you would have to go by the date of invoice for determination of rate of exchange for correct payment GST. Sometime supply is continuous for a number of years e.g. construction service, there the issue of 'whichever earlier' in connection with the date of receipt of payment arises. Hence I stick to my second reply posted after going through Rule 34 (2) in your specific query. – Reply By Shyam Agarwal – The Reply = Kasturi Sir thanks for elaborate your detailed analysis which shows really a great experience and hold on law. I agree with your views but please clear one thing whe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of service. provision' does not always stand for 'clause' . Here provision means to provide service i.e. the date of providing service. It is relevant to mention that there is no no difference between Supply of service and Providing of Service . You are talking of completion of service and I am emphasizing on Supply . Service can be supplied/provided in piecemeal also in case of continuous supply of service e.g. Construction Service. This situation is not applicable to your case because intermediary services do not conform to the term, Continuous supply . The date of provision of service does not mean the date of completion of service. The word, Completion is neither present in Section nor in Rule. . In the absence of date of invoice, one is to resort to the date of providing/supplying service or receipt of payment, whichever is earlier. Receipt of payment is last resort. The phrase date of receipt of payment stands for the date of receipt of consideration on account of ser

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Rajagopalan Sundaram – Dated:- 11-12-2018 Last Replied Date:- 26-12-2018 – GTA provides services of transportation in India to a foreign company My questions are1) what is the rate of gst to be charged . Pls confirm my understanding it is IGST.As foreign company has no GSTiN , how do GTA proceed in this regard.2) Trucks for the above job were hired from URD transporter, hence rcm is payable by GTA which is 5 % . Can GTA take ITC for the sameThank you – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = Reply to Query No.1 : Transported goods are to be consumed in India. You are covered under Section 12(8)(b) of IGST ACT, 2017. Under Forward Charge Mechanism rate is 12% (6% + 6%).. You can take ITC if you pay 12%. Y

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – 01/2018 – Dated:- 11-12-2018 – MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) ORDER No. 1/2018-Central Tax New Delhi, the 11th December, 2018 S.O. 6109(E).-WHEREAS, sub-section (1) of section 44 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereafter in this Order referred to as the said Act) provides that every registered person, other than an Input Service Distributor, a person paying tax under section 51 or section 52, a casual taxable person and a non-resident taxable person, shall furnish an annual return for every financial year electronically in such form and manner as may be prescribed on or before the thirty-first day of December following the end of such financial year; AND WHEREAS, for the p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (12) TMI 663 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – CENVAT Credit – input services – GTA Service for outward transportation of the goods from factory to buyers’ premises – sale on FOR basis – place of removal – Held that:- This issue is no longer res integra and has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Andhra Sugars Ltd., [2018 (2) TMI 285 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] where it was held that Once it is accepted that place of removal is the factory premises of the assessee, outward transportation ‘from the said place’ would clearly amount to input service – credit allowed – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. E/30718/2018 – A/31559/2018 – Dated:- 11-12-2018 – Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) None f

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

dit was availed on outward transportation of the goods from factory to buyers premises as the terms of sale were FOR destination. A show cause notice was issued to them demanding reversal of credit on the ground that the credit is not admissible beyond the place of removal. It further alleged that the outward transportation of the goods has no connection with manufacturing activity and hence the service tax paid is not eligible for credit. The appellant contested the demand on merits. After following due process, the Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant challenged this order before the First Appellate Authority o

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

t period is prior to 01.04.2008 they were eligible for CENVAT credit. ii) The credit on outward transportation of goods is admissible even after amendment of input service w.e.f. 01.04.2008 has held by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of ABB [2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar. HC)]. iii) In the case of Gray Gold Cements Ltd., [2014 (34) STR 809] the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that credit on transportation of goods from place of removal upto buyers premises is available on the ground that service tax being a consumption of service tax as owned by the customer. iv) The notice was issued on 08.06.2010 covering the period April, 2006 to June, 2007 and is therefore hit by limitation as there is no evidence that the credit has b

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Customs – 33 /2018 – Dated:- 11-12-2018 – OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS FIRST FLOOR CUSTOMS HOUSE old high court opposite NAVRANGPURA: AHMEDABAD-380009 Phone No: (079) 2754 4630 Fax (079) 2754 2343 E. mail: cus-ahmd-guj@nic.in F.No. VIII/48-801/Cus/T/18 Date:11.12.218 Public Notice No. 33 /2018 Sub: IGST Export Refund-extension in SB005 alternate mechanism revised processing in certain cases including disbursal of compensation cess-reg. Attention to all exporters, their authorized representatives and all other stakeholders is invited to CBEC Circular No. 40/2018-Customs dated 24.10.2018 on the subject mentioned above. 2. It has been observed that even though the exporters are availing the refund of IGST paid on exports fo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

18. However, it is reiterated that the exporters shall have to take care to ensure that the details of invoice, such as invoice number, IGST.paid etc. under GSTR 1 and shipping bill match with each other since the same transaction is being reported under GST laws and Customs Act. 4. It may be noted that SBs which have not been scrolled due to the IGST paid amount being erroneously declared as 'NA' are already being handled through officer interface as per Circular 08/2018-Customs, dated 23.03.2018. However, no such provision was hitherto available in respect of those SBs which were successfully scrolled, albeit with a lesser than eligible amount. Representations have been received that refund scrolls have been generated for a much l

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ity would be available only for cases where shipping bills have been filed till 15.11.2018 Exporters need to be cautious while filing details in shipping bill as a similar facility may not be available in future for the same mistake. 6. In order to claim the differential amount, the exporter is required to submit a duly filled and signed revised refund request (RRR) annexed to this public notice to deputy commissioner / assistant commissioner of customs (Technical). A scanned copy of the signed RRR can also be mailed to ahdcustech@gmail.com. 7. It may be noted that only those SBs, which have already been scrolled, shall be available in this facility. Further, this facility can be used only once for each eligible SB to sanction the revised I

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (12) TMI 781 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – inputs – there was variation in the product description in the dealers invoice and the Material Inward Notes (MIN) maintained by the appellant – Held that:- There is no different central excise duty with regard to CI borings and waste and scrap (other). On such score, I cannot find any reason for the appellant to have any intention to avail fraudulent credit. The very variation in the description of the goods in the dealers invoice as well as the material inward notes cannot be a ground for alleging that the appellant has availed fraudulent credit. There is no allegation with respect to the difference in quantity of the goods received. It is only with regard to the variation in the description of the goods in the dealers invoice.
–
Demand cannot sustain – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. E/329/2012 – Final Order No. 43074/2018 – Dated:- 11-12-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the department was of the view that the appellant had availed fraudulent credit of inputs. Show cause notice was issued for demanding an amount of ₹ 2,78,814/- and also proposing to impose equal penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and penalties. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. consultant Shri R. Balagopal submitted that the demand has been raised by the department alleging that there is difference in the description of goods in the dealer s invoices and the MIN. The appellant had placed purchase order for CI borings and the dealer had supplied CI borings. Instead of noting in the dealer s invoice the goods as CI borings, the dealer had mentioned the goods as waste and scrap. He argued that CI borings fall within the very same Tariff heading as of waste and scrap and there is no separate Tariff heading for

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

had availed fraudulent credit. He prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. 3. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order. He relied upon the statement of Shri Selva Lakshmanan and argued that the said person had deposed that they have not supplied the goods as mentioned in the invoice. That itself would show that the appellant has availed fraudulent credit. The demand therefore confirmed is legal and proper. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue is with regard to 24 invoices out of the 47 invoices that is related to the transaction by M/s. Kovai Scrap Traders. The appellant has furnished the details of such invoices. The goods are mentioned as waste and scrap. It is also submitted by the appellant that though they had placed purchase order for CI borings, the supplier / dealer had mentioned the goods in the invoices as waste and scrap . In common parlance, CI borings would fall under waste and scrap and the Tariff heading 72044900 would apply for CI

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (12) TMI 889 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI – Extension of time limit for filing FORM GST TRAN-1 – input tax credit – Held that:- The first respondent has already forwarded a letter of the petitioner dated 25.04.2018 to the Nodal Officer and the same is still pending with the GSTN. It is further stated that the time granted was upto 31.03.2019 to file Form GST TRAN-1.
–
The Nodal Officer, in consultation with the GSTN shall take note of the grievance expressed by the petitioner/assessee and forward the same to the Grievance Committee, which in turn, shall take appropriate decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible – petition disposed off. – Writ Petition No.28209 of 2018 Dated:- 11-12-2018 – Mr. Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu Fo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the learned standing counsels appearing for the 2nd to 4th respondents. 3. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that they are not in a position to take the Input Tax Credit as their attempt to submit the declaration electronically in Form GST-TRAN- 1 on 26.12.2017 could not succeed due to technical problems on the common portal GSTN. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Assessing Officer on 25.04.2018 with enclosures to substantiate that they made genuine attempt to upload the electronic Form GST TRAN-1. The first respondent, in turn, directed the petitioner to approach the Nodal Officer on this subject. It is stated that

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (12) TMI 923 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – inputs – bought out items – certain items which are brought into the factory by the appellant and cleared along with the final product which was exported to Vietnam – Held that:- The very same issue has been analyzed in the case of KCP Ltd. [2018 (12) TMI 845 – CESTAT CHENNAI] and the Tribunal has held that the credit to be eligible – credit allowed – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal Nos. E/40790 to 40792/2018 – Final Order Nos. 43075-43077/2018 – Dated:- 11-12-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri Senthil Nathan, Consultant for the Appellant Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of machineries for sugar and cement industry. They export the impugned goods to Vietnam and other countries. The appellant availed CENVAT credit in respect of certain items which were not manufactured by them but were purchased and cleared alon

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

inal product and also whose value has been added in the assessable vale of the final product. In addition, he relied upon the decision in the case of KCP Ltd. vide Final Order No. 42890 to 42901/2018 dated 16.11.2018 and submitted that in the case of their own sister concern, the very same issue has been analyzed and decided by the Tribunal wherein the credit was held to be eligible. 3. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue is with regard to the eligibility of credit on certain items which are brought into the factory by the appellant and cleared along with the final product which was exported to Vietnam. The very same issue has been analyzed in the case of KCP Ltd. (supra) and the Tribunal has held that the credit to be eligible. The decision in the case of Thermax Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune – 2016 (337) ELT 456 (Tri. Mum.) was relied by the Tribunal to decide the eligibility of credit. The rele

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ed and bought out items, all duty paid by the respective manufacturers, which was intended to constitute a complete sugar plant in Vietnam. The show cause notice dated 29.3.1996 at para 2.0, also narrates that the disputed bought out goods were used only for receipt and export, as such . xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.2 Ld. counsel has also drawn our attention to Board s clarification No. 607/44/2001-CX dated 13.12.2001, clarifying the scope of the said Rule 16. Ld. counsel has also pointed out that the said Rules was further amended vide Central Excise Rules, 2002, which made the scope of Rule 16 even wider. xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.3 The ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in their subsequent judgment in Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. (supra), has been followed by the Tribunal in Thermax Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune – 2016 (337) E|LT 456 (Tri. Mum.) wherein it has been held that bought out items used in erection of boilers at customer s site are inputs

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2019 (1) TMI 549 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – TMI – Imposition of penalty equal to 200% of the tax – the penalty order was an appealable order, however, since no Appellate Authority had been constituted so far, therefore, the petition was being filed – Held that:- Additional Commissioner (Appeals) has been appointed to perform the functions as an Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and rule 109A of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 – the writ petitions disposed off by relegating the petitioners to take recourse to the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority, in accordance with law – petition disposed off. – CWP-29005-2017 Dated:- 11-12-2018 – MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

petitioner is aggrieved by the order of penalty dated 04.10.2017 (Annexure P-8) passed by State Tax Officer-respondent No.2. 4. The primary grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is to the penalty order dated 04.10.2017 (Annexure P-8) passed by the State Tax Officer-respondent No.2 imposing penalty equal to 200% of the tax. On 19.12.2017, it was recorded that according to the learned counsel for the petitioner though the penalty order dated 04.10.2017 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2 was an appealable order, however, since no Appellate Authority had been constituted so far, therefore, the petition was being filed. 5. Upon notice of motion having been issued, reply on behalf of the State has been filed. A copy of the notif

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

issioner (Administration), Punjab as Additional Commissioner (Appeals) to perform the function as an Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and rule 109A of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. M.P. Singh Financial Commissioner (Taxation) & Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab Department of Excise and Taxation. 7. In view of the above, we dispose of the writ petitions by relegating the petitioners to take recourse to the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority, in accordance with law. 8. However, in view of the fact that the proceedings were pending before this Court, it is clarified that in case the petitioners file appeals within 30 days from the date of recei

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited Versus The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Goods & Services Tax, Commissioner State Tax, Goods and Services Tax, Assistance Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner, Central Tax, Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Goods and Services Tax Council through Chairman, GSTN (Goods and Service Tax Network) And Union of India – 2019 (1) TMI 763 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI – Transitional credit – consideration of Form TRAN-1 and Form TRAN-2 – lack of clarity in the new transitional provisions under the GST Act – Held that:- The writ petitioner shall submit their application in accordance with the circular dated 03.04.2018 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a cop

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

de by the petitioner as per the spirit of the circular dated 03.04.2018. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that they are not in a position to get transitional credit of eligible duties in respect of inputs held in stock as well as inputs contained in semi-finished and finished goods which were in stocks as on 1st July 2017, since, there is some lack of clarity in the new transitional provisions under the GST Act. In other words, it is claimed by the petitioner that they find it difficult while giving effect to the transitional provision under the GST Act. 4. This Court has already considered the similar grievance expressed by the similarly situated persons and disposed of those writ petitions

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, only with the following directions: a) The writ petitioner shall submit their application in accordance with the circular dated 03.04.2018 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the Assessing Officer/Jurisdictional Officer/GST Officer. b) On receipt of such application, the Assessing Officer/Jurisdictional Officer/GST Officer is directed to forward the application to the Nodal Officer within a period of one week. c) The Nodal Officer in consultation with the GSTN shall take note of the grievance expressed by the petitioner/Assessee and forward the same to the grievance Committee, which in turn would

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2019 (1) TMI 903 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – input services – services used in the employee hostel and other repairs and maintenance in the plant – Held that:- Major part of the credit relates to repair and maintenance which is definitely admissible as cenvat credit and is not excludible under the exclusion clause Rule 2(l) for the purpose of civil construction – credit allowed.
–
Validity of SCN – invocation of extended period of limitation – Held that:- From the allegations in the show cause notice it is evident that the appellant had maintained proper records, filed timely returns no case of concealment or contumacious conduct is made out – the extended period of limitation is not invocable – penalty also set aside – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. E/53187/2018-SMC – A/53503/2018-SM[BR] – Dated:- 11-12-2018 – Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Prabhat Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant Shri P.R. Gupta & S. Nunthutk, AR for

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

hs earlier only. 3. Show Cause Notice dated 4th May, 2017 was issued invoking the extended period of limitation alleging as follows:- 5. Had the fact of availment of inadmissible cenvat credit not been detected by the Audit Team of Central Excise audit circle Satna, the irregularity would have gone unnoticed. The Noticee had not submitted any documents or information, such as copies of relevant Invoices/Abstract/Statement of Cenvat Credit taken by them etc. to the department for taking such credit. They had also not mentioned the facts of taking such wrong Cenvat Credit in their retuns/reports filed by them. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Noticee are registered with Central Excise Department since long and they are aware of the Rules/Sections/ Notifications/ Laws & Procedures of the Department. In spite of that they had taken inadmissible Cenvat Credit, which was not admissible to them. The Noticee are working under Self Removal Procedure and they are clearing their

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the inadmissible input services appears liable to be recovered along with interest under rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A and 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, the notice, by taking the said inadmissible cenvat credit and utilising the same for payment of excise duty have contravened the provisions of rule 2,3,4 & 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and rendered themselves for punishment under rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. The show cause notice was adjudicated on contest and the proposed demand confirmed and adjusted the amount of pre-deposit already made further interest was demanded and also penalty was imposed of equal amount under Rule 15 (2) of CCR, 2004. 5. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who have been pleased to hold that there is no applicability of interest as the amount have not been utilized following the ruling of Hon ble

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – ORDER No. 1/2018 – Dated:- 11-12-2018 – MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) ORDER No. 1/2018-Central Tax New Delhi, the 11th December, 2018 S.O. 6109(E).-WHEREAS, sub-section (1) of section 44 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereafter in this Order referred to as the said Act) provides that every registered person, other than an Input Service Distributor, a person paying tax under section 51 or section 52, a casual taxable person and a non-resident taxable person, shall furnish an annual return for every financial year electronically in such form and manner as may be prescribed on or before the thirty-first day of December following the end of such financial year; AND WHEREAS, for the purpose of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2019 (2) TMI 1006 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, DAMAN, DIU AND DADAR AND NAGAR HAVELI – TMI – Classification of goods – Broom Stick made of plastics – Sprayers made of Plastics – applicable rate of tax – Held that:- Broom stick is a cleaning tool consisting of usually stiff fibres (made of materials such as plastic) attached to, and roughly parallel to, a cylindrical handle, The broomstick is thus a variety of brush with a long handle. It is commonly used in combination with a dustpan for cleaning floors etc. – it is very much clear from the reading of the main heading that the major heading for the classification of the plastics broom-stick is 9603.
–
Since the product in question i.e. Broom-Sticks is made from plastics, hence, it is very much clear that it should be classified as Brooms other than brooms consisting of twigs or other vegetable materials bound together , with or without handle. Thus brooms made from plastics are other than brooms classifiable under heading 96031

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

The correct rate of GST for the product in question is (9% CGST+9% UTGST) 18%. – AR-04-05/AR/DMN-Silvassa/2018 Dated:- 11-12-2018 – SHRI SATISH KUMAR AND CHARMIE KAMAL PAREKH, MEMBER N.B: This copy is granted free of charge for the private use of the person to whom it is issued. 1. Any person deeming himself aggrieved by this Advance Ruling may appeal against the Ruling before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling in terms of Section 100 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Such appeal shall be done within 30 days from the date of the communication of the order. The appeal papers shall bear fee of ₹ 10,000/- as provided under Rule 106(1) of CGST Rules, 2017. 2. The appeal should be filed in Form GST ARA-02, prescribed under sub rule (1) of the Rule 106 & GST ARA-03 Of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, as the case may be, duly signed by the person specified in sub rule4 (3) (a&b) of the Rule 106. 3. The appeal including the statement of facts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

cts Pvt Ltd, Survey No 45/2-8, Vapi Daman main road, Dabhel Nani Daman 2. GSTIN 25MMCA5352J1Zl 3. Date of Form ARA-01 12/24.09.2018 4. Date of personal hearing 10.12.2018 5. Applicant represented by Shri Kaushik D. Nahar 6. Jurisdictional authority Centre CGST, Daman 7. Jurisdictional authority UT UTGST Daman & Diu 8. Details of Fee payment Challan Identification Number (CIN) -HDFC 18082500001058 Date – 13.08.2018, HDFC 18112500004128, Date -26.11.2018, HDFC 18072500001823 Date -17.07.2018 & HDFC 18092500004609 Date – 27.09.2018 5000+5000 = 10,000/. 5000+5000 = 10,000/- M/s. Aristoplast Products Pvt.Ltd., Survey No 45/2-8, Vapi Daman Main Road, Dabhel, Nani Daman – 396210, having GSTIN Number 25AAMCA5352J1Zl, is engaged in the manufacturing of Broom Stick made of Plastics, Sprayers and other products made of plastics etc. They have made application for seeking Advance Ruling first application on 12.09.2018 under advance Ruling was made for deciding the correct classification of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

on in the above two applications. The JAC vide their letter issued from F.No. Div-I/Misc./CGST/1/2018-19/1191 dtd 05.12.2018 have replied that the Description of Goods and HSN code, mentioned in Tariff of the above product, is as under:- Name of Product manufactured HSN Code Rate of GST Description of Goods Broom Sticks 9603 18% Brushes (including brushes constituting parts of machines, appliances or vehicle), hand operated mechanical floor sweepers, not motorized, mops and feather dusters, prepared knots and tufts for broom or brush making paint pads and rollers, squeegees (other than rollers squeegees) [other than brooms and brushes, consisting of twigs or other vegetable materials bound together with or without handles] other than 96031000] Sprayer 8424 18% Mechanical appliances (whether or not hand-operated) for projecting dispersing or spraying liquids or powders, spray guns and similar appliances, steam or send blasting machines and similar jet projecting machines [other than fir

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

n the above case. Shri Nahar also submitted that apart from the documents they have also submitted pictures of the products along with their applications. He further submitted that they have nothing to add more. 5. Discussion and Findings In the present case there are different applications for the different products. The applicant has paid separate fee in each case for the Advance Ruling for these two products. Now we, the members of Advance Ruling have to decide- 1. The Correct HSN code for the Broom Stick made of plastics and applicable rate of tax 2. The correct HSN Code of Sprayers made of Plastics and applicable rate of tax. 6. First of all we take the product Broom Sticks for discussion of the correct classification. It is in the interest of justice to discuss the nature of product in question and its use. As per the evidence available before us, the product in question Broom Stick is made of Plastics. In the present case the applicant has requested for the determination of the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

or Broom-sticks made from twigs or other vegetables materials and second category which is not made from twigs or vegetable materials. Since the product in question i.e. Broom-Sticks is made from plastics, hence, it is very much clear that it should be classified as Brooms other than brooms consisting of twigs or other vegetable materials bound together , with or without handle. Thus brooms made from plastics are other than brooms classifiable under heading 96031000. Therefore, we held that the correct classification of the Plastic Broom-Stick is under heading 96032900 and classifiable as Others . 6.3.1 Hence, the product Plastics Broom-Stick is eligible for concessional rate of tax vide Notification No. 1/2017-CT(rate) dtd 28.06.2017 i.e. 5% IGST or 2.5% CGST + 2.5 UTGST. 7. Now we discuss the applicable GST rate and the correct classification of the second product in question. We note that the applicant have submitted a picture of their product taken on plain paper and have describe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

kle is an irrigation systems installed in field under which water is flown through pipes and rotating of Sprinkles made the water pour surroundings area. Further the product in question is neither drip irrigation system nor other equipments. Since the said product not falls under the category of sprinkle or drip irrigation system, hence, GST rate (6%+6%) 12% which is for the said irrigation system, is not applicable in their case of sprayers. 7.3 Now, we discuss the product Sprayer. Sprayer is a device used to spray a liquid. The sprayers are commonly used for projection of water, weed killers, crop performance materials, pest maintenance chemicals, as well as manufacturing and production line ingredients. In agriculture, a sprayer is a piece of equipment that is used to apply herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers on agricultural crops. Hence, we are of the view that Sprayers are different from irrigation systems. 7.3.1 Hence, we unanimously find that the product of the applicant is

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2019 (2) TMI 1102 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI – Transfer of credit – amalgamation – non-compliance with Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules – information regarding surrender of registration with Chennai and Mumbai not provided – case of Revenue is also that Transfer could not take place before reversing the credit in the accounts of Chennai and Mumbai entities – Held that:- The show cause notice proposed to deny credit on the ground that no prior permission stands taken by the appellant. However, the said issue stands accepted by the Adjudicating Authority and as such it was not open to the Revenue to deny the credit on further allegations – The legal issue that Adjudicating Authority cannot go beyond the show cause notice is well settled by catena of judgments.
–
Otherwise also, the credit was transferred from Chennai and Mumbai after intimating the Service Tax Authorities, under the orders of the Hon’ble High Court and as such cannot be questioned by the Revenue. The scheme of amalg

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ed, Delhi (registered with Service Tax in Noida). All the three companies had a common holding company which decided to amalgamate these companies. The scheme of amalgamation was presented and obtained the approval of three Hon ble High Courts, namely, High Court of Madras, Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court in respect of each of these entities respectively. 2. The following features of the scheme are noteworthy;- (a) All assets (including tax benefits) and liabilities of the Chennai and Mumbai companies would stand transferred and be succeeded by Techip KT India Limited. (b) The scheme would take into effect (i.e. the effective date) after all the formalities regarding the scheme are completed. These formalities were completed and sheme effective on 21.04.2014. (c) With the coming into effect of the scheme the transferee entity, namely, Technip KT India Limited would be known as Technip India Limited. 3. In terms of the orders of the Hon ble High Courts sanctioning the amalgamatio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ant for surrender of registration with Chennai and Mumbai Service Tax Authorities which were also duly surrendered. 5. Thereafter, an audit was undertaken by the Service Tax Department Noida dated 01.04.2016, in which it was accepted by the Department that credit was available with the entities registered in Chennai and Mumbai. There was no dispute on the quantum or correctness of the credit. However, in this audit memo it was pointed that no permission had been taken by the appellant from the Chennai and Mumbai Service Tax Authorities and accordingly the approval of credit was registered by the Department. 6. These audit proceedings resulted in show cause notice which was issued the very next day that i.e. on 02.04.2016. In the show cause notice the following allegations were made against the appellant:- (i) That the appellant had not complied with the condition under Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. (ii) No information was provided regarding surrender of registration with Chennai

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

quired by the appellant for transfer of credit in terms of Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Nonetheless, the Impugned Order has been passed for the following reasons; (i) Learned Commissioner has proceeded to hold that the appellants were required to intimate the Department prior to the transfer and the failure on the part of the appellant to intimate prior to the transfer leads to violation of Rule 10(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. (ii) Further, it has been pointed out in the impugned order that the appellant has not reversed Cenvat Credit prior to the transfer with the Chennai and Mumbai Authorities. (iii) The amendment in the centralized registration took place only on 08.10.2014 and therefore for the purpose of Service Tax all the three entities continued to exist till such date; meaning thereby that credit could not be transferred prior to 08.10.2014. (iv) In respect of the contention of the Appellant that there is no requirement for satisfaction of the officers in respect of c

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

na of judgments. Reference can be made to the Hon ble Allahabad High Court s decision in the case of Sarika Jain vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2018) 407 ITR 254 (All.) wherein it was held in that Appellate Authority cannot confirm the demand on the basis which was not the foundation of the Department s case in the show cause notice. As such we are of the view that impugned orders are liable to be set aside on thus ground alone. 10. Otherwise also we note that the credit was transferred from Chennai and Mumbai after intimating the Service Tax Authorities, under the orders of the Hon ble High Court and as such cannot be questioned by the Revenue. The scheme of amalgamation has clearly provided that all the assets of the Transferor Companies would be available to the Transferee Company. Inasmuch as the transfer of the unutilized credit has been done under the approval of the Hon ble High Court as per the scheme sanctioned by the High Courts, the denial of the same is neither justified n

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – satbir singhwahi – Dated:- 10-12-2018 Last Replied Date:- 16-12-2018 – A partnership firm has factory building . Now the firm is shifting to new location. Existing factory building(built in financial year 2012-13) it wants to transfer to sister concern. Whether gst applicable. – Reply By Pavan Mahulkar – The Reply = As per Schedule III para 5 Read with Schedule II para 5b It is neither supply of service nor supply of goods Hence no GST is applicable – Disc

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Kaustubh Karandikar – Dated:- 10-12-2018 Last Replied Date:- 11-12-2018 – If my understanding is correct, after 01.07.17, if a person is claiming All Industry Rate of Duty Drawback, still he can claim refund of accumulated ITC on account of continuous exports. But I am not getting the relevant circular / authority under which it is allowed. Please help. – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = Dear Sir, Go through replies of Sh.Sanjay Malhotra, CS and Sh.Alkesh Jani in respect of Issue ID No.113414 dated 16.2.18. These will be helpful to you. – Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN – The Reply = Sir,You have vast experience in taxation matters. We expect your advice in the queries raised in this forum. How

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Kaustubh Karandikar – Dated:- 10-12-2018 Last Replied Date:- 11-12-2018 – XYZ is the manufacturer of Product A which attracts 12% GST. To manufacture this product, they require Blocks, Punches etc. which they get it done from outside. XYZ recovers this amount of developing the blocks and punches from the customer through tax invoice issued for Product A but shows it separately as Development charges for making blocks and punches. 1) Can XYZ charge the same GST which is applicable for product A in respect of development charges recovered or 2) Need to issue a separate service invoice for development charges and charge the applicable GST? – Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani – The Reply = As per Section 15 of CG

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – Started By: – Kaustubh Karandikar – Dated:- 10-12-2018 Last Replied Date:- 14-2-2019 – XYZ is having turnover in the financial year 18 – 19 above ₹ 20 Lacs and therefore paying GST. In the year 19 -20, he will be continuing to pay GST and if his turnover will be below ₹ 20 Lacs, will he be exempted from paying GST and claim refund of GST already paid in 19 -20 or otherwise how it works? – Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani – The Reply = The threshold limit is applicable to register under GST Act. In the year of registration the tax shall be applied on the turnover in excess of the exemption limit. In the second year onward the tax is to be charged from the first supply itself. – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = Dear Sir, The issue is to be examined deeply. The word, 'preceding ' before 'year' is missing in Section 22 of CGST Act, 2017. The word, 'preceding' used to be in every small scale exemption notification of Service Tax. SECTION 22. Pers

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

istration when the aggregate turnover reduces below the threshold limit. – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = Dr.Govindarajan Sir, I agree with you to the extent that there is no provision for cancellation of registration because of reduction turnover below threshold limit. In pre-GST era, there was a word, Preceding financial year in every small scale exemption notification of Service Tax. Now in GST regime, preceding is missing and replaced by a financial year'. What is impact of this ? Will you please offer your views ? Thanks & regards. K.L.SETHI – Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN – The Reply = I agree with you. The GST council is to bring clarification in this regard to avoid such confusions. – Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani – The Reply = In my view, by the word a financial year it means the turnover of the current year also shall be considered in case the turnover in the preceeding year was below threshold . – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = Sh.Kalyani Ji, Where is th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tax to be paid on 21 lakhs.But I dont find any logic in paying tax on full 21 lakhs when any registration is not required upto 20 lakhs in FY1718.Experts view awaited.Regards,Siva – Reply By kollengode venkitaraman – The Reply = THIS QUESTION IS VERY RELEVANT. SEC 22. PRESCRIBES THE TURNOVER LIMIT FOR REGISTRATION. BUT I COULD NOT FIND ANY SECTION WHICH GRANTS THE BASIC EXEMPTION OF RS.20 LAKHS. IN KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT SEC.6 PROVIDES THE BASIC EXEMPTION LIMIT AND A PERSON BECOMES LIABLE TO PAY TAX, ONCE THIS LIMIT IS EXCEEDED. SUCH A PROVISION IS ABSENT IN CGST ACT. IS IT ACCIDENTAL OR PURPOSEFUL? AS SIVA OPINES, ONE LI LIABLE TO PAY GST WITHOUT ANY EXEMPTION! – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = See Board's Flyer No.1. Any person is required to apply for registration when that person is liable to pay tax. You are liable to pay tax after crossing ₹ 20 lakhs. Threshold exemption is substantive right. Tax is to be paid on ₹ 1 lakh (21 lakh – 20 lakh). When any pe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – E-way bill – purchase of car from another state – personal effects – temporary registration in the selling state – can brand new car be treated as used car – detention of car

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Levy of GST – Separate registration is required or not – imports received at Haldia Port Kolkata for Mumbai head office – the applicant can clear the goods on the basis of inv

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Exemption from GST – supply of transportation services – The Applicant is engaged in the work of Supply, Laying and Terminating of 220kV U/G cables package to the recipient. –

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Levy of GST – land development agreement – The applicant is liable to pay GST on the value of building constructed and handed over to the land owner in terms of the Joint Development Agreement. – TMI Updates – Highlights

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =