Solar Energy Water Pumping Systems Classified as Works Contract of Composite Supply Under GST Regulations.
Case-Laws
GST
Classification of supply – goods/services – the activity of supply, de
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Advance Ruling Denied: Input Tax Credit for FY 2017-18 Not Eligible for Review Under Current Rules.
Case-Laws
GST
Eligibility for Advance Ruling – Admissibility of input tax credit of tax pai
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
RCM on Security Charges applicable on inward supply of security charges
Query (Issue) Started By: – chandan bera Dated:- 16-2-2019 Last Reply Date:- 18-2-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 9 Replies
GST
Dear Sir/Madam,
We, register regular tax payer under GST Act, have received security service from a registered supplier and values of the total contract in a year exceed 2.5 lakh.
Q1) form 01/01/2019 as per Notification No. 29/2018- Central Tax (Rate) liable to pay GST on reverse charge?
Q2) forms 01/01/2019 as per Notification No. 29/2018- Central Tax (Rate) liable to deduct TDS as per GST Act?
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Reply to Q. No.1 : If your firm is body corporate business entity and you receive security service from any person i.e. Partnership firm, Proprietorship, LLP, One person co., individual etc. you are required to pay GST under RCM. No threshold exemption limit is admissible under RCM.
Reply to Q.No.2 : It is not relevant for you it is for GT
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
eir outward invoice and we have to paid under RCM basics.
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani:
The Reply:
You, being receiver of service, are a partnership firm. What is the status of service provider ?. Is he a body corporate? if yes, then he will charge GST on invoice and you need not have to pay GST under reverse charge. If he is not then you will have to pay GST under reverse charge.
Reply By Prudhvi Jakkula:
The Reply:
KASTURI SETHI sir
You said that if the firm is body corporate and service provider is any registered person RCM will not applicable. But if the service provider is also body corporate then the firm should pay tax in RCM.
Correct me if wrong
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani:
The Reply:
If both service provider and the service receiver are body corporate then body corporate providing service will charge GST on the invoice. RCM will be applicable in this case. However, as desired by the querist, the views of Sri Kasturi Sir is welcomed.
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani:
The Reply:
P
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rnment agencies which has taken registration under the GST only for the purpose of deducting tax under section 51 and not for making a taxable supply of goods or services; or
(4) A person registered under composition scheme (as per section 10 of CGST Act).
Reply to Q.2
TDS provisions under GST will be applicable only under Section 51 of CGST Act which says deduction of tax by the Government Agencies (Deductor) or any other person to be notified in this regard, from the payment made or credited to the supplier (Deductee) of taxable goods or services or both, where the total value of such supply, under a contract, exceeds two lakhs and fifty thousand rupees.
Presently, the persons liable to deduct TDS under GST are:-
1. a department or establishment of the Central Government or State Government;
2. Local Authority;
3. Governmental Agencies;
4. an authority or a board or any other body, –
a. Set up by an Act of Parliament or a State Legislature; or
b. Established by any Governme
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
NO PROFITEERING WHEN BASE PRICE IS CONSTANT & SELLING PRICE REDUCED
By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 16-2-2019
The complaint against profiteering came up recently before the National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) in a case involving supply of tiles. In Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering & DGAP, CBIC New Delhi v. Asian Grantio India Ltd., Ahmedabad (2018) 12 TMI 1401; the NAA vide its Order dated 24.12.2018 ordered that where the business entity has duly passed on the benefit of reduction in the tax rate by keeping the base price constant thus reducing the selling price of the products in question, the anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Ta
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Rs.)
1101171B/G01063 dated 30.08.2017
28%
743.95
110/1716/G02733 dated 28.11.2017
18%
743.95
–
1110/1716/G01063 dated 28.11.2017
28%
650.93
1110/1716/G02733 dated 28.11.2017
18%
650.92
-0.01
The DGAP observed that the business entity had not increased the per unit base price (excluding GST) of both the products after GST rate reduction w.e.f. 15. 11.2017, which were ₹ 743.95 and ₹ 650.93 in both the periods. Thus, though the GST rate was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, the absence of any upward change in the per unit base price (excluding GST) confirmed that the allegation of profiteering by the was not sustainable.
The NAA took up the matter to examine whether there was any reduction in the GST rate
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST Revocation Technical Issue
Query (Issue) Started By: – Vishal Raheja Dated:- 15-2-2019 Last Reply Date:- 16-2-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 3 Replies
GST
My concern is my GST No got cancelled due to non filling of Returns on 6/11/18 as per the process I got to know I have filled all my pending returns & I have applied for revocation on GST Portal on 26/11/18. It's been almost 3 Months my GST number has not been revocate yet I have visited my judiciary officer more then 10 times they say on their portal request is not reflecting. I have also spoke to CBEC Help Desk they are also help less. Can anyone suggest do you guys have any history of revocation done or shall I consider all the revocations are pending & govt has
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Reverse Osmosis Plant Project Classified as Works Contract of Composite Supply, Emphasizing Service Provision Over Goods.
Case-Laws
GST
The activity of supply, design, installation, commissio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Polypropylene Leno Bags, laminated or not, classified as plastic under HS code 3923, incur 18% GST.
Case-Laws
GST
Polypropylene Leno Bags whether laminated with BOPP or not would be classifie
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Transfer of Goods for Mid-Day Meal Programs Classified as 'Supply' Under GST for Distinct Persons.
Case-Laws
GST
The transfer of goods / capital equipments, exclusively used for Mid-Day Meal
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Export of Services without renewal of Bond for export and without having Lut
Query (Issue) Started By: – Balkar Singh Dated:- 15-2-2019 Last Reply Date:- 16-2-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 3 Replies
GST
Dear Sir,
We are doing business of IT export services in Mohali, Punjab. Our company has taken 'Acceptance of Bond' letter from Central excise dept date 22.9.2017 with bank guarantee which was valid up to 31.8.2018. We have taken Lut on 28.9.2018. We continue to export after 31st March 2018 till August 2018 on basis of bank guarantee and it was not in our knowledge to renew the bond after 31st March 2018 because validity period was not mentioned on 'Acceptance of Bond' letter .
My question is –
What is
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS without discharged of GST?
Query (Issue) Started By: – rai tomar Dated:- 15-2-2019 Last Reply Date:- 27-6-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 8 Replies
GST
Dear Experts,
We dispatch sales promotional material like T-Shirt, umbrella, grooming kit, products catalogue, price list, diary , display stand etc. to our dealers and did not discharged GST thereon. we treat this type of supply as "NIL Rated" supply.
1- Whether Sales promotional material can be send without discharged of GST?
2- When we treated this supply as NIL Rated , whether we should be reported in Table 3.1 (c) of GSTR-3B or not?
3- If should be reported in 3B, whether ITC will have to reversed or not?
Thanks in advance
Reply B
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
tional material can be send without discharged of GST?
Answer:- Refer the scenarios given below.
Q.2. When we treated this supply as NIL Rated , whether we should be reported in Table 3.1 (c) of GSTR-3B or not?
Answer:- It is not NIL rated supply. Refer scenarios given below.
Q.3. If should be reported in 3B, whether ITC will have to reversed or not?
Answer:- It should be reported in 3B as a taxable supply only if you are following 1st scenario as given below and no need to disclose in 3B if you are not following the same.
SCENARIOS:-
1. You have availed the ITC of such promotional goods:-
When you provide your promotional items free of cost, you have to pay GST based on entry no. 1 of Schedule I of CGST Act, "Permanent transfe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
o avail the credit for such scenarios by endorsing such promotional and branding activities to a third party service provider (whoever it can be but should be a registered person) and avail the ITC on the invoice raised by him.
Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN:
The Reply:
I endorse the views of Shri Spudarjunan.
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
I support the views of both experts.
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Explanation by Sh.Spudarjunan S. is par excellence. His understanding and interpretation is really appreciable.
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
De facto, there is no 'Free Lunch' in the business.
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani:
The Reply:
1. Supply of sales promotional material can be send without GST. In t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Moulds And Dies & Export Supplies
Query (Issue) Started By: – CABIJENDERKUMAR BANSAL Dated:- 15-2-2019 Last Reply Date:- 15-2-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 1 Reply
GST
Hello Sir, The design for Moulds/Dies/Tools was received from Foreign Entity (Customer). The Supplier (In India) makes the Mould/Die/Tool as per specifications in India and charges the same to Customer (Reimbursement + Some profit element). The Mould/Die/Tool never go to foreign entity (Customer) But the suppl
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Amount Written Off Agst Import Bill
Query (Issue) Started By: – CABIJENDERKUMAR BANSAL Dated:- 15-2-2019 Last Reply Date:- 16-2-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 2 Replies
GST
Regarding one of the consignment which was imported before GST. There is a dispute over quality matter with a Supplier. The Payment is on hold from last 2 years. Now we came to a conclusion that we are not paying the import dues. For settling the same the supplier has given us a confirmation on mail, to wr
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
wrong ITC charged
Query (Issue) Started By: – Madhavan iyengar Dated:- 15-2-2019 Last Reply Date:- 15-2-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 3 Replies
GST
If a vendor has charged wrong tax within the same state for services rendered in the same state can credit of the ITC be taken as in my view it should not be a bar since vendor has charged wrong tax
Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN:
The Reply:
What is the nature of transaction? What is the tax levied by the vendor?
Reply By
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Sale of land
Query (Issue) Started By: – Prudhvi Jakkula Dated:- 15-2-2019 Last Reply Date:- 25-3-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 2 Replies
GST
Dear experts,
A sold land to B. Consideration for the same will be paid by B in 2 forms
a) Partly in cash
b) For remaining amount instead of paying cash, B offers some flats to A.
Now the problem is if B paid entire amount in cash, the transaction will not attract GST because of scheduleIII. If he offers flats it will become JDA.
As he is paying partly in cash and partly by flats, what will be the GST Implications?
Please solve my query.
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani:
The Reply:
Ready made flats do not attract GST. Only under construction flats attract GST. So if B offer A som
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
RECENT ADVANCE RULINGS IN GST (PART-13)
By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 15-2-2019
Advance rulings are important in any tax law as it provides a forum for clarification and possible interpretation of statutory provisions. Moreover, it conveys the legislative intention from the revenue's view point. Provisions of advance ruling are contained in section 95 to 106 of CGST Act, 2017 and State / UT GST enactment. Rules 103 to 107 of also provide for forms, manner, certification etc.
The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) have been set up in all the states and we have now over 300 advance rulings on different issues already pronounced by various State Authorities. The appellate mechanism for filing appeals against AAR rulings is also in place and we have about twenty five such appellate orders confirming or modifying the AAR orders. One major issue presently being faced is about multiple authorities (equal to number of States), each pronouncing
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
application before the Authority for Advance Ruling seeking ruling on the rate of GST applicable to the such products.
It was ruled that commodities such as marine propellers, rudder set, stern tube set, propeller shaft and M.S. Shaft for couplings used as a part of fishing/floating vessels would come under Entry No. 252 of Schedule I of Notification No. 1/2017 Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 and State Notification No. 360/2017, dated 30-6-2017 and hence taxable at the rate of 5 per cent [SGST – 2.5 per cent; CGST-2.5 per cent]. If the said commodities are used for some other purpose, then the applicable tax rate would be 18 per cent. [In Re: Saraswathi Metal Industries 2018 (11) TMI 282 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KERALA ].
Advance Ruling on classification of goods and rate of tax (implants)
The applicant was engaged in the distribution and trading of 'implants for joint replacement'. The applicant preferred an application for Advance Ruling on the rate of tax in respect o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Serial No. E(9) of List 3 of Entry 257 of Schedule I and entry at Serial No. 221 of Schedule II of Notification No. 01/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated Sl. No. Chapter/Heading/Sub-Heading/Tariff item Description of goods (1)(2)(3) 578 90 or any other Chapter Assistive devices, rehabilitation aids and other goods for disabled, specified in List 30 28-6-2017, it is evident that joint replacements are specifically covered under the entry at Serial No. E(9) of List 3 of Entry 257 of Schedule I whereas the entry at Sl. No. 221 of Schedule II is a general entry that covers artificial parts of body. Therefore, applying the principle under rule 3 of the General Rules of Interpretation of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; that the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description it is held that the joint replacements falling under HSN Code 90213100 are covered under Serial No. E(9) of List 3 of Entry 257 of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
te applicable would be 9 per cent CGST + 9 per cent SGST. [In Re: Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals (P.) Ltd. 2018 (6) TMI 465 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING HYDERABAD TELANGANA ].
Advance Ruling on classification of goods
The assessee/applicant was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of digital printed materials. It made an application before the Authority for Advance Ruling seeking ruling on the following issues:
* Whether the printed advertisement materials classifiable as 'supply of goods.'
* If yes, whether it was classifiable under Heading No. 4911 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
It was ruled that where assessee was engaged in business of manufacturing and sale of digital printed advertisement materials, said material would be classifiable as supply of goods and it would fall under Heading No. 4911 of GST Tariff and liable to GST at rate of 12 per cent. [In Re: Macro Media Digital Imaging (P.) Ltd. 2018 (6) TMI 519 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANC
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
t of the product. Therefore, the said products cannot be considered as 'mixtures'.
The AAR observed that the products are not vegetable fats and vegetable oils per se. the products do not remain mere vegetable fat or mere vegetable oil. The impugned products are a distinct product which is known in the market as a dielectric transformer fluid. The applicant has argued that the products cannot be considered as 'mixtures' but no information about the manufacturing process has been given. Neither any information has been shared as to the ingredients contained in the products. The products also contain additives, the information about which has also not been shared with the Authority. But the manufacturing process of these ingredients and the addition of additives leads to a distinct product being formed. The ingredients or additives are added so as to formulate a certain product which could be used as a transformer fluid. So the processes are intended to manufacture a new
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
The Commissioner, CGST, Delhi Versus M/s DAY & Co.
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 938 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 15-2-2019
APPEAL No. E/52440/2018-EX[SM] – FINAL ORDER NO. 50244/2019
Central Excise
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Ms. Tamanna Alam (AR) for Revenue
Shri Archit Upadhayay (Advocate) for Assessee
ORDER
Per: Archana Wadhwa
Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner, vide which he has vacated the show cause notice issued to the respondents, Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Ms. Tamanna Alam learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue and Shri Archit Upadhayay learned advocate appearing for the respondents.
2. The Noticee were engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala containing chewing tobacco (Gutkha) under the brand name “KESAR PREMIUM GUTKHA” and “KESAR GULAB GUTKHA” of MRP Rs. 1.50 per pouch and Rs. 5.00 per pouch falling under Chapter heading No.24039990 and registered with Central Excis
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
.07.2011 had requested for de-sealing of Five packing machines of MRP Rs. 1.50 per pouch, which were de-sealed on 11.07.2011 by the Superintendent. It was also observed during the visit that there was no seal on one pouch packing machines of GUTKHA of MRP Rs. 5.00 per pouch which was sealed on 01.06.2011. Accordingly, a record of proceeding on 11.07.2011 at 0030 Hrs was prepared.
6. In their statement recorded on 12.07.2011, Sh. Kamaljit Singh, authorized signatory of the Noticee and Sh. Harish Kumar, proprietor of the unit recorded on 13.07.2011 both recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, categorically admitted that no seal was found on the machine at the time of visit of the officer on the intervening night of 10.07.2011 – 11.07.2011.
7. As regards, no raw material or packing material or finished goods not lying near the machine at the time of visit of the officer is of no relevance in the present case as no such verification is required to be done at the time o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
. The same is recoverable from them under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 9 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination & Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 and they appear to be liable to penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rule, 2002 and Rule 17 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination & Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008.
10. Accordingly, the Noticee was called to show cause as to why:
Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 49,16,667/- should not be demanded and recovered from them under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 9 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination & Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 and why the said amount should not be adjusted against the amount of Rs. 1,28,00,000/- already lying unutilized/balance in the accounts of the Noticee for payment of Central Excise Duty; interest under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1994 should not be demanded and recovered; penalty und
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
who had taken into account the entire evidence on record including the Electricity Bills, Labour information and other records and had concluded that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee and the records maintained by the party do not show any discrepancy and accordingly he recommended for closure of the investigations.
12. The Commissioner in his impugned order has taken the said report of the Deputy Commissioner into consideration and has concluded that in terms of said report no irregularity was found. He further observed that there is no clinching evidence produced by the Revenue overriding the findings of the Deputy Commissioner or establishing any unauthorized manufacturing activities. The show cause notice does not allude to any solid evidence to substantiate the allegations raised therein other than the fact that the said pouch making machines of Rs. 5 was found unsealed and the seal was found to be lying next to the machine. In the absence of any eviden
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s. JKB MOTORS Versus UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE FINANCE SECRETARY, NEW DELHI, THE COMMISSIONER GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN, NODAL OFFICER, COCHIN AND GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK, NEW DELHI
GST
2019 (2) TMI 1154 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 15-2-2019
WP (C). No. 3892 of 2019
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : ADVS. SRI.A.KUMAR JOB ABRAHAM SMTG.MINI(1748)SRI.AJAY V.ANAND SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR AND SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD
For The Respondent : ADVS. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS SRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SC, GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK SREELAL N. WARRIER, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a registered dealer und
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e grievances of taxpayers due to technical glitches on GST Portal.” Paragraph 5 of the circular outlines the procedure the Nodal Officers is to follow. It reads:
5. Nodal officers and identification of issues
5.1 GSTN, Central and State government would appoint nodal officers in requisite number to address the problem a taxpayer faces due to glitches, if any, in the Common Portal. This would be publicized adequately.
5.2 Taxpayers shall make an application to the field officers or the nodal officers where there was a demonstrable glitch on the Common Portal in relation to an identified issue, due to which the due process as envisaged in law could not be completed on the Common Portal.
5.3 Such an application shall enclose evidenc
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
arlier occasions permitted the petitioners to apply to the Nodal Officer concerned to have the issue resolved.
5. So, here too, the petitioner may apply to the Nodal Officer. The petitioner applying, the Nodal Officer will look into the issue and facilitate the petitioner's uploading FORM GST TRAN-1, without reference to the time-frame. Ordered so.
6. I may also observe that if the petitioner, faced with any practical difficulties, manually applies within two weeks after receiving this judgment, the Nodal Officer will consider it and take steps within a week thereafter. If the uploading of FORM GST TRAN-1 is not possible for reasons not attributable to the petitioner, the authority will also enable it to take credit of the input tax avail
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s. ARCHANA RESIDENCY Versus REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, IDUKKI DIVISION, MUVATTUPUZHA-
GST
2019 (2) TMI 1155 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 15-2-2019
WP(C). No. 4581 of 2019
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : ADVS. SRI. ASWIN GOPAKUMAR SMT. HEBA SARA ABRAHAM SMT. KALA G. NAMBIAR SRI. ANWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI. ARJUN SANTHOSHSRI. K. AMAL NATH NAIK SRI. NIRANJAN SUDHIR AND SRI. RENOY VINCENT
For The Respondent : ADV. SRI. THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a business concern, has sought the following reliefs
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Corrigendum Notification No. 17/GST-2 dated 31.01.2019 under the HGST Act, 2017
25/GST-2 Dated:- 15-2-2019 Haryana SGST
GST – States
Haryana SGST
Haryana SGST
HARYANA GOVERNMENT
EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT
Corrigendum
The 15th February, 2019
No. 25/GST-2.- In the Haryana Government, Excise and Taxation Department, notification No. 17/GST-2, dated the 31st January, 2019,-
(i) in page 559, in line 30, for “in instruction 12, for the words “business verticals” occurring twic
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
CGST-Delhi III Versus Lattice Interiors (Vice-Versa)
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 1308 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 15-2-2019
Appeal No. ST/50016 & 50199/2016-DB – Final Order No. 50279-50280/2019
Service Tax
Justice Mr. Dilip Gupta, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
Sh. Vivek Pandey, DR & Ms. Vibha Narang, Advocate for the appellant
Ms. Vibha Narang, Advocate & Sh. Vivek Pandey, DR for the Respondent
ORDER
Per: V. Padmanabhan
1. These two appeals are against the order-in-original number 32/2015 dated 25/08/2015. M/s Lattice Interiors (M/s Lattice) were registered with Service Tax Department w.e.f. 2/05/2008 for providing commercial or industrial construction service. The Department received intelligence that M/s Lattice was not discharging service tax in full for these activities carried out by them. Investigation was undertaken into the activities in pursuance of the said intelligence. The various summons issued by th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Lattice submitted details of various contracts executed by them. It was claimed that most of the contracts were for non-commercial buildings and provided to agencies such as Indian Railways, NTPC, Prasar Bharti etc. It was claimed that since the services were mostly provided for non-commercial purposes, the demand for service tax was not justified.
3. The adjudicating authority examined the various contracts, copies of which were submitted by M/s Lattice. He dropped Service Tax demand on services provided to Prasar Bharti, New Delhi Municipal Corporation, NTPC, Indian Railways, Power Machines (India) Ltd, NBCC Ltd which were not meant for commercial use. In respect of certain construction undertaken by way of residential units meant for use of the employees, also the demand for service tax was dropped. However, he held that the services rendered to Joint Stock Company, FEAT as well as Indian Oil Corporation were liable to service tax.
4. The adjudicating authority further observed th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
s challenged the portion of the order in which service tax amounting to Rs. 3.9 Lakhs stands confirmed. Both the appeals are taken together for decision in this common order.
6. Heard Shri Vivek Pandey, Ld. DR for the Revenue, who argued the grounds raised by Revenue. His submissions are summarized below:-
a. The Ld. DR submitted that the adjudicating authority has set aside the demand by taking the view that demand raised in the show cause notice was for the period beyond five years. He referred to the provisions of the Section 73 of the Act and submitted that the “relevant date” is to be considered as the last day on which ST-3 Returns was required to be filed i.e. for the period from 01/04/2008 to 30/09/2008, the last date was 25/10/2008. Considering this as the relevant date, he submitted that the show cause notice dated 23/10/2013 covers the period of demand right from 01/04/2008.
b. He submitted that the adjudicating authority has wrongly taken the view in respect of the const
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the above grounds as well as to give detailed findings for the conclusion.
7. The appeal filed by M/s Lattice is argued by Shri A.K. Batra, Ld. Consultant. He also advanced his arguments against the grounds of appeal filed by Revenue. His submissions are summarized below:-
i. The Ld. CA submitted that five year period provided under Section 73 of the Act will start from the relevant date. The show cause notice dated 23/10/2013 was served on M/s Lattice only on 27/10/2013; to this effect the Affidavit has already been submitted before the adjudicating authority. If 27/10/13 is considered as the date of service of notice, the five year period cannot extend earlier than 1st October, 2008.
ii. He rebutted the view taken by the Revenue that adjudicating authority has not passed a speaking order. He referred to the findings of the adjudicating authority and he pointed out that the adjudicating authority has examined all the contracts executed by the service provider, copies of which have
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
uch as the show cause notice proposed demand of service tax under the categories of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service as well as Erection Commissioning Service. In this connection he submitted that the findings of the adjudicating authority merit no interference.
iii. For the period from 01/07/2012, Ld CA submitted that the total amount of Rs. 3.9 Lakhs confirmed by the adjudicating authority is made up of the service provided to M/s Indian Oil Ltd as well as to Joint Stock Company FEAT as follows:-
Particulars
Taxable value Rs.
Rate
Service Tax liability Rs.
Taxable category
Indian Oil Corporation
1,85,318
12.36%
22,905
Not specified
Joint Stock Co. FEAT
29,71,710
12.36%
3,67,303
Total
3157028
3,90,208
iv. He further submitted that the demand in respect of m/s Indian Oil Corporation is pertaining to the period 2008-09 and as such not liable to be paid in view of the Larsen & Toubro case.
v. In respect of the demand of Rs. 3,67,303/- provided to Joint
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
dicating authority has scrutinized these contracts and has dropped the demand for the period prior to 01/07/2012. He held that the construction activities carried out by M/s Lattice were correctly classifiable under Works Contract Service for the period prior to 01/07/2012 even though the adjudicating authority did not have the benefit of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro. We have perused the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro (Supra). The Apex Court has categorically held that composite contracts which involve supply of goods as well as providing service will be liable for payment of service tax only under the category of Works Contract Service. For the period prior to 01/07/2012, the classification of service was required to be done and activities carried out are to be classified under Works Contract Service. The show cause notice issued on 23/10/2013 has proposed the demand of service tax under the categories of Commercia
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
st this service In this regard it has been pointed out by the Ld. CA that the liability for service tax under WCS is required to be determined after granting the benefit of Notification No. 24/2012 dated 20/06/2012. If such benefit is extended, the liability to service tax will come down and the claim of Ld. CA is that said service tax, after abatement, stands already paid by M/s Lattice.
11. We are of the view that the liability for service tax under WCS in respect of the activity carried out to Joint Stock Company is to be re-determined after extending the benefit of abatement under Notification No. 24/2012. When said benefit is extended the ultimate demand of service will come down from Rs. 3.67 lakh confirmed by adjudicating authority. We direct the original adjudicating authority to verify such payment of service tax claimed by the M/s Lattice.
12. In view of the above discussions we reject the appeal filed by the revenue. The appeal filed by M/s Lattice is allowed to the extent
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s. Ajay Hardware Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India and others
GST
2019 (3) TMI 372 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – TMI
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 15-2-2019
CWP-4101-2019
GST
MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ.
For The Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate
For The Respondents : Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate
ORDER
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL , J (ORAL) 3
Prayer made in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Application for Revocation of cancellation
Query (Issue) Started By: – DIVYA RAJENDRAN Dated:- 14-2-2019 Last Reply Date:- 17-2-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 4 Replies
GST
Sir,
My GST Registration being cancelled by proper officer in November 2018 .I am unable to submit revocation of cancellation now since my returns dashboard restricts the month list upto July 2018.I filed upto July 2018
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
As per Rule 23(1) of CGST Rules, 2017, you were required to apply for revocation of cancellation of registration certificate within 30 days from the date of service of the order of cancellation of registration. You could file returns within a period of thirty days. Go through Rule 23 carefully.
A
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Debit note to Supplier if Credit note not issued by Supplier
Query (Issue) Started By: – Prem Choudhary Dated:- 14-2-2019 Last Reply Date:- 17-2-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 4 Replies
GST
Dear Expert
We have faces the issue for reversal of ITC in case of payment is not made to Supplier within 180 days of invoices and it is very painful to trace every month. The reason of hold amount may be diff. reason but major reason is quality of materials. and also the aging of vendor
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST on Notional Income
Query (Issue) Started By: – Ethirajan Parthasarathy Dated:- 14-2-2019 Last Reply Date:- 14-2-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 3 Replies
GST
A GST registered person gives away commercial space to a trader by taking quite a large amount as refundable deposit. The understanding is the trader will use the space for business purpose for a period of 7 years without payment of any rent, after expiry of 7 years he has to surrender the place back to the Landlord who will return the large deposit received.
As per Income Tax Law the landlord has to pay Income tax on the notional rental income in respect of above arrangement.
I would like to know GST implication on the Land lord in the above circumstance.
Rep
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nd quality;
(d) if the value is not determinable under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), be the sum total of consideration in money and such further amount in money that is equivalent to consideration not in money as determined by the application of rule 30 or rule 31 in that order.
As per the above dictum, the open market value of supply of the rental premises would have to be considered for payment of GST. This could be done by checking the rate at which similar properties are being let out in the same area
Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN:
The Reply:
You may pay GST on the notional rent.
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
I support the views of both experts. I would like to add that such notional income is 'considerati
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST Act violation: HC dismisses advance bail pleas
GST
Dated:- 14-2-2019
Chennai, (PTI) – Observing that the Central Goods and Services Act was enacted with the laudable object of "one country one tax", the Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed the anticipatory bail applications filed by nine persons apprehending arrest under the provisions of the Act.
Justice Anand Venkatesh, in his order, said, "Where the accused persons are charged of violations of the CGST Act, involving colossal loss of revenue to the exchequer and the investigation is at a very nascent stage, prudence demands that this court should lay off its hands from investigation and allow complete independence to the prosecuting agency to proceed f
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
estigate the cases since it involved the national interest, the court said.
"This court, by entertaining the petitions and by imposing certain conditions, should not tie the hands of the department in proceeding further with the investigation since what has been unearthed till now is only the tip of the iceberg and there is a long way to go for it to find out how long these fake invoices have extended their tentacles," the judge said.
It was true that the entire issue was borne out by documents and once the petitioners co-operated for the investigation by submitting all the relevant documents, they should not be unnecessarily arrested, the judge said.
"However, it is a settled proposition of law that this court, while cons
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
