Author: admin_gst

SAHEER P.M. Versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (TAXES) , GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE GST, KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA, ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, SURVEILLANCE, WAYANAD, THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY (REVENUE) , NEW DELHI, GOODS AND SERVICE TAX COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHAIRPERSON, NEW DELHI, GOODS AND SERVICE TAX NET WORK, NEW DELHI AND CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXES, KERALA. – 2018 (12) TMI 140 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Detention of goods with vehicle – detention on the ground that E-way bill did not contain the details of the vehicle used for the transport – Held that:- The learned Division Bench of this Court in Renji Lal Damodaran v. St

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ndent : SMT. M. M. JASMINE, GP. SRI SREELAL N WARRIER, SC. AND SRI P. R. SREEJITH, SC JUDGMENT The petitioner, a proprietory firm, purchased LED TVs from Mysore, as seen from Ext.P2 invoice. Ext.P3 E-way bill, however, did not contain the details of the vehicle used for the transport. The vehicle and the goods detained, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought the following reliefs: (i) Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or writs or an order or a direction to quash Ext.P7 detention order and Ext.P8 notice and to issue necessary directions to the 3rd respondent to release the goods detained under Exts.P7 and P8, forthwith to the petitioner (ii) Issue writ of mandamus or any o

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (12) TMI 262 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Extended period of limitation – Levy of penalty – Partial RCM – non-payment of service tax under partial reverse charge mechanism – there was a gap of six months between date of receipt of show-cause on 03.12.2015 and date of personal hearing given in May 2016 and appellant had not availed the gap period to obtain copy of audit report – principles of natural justice – Held that:- The appellant had failed to discharge the service tax liability. It is not understood as to why a person who failed to discharge the same cannot be equated with his ignorance to follow the new rule of partial reverse charge mechanism introduced by Notification no. 30/2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 and why the same shall be equated with suppression of fact and mis-declaration through ST-3. More importantly, neither the show-cause notice nor any documents relied in Order-in-Appeal and order-in-original, any reference is available as to whether the entire 100% tax component was

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

vice tax partially on the service provider and partially on the service recipient.
–
It cannot be said that only because audit party had found non-observance of partial reverse charge mechanism procedure in respect of certain services, without any reference to the categorising of service provider, appellant is to be tested for suppression etc. – there is no hesitation to say that respondent has not brought forth any cogent evidence on record to establish the charge of wilful suppression by the appellant company to invoke extended period of service so as to justify penalty.
–
Appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. ST/85936, 85940, 85961/2018 – A/88035-88037/2018 – Dated:- 30-11-2018 – Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial) Shri Subash Chaudhary, Manager for the appellant Shri Vivek Diwedi, AC (AR) for the respondent ORDER Confirmation of penal liability under the Finance Act against non-payment of service tax under partial reverse charge mechanism has gi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ter unsuccessful attempt before the Commissioner (Appeals Thane), GST & CE, Mumbai appellant has preferred this appeal against the common order passed in all three appeals. 3. In his memo of appeal and during course of hearing of appeal, ld. Representative for the appellant Shri S. Chaudhary submitted that much before show-cause was issued, upon being pointed out by the auditors who are equivalent to Central Excise officers, duty liability along with interest were discharged for which show-cause should not have been issued to the appellant. He further submitted that vide their letter dated 09.02.2016 (Exhibit D) appellant had intimated the respondent department in response to show-cause notice that they had not received audit report and they required a month s time after receipt of the said audit report to prepare and submit their reply to the show-cause and vide Exhibit-F i.e. letter dated 16.05.2016 appellant also had intimated the adjudicating authority that they had not receive

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nd rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and in placing reliance on the judgment reported in 2017 (346) ELT 378 (Kar.). Ld. AR further submitted that in any case of default on payment of duty, penalty has to be paid as it is statutorily mandatory. In drawing attention of this Court to the Order-in-Appeal at para 6 that appellant had not disputed the service tax liability and accepted in principle that there was delayed payment of service tax for the relevant period for which being a long time registered manufacturer it is to be treated as well-versed with the Rules and Regulations pertaining to Central Excise and Service Tax laws and it has failed to disclose the correct value of tax in ST-3 returns for which wilful suppression can easily be attributed to it. He also pointed out that principle of natural justice was not violated since there was nearly six months gap between issue of show-cause and the date fixed for personal hearing during which period appellant

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

s not understood as to why a person who failed to discharge the same cannot be equated with his ignorance to follow the new rule of partial reverse charge mechanism introduced by Notification no. 30/2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 and why the same shall be equated with suppression of fact and mis-declaration through ST-3. More importantly, neither the show-cause notice nor any documents relied in Order-in-Appeal and order-in-original, any reference is available as to whether the entire 100% tax component was realised by the service provider and deposited in the government to establish that there was occasion of revenue loss to the government. 6. Partial reverse charge mechanism has been introduced by way of Notification 30/2012 dated 20.06.2012. In the said Notification, w.e.f. 01.07.2012 in case of supply of manpower for any purpose or service in execution of work contract by an individual, HUF or partnership firm whether registered or not including association of persons are required to pay 2

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

able thereon inclusive of service tax payable by service provider. Notification 33/12-ST dated 30.06.2012 indicates that if the turnover of the service provider is less than 10 lakhs, the service recipient shall be obliged to pay his share of service tax (of the service provider also) under the partial reverse charge mechanism. There is no denial of the fact that the idea behind introduction of this procedure was to bring unorganised sector on record so that the proper books of account are maintained by them, even though they are not aware about the various statutory liability cast on them and the same will remove the difficulty of the government in tracing out the service provider who are liable to pay service tax. But as commented by Ms. S. Sharma in her article on Reverse Charge Mechanism published in the Chamber Journal of December 2012 at page 95, this system would bring lot of confusion and uncertainty and among them the first would relate to identification of such vendors. In ot

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

also referred in the said manual that after such submission of audit report, in cases where the disputed amount have not already been paid by the assessee at the spot, demand notices are issued by the department for their recoveries. EA 2000 audit was therefore held to be participative audit. Likewise CERA audit is conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in respect of receipt and expenditure of the Government of India. It also discharges revenue audit which covers central excise, service tax and customs laws during which time the assesses were examined by CERA audit party to point out the deficiencies, leakage of revenue and non recoveries of dues by the Central Excise Department. Therefore, it cannot be said that only because audit party had found non-observance of partial reverse charge mechanism procedure in respect of certain services, without any reference to the categorising of service provider, appellant is to be tested for suppression etc. 8. In the conclusio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (12) TMI 415 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – TMI – Validity of SCN wrongly issued by respondent No.3 on the same cause of action – Held that:- We dispose of the present writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as raised in the present writ petition before respondent No.3 and reply to the show cause notice dated 18.10.2018 (Annexure P-1) within two weeks – petition disposed off. – CWP-30361-2018 Dated:- 30-11-2018 – MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Grover, Advocate ORDER AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J (ORAL) This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. ROSE HOUSE Versus THE STATE OF KERALA, REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAXES SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, STATE TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE STATE TAX OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA, THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, THRISSUR AND THE INTELLIGENCE INSEPCTOR, ERNAKULAM – 2018 (12) TMI 486 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Service of notice – the Intelligence Officer set the petitioner ex-parte and issued the Ext.P5 penalty proceedings – principles of natural justice.
–
Whether the petitioner has been served a statutory notice or in the alternative, whether there is any deemed service of notice on the petitioner?
–
Held that:- Given the penal consequence that flow from Ext.P6, I reckon the authorities could have taken a little more effort to ensure service of notice, for it has at its disposal the petitioner's alternative address, too. Indeed, the Government Pleader with access to the records could inform the Court that the petitioner perhaps has tak

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

and issued the Ext.P5 penalty proceedings. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. The petitioner's counsel submits that the Ext.P5 order suffers from the vice of violating the principles of natural justice. According to him, no notice was served on the petitioner. First he has drawn my attention to the Intelligence Officer's observations in Ext.P5 about serving a notice. Later, he has drawn my attention to Ext.P2 to contend that the Department itself, in that notice under Section 47 of the Act, has incorporated both the addresses of the petitioner. To elaborate, the petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner had its head office at Irinjalakkuda, and its branch at Kalamassery. Later, the petitioner has shifted its head office also to Kalamassery. In this context, the petitioner's counsel argues that once the officials had the notice returned with the postal endorsement that the establishment was closed, they ought to have served the notices on

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

provision of Law. But the above notice was returned by the postal authorities undelivered noting 'closed'. 8. As seen from Ext.P1, the petitioner was shown as both the consignor and the consignee. As a consignor, the notice recorded one address and for the consignee another address. Given the penal consequence that flow from Ext.P6, I reckon the authorities could have taken a little more effort to ensure service of notice, for it has at its disposal the petitioner's alternative address, too. Indeed, the Government Pleader with access to the records could inform the Court that the petitioner perhaps has taken undue advantage of the system. That is, he has prevailed upon the postman to return the notice. First, none including this Court could know about that machination, if true, the petitioner has adopted. Second, nothing prevented the assessing authority to record that reason in Ext.P6 and then reckon it as a deemed service. Further, at variance from Ext.P6, the Department

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (12) TMI 609 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – TMI – Seizure of goods – Section 67(2) of the UPGST Act – Held that:- The proceedings under Section 130 can be initiated only when the person transporting the goods or the owner of the goods transporting the goods fails to pay the amount of tax and penalty for the release of the goods as per section 129(1) of UPGST Act – The matter requires consideration. – Writ Tax No. – 1518 of 2018 Dated:- 30-11-2018 – Shashi Kant Gupta Versus Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan JJ. For the Petitioner : Aditya Pandey For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B.Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petition

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

aforesaid matter is still pending and is sub-judicate before this Court but the respondent no.3 has illegally proceeded against the petitioner by issuing the notice as well as by passing the impugned order. He has further submitted that under Section 67 (2) of the UPGST Act provides for confiscation of goods or documents or books or things, therefore, at the time of initiation of the proceedings under Section 67 of the Act, the respondent no.3 had already seized the goods which has been released subsequently by the direction of this Court and the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent no.3 is under challenge before this Court, therefore the proceedings again initiated by the respondent no.3 for confiscation of the goods, which is no

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ceedings shall be initiated in accordance with provisions of Section 130. He has further submitted that from the perusal of the aforesaid Section 129(6), it is clear that the proceedings under Section 130 can be initiated only when the person transporting the goods or the owner of the goods transporting the goods fails to pay the amount of tax and penalty for the release of the goods as per section 129(1) of UPGST Act. He has further submitted that Section 129 and Section 130 of the UPGST Act can be invoked only in those cases where the goods are in transportation for supply of goods or for receiving of goods and the above sections are not applicable on the goods found at the registered taxable persons' declared registered office or god

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (12) TMI 1179 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI – Principles of natural justice – infraction of Rule 23 of the CESTAT Rules – whether the veracity of the receipt of fly ash from outside sources to the extent claimed by the assessee was correct or not? – Held that:- Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 23 of the CESTAT Rules states that the parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce any additional evidence either oral or documentary. But, if the Tribunal is of the opinion that any documents should be produced or any witness should be examined or any affidavit should be filed to enable it to pass orders or for any sufficient cause or if the Adjudicating Authority or Appellate or Revisional Authority has decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to a party to adduce evidence, the Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded, allow such documents to be produced or witnesses to be examined or affidavit to be filed.
–
The Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the Adjudicat

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ional evidence in the appellate stage ? ii. Has not the Tribunal fallen in error in allowing the miscellaneous application in the absence of sufficient reason for not producing these documents at the stage of adjudication ? iii. Has not the Tribunal fallen in error in allowing the additional documents to be considered, when there was no mention of such documents by the respondent at any point of adjudication ? And iv. Has not the Tribunal fallen in error in ignoring the settled position of law that it is the assessee, who has to strictly prove that it has satisfied the conditions to avail the benefit of exemption ? 3. We have heard Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran, learned counsel appearing for M/s.Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan Associates, learned counsel on record for the respondents. 4. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem issued a show cause notice dated 07.4.2008 to the respondent

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ee in the wrong availment of Notification No.6/ 2002/CE by way of bogus/excess accounting of fly ash resulting in evasion/ non payment of central excise duty of ₹ 15,37,57,177/-. 6. The respondents herein filed their respective reply dated 02.5.2008 and 21.7.2008 to the said show cause notice and the matter was taken up for adjudication by the Commissioner of Central Excise. By an Order-in- Original dated 06.5.2009, the proposals in the said show cause notice were confirmed after rejecting the contentions of the respondents herein. 7. The issue, which was to be decided by the Adjudicating Authority, was as to whether the veracity of the receipt of fly ash from outside sources to the extent claimed by the assessee was correct or not. 8. The assessee made their submissions, which were considered by the Adjudicating Authority and primarily, the Adjudicating Authority came to the conclusion that the assessee had not produced any documents to establish that they procured fly ash from

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

substantiate their claim that they received the requisite quantity of 25% fly ash during the relevant periods namely 2003-04 and 2004-05 and that a perusal of those documents was essential to the Tribunal to enable to pass appropriate orders. 11. The assessee further stated that some of the documents were already produced before the Adjudicating Authority and in this regard, the assessee referred to paragraph 21.08 of the Order-in-Original, which had referred to such documents. The assessee's further case was that the Adjudicating Authority did not properly consider those documents. Hence, the assessee requested the Tribunal to exercise its powers under Rule 23 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter called the CESTAT Rules) and take on record the additional evidence. 12. By the impugned order, the Tribunal, after considering the case of the assessee and that of the Revenue, opined that the documents were required to be consid

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

produce sufficient reasons as to why they could not produce the documents at the stage of adjudication. Thus, the Tribunal fell into error in allowing the additional documents to be considered when there was no mention of documents at any point of time. 16. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin [reported in 2012 (8) SCC 148] to support his contention that the Appellate Tribunal should not allow new evidence to be adduced in order to enable parties to raise a new point in the appeal and where a party, on whom the onus of proving a certain point lies, fails to discharge the onus, he is not entitled to a fresh opportunity to produce evidence, as the Court can, in such a case, pronounce judgment against him and does not require any additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue tha

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

vidence, either oral or documentary, before the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal is of opinion that any documents should be produced or any witness should be examined or any affidavit should be filed to enable it to pass orders or for any sufficient cause, or if adjudicating authority or the appellate or revisional authority has decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to any party to adduce evidence on the points specified by them or not specified by them, the Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded, allow such documents to be produced or witnesses to be examined or affidavits to be filed or such evidence to be adduced. (2) The production of any document or the examination of any witness or the adducing of any evidence under Sub-Rule (1) may be done either before the Tribunal or before such departmental authority as the Tribunal may direct. (3) Where any direction has been made by the Tribunal to produce any documents or to examine any witnesses or to adduce any evidence b

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ts to be produced or witnesses to be examined or affidavit to be filed. Sub-Rule (2) empowers production of any documents may be done either before the Tribunal or before such Departmental Authority as the Tribunal may direct. Sub-Rule (3) mandates that when such a direction is issued by the Tribunal, the Authority shall comply with the direction. Sub- Rule (4) directs the Tribunal to exercise power on its own to call for any documents or summon any witness on points at issue if it considers it necessary to meet the ends of justice. 21. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue submits that Rule 23 of the CESTAT Rules is akin to Order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and in the instant case, the assessee sought to produce additional evidence without any specific pleadings as to why they did not produce the same before the Adjudicating Authority. 22. We are not fully convinced with the said submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue on account of the differ

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

s suo motu empowered to call for documents or summon any witness on points at issue, if it considers necessary to meet the ends of justice in exercise of its powers under Rule 23(4) of the CESTAT Rules. Therefore, the phraseology and language of Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC and Rule 23 of the CESTAT Rules is differently worded. 25. In the instant case, the Adjudicating Authority has recorded in paragraph 23.01 of the Order-in-Original that the quantity delivered to the assessee as per the MTPS records was found to be reflected in the private register of M/s.Natesan Engineers and Contractors and that there was no dispute over this. The dispute, therefore, appears to be with regard to the quantity received from outside allottees by M/s.Natesan Engineers and Contractors. Mr.Santhoshkumar, Managing Director deposed in his cross examination held on 19.11.2008 that he had evidence to show the procurement of fly ash from other sources. The explanation given by the assessee was that those were

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ich of the documents are required to enable it to pass orders. We find that there is no error in the exercise of such discretion. Furthermore, the assessee's case is that they were not given sufficient opportunity. 28. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahim Uddin. The said decision arose out of a civil litigation and the Court found that there were absolutely no pleadings and that there was no evidence with regard to a Will. Interpreting Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, the decision was rendered. In the preceding paragraphs, we have pointed out the difference in the phraseology and language in Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC and Rule 23 of the CESTAT Rules. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the decision in the case of Ibrahim Uddin would not render any assistance to the case of the Revenue. For the above reasons, we find that there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Kaustubh Karandikar – Dated:- 29-11-2018 Last Replied Date:- 2-12-2018 – XYZ is supplying goods on rental basis where he will be charging the rent on monthly basis. If he supplies the goods say on 10th November, when he is supposed to issue the Service Invoice? 1) Within 30 days i.e. on or before 10th December or 2) on or before 30th November? When he will be liable to pay GST? – Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN – The Reply = Invoice may be issued either

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – GST – Dated:- 29-11-2018 – Reference is invited to Press Release dated 1.11.2018 and 19.11.2018 regarding exam for GST Practitioners (GSTPs) scheduled on 17.12.2018. For this exam, only those GSTPs of the relevant category were invited to register on examination portal whose enrolment on GST Network was approved as on 15.11.2018. Now the GSTPs in the relevant category, who are enrolled on GSTN after 15.11.2018 and till 26.11.2018, are also invited to register on the por

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Archna Gupta – Dated:- 29-11-2018 Last Replied Date:- 1-12-2018 – Dear ExpertsPlease give clarity on below mentioned query:Can we utilize ITC for payment of GST liability of FY 2017-18 in the month of November 2018 if balance in credit ledger which was availed in FY 2017-18 has already been exhausted and the balance in credit ledger in current month is related to current financial year.In other words period wise matching of ITC availed and utilised is necessary or not?Please revert. – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = There is no problem or such restriction. Restriction of one year or before filing return for September was for availment and not for utilisation. Basic criteria of utilising ITC in th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Reply = Section 16(4) of CGST Act provides that a registered person shall not be entitled to take input tax credit in respect of any invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both after the due date of furnishing of the return under section 39 for the month of September following the end of financial year to which such invoice or invoice relating to such debit note pertains or furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier. Therefore the provision is applicable to taking of input tax credit and not for utilization. But the Revenue may take different view. – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = Nicely explained by Dr.Govindarajan Sir. I would like to add that there is no revenue loss to Govt. in this situation.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Mohit Dhawan – Dated:- 29-11-2018 Last Replied Date:- 29-11-2018 – Dear Sir, I have wrongly mention our Export amount in Column 3.1 a instead of 3.1 b in GSTR 3B due to which my export Invoices has not been sent to Icegate for refund. I came to know this only after filling GSTR1.. Now when i am trying to rectify GSTR 3B of July and August, as i use the edit option, it says it cannot be rectified as GSTR1 has benn filled. I request you to please provide me the solution to rectify and to separate the amount from table 3.1A t table 3.1B in GSTR 3B. – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = GSTR-3B has been freezed. The reopening or defreezing of return is possible only through jurisdictional GST Range Offic

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Seena James – Dated:- 29-11-2018 Last Replied Date:- 4-12-2018 – Sir,One of our client is engaged in repairs, maintenance & installation of electronics and navigational equipments in foreign ships and receives payment in USD. Mostly the place of supply of service is in Indian port. Whether GST is applicable on the supply of spares by the company as part of the service job or should it be treated as an export?Looking forward to hearing from you.Thank you – Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN – The Reply = In my view yes. – Reply By Seena James – The Reply = Sir,Does it mean that IGST is applicable on such sale of service? – Reply By Shyam Agarwal – The Reply = GST shall be payable as per Section 13(

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

cation of the supplier is in the territorial waters, the location of such supplier; or (b) where the place of supply is in the territorial waters, the place of supply, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be in the coastal State or Union territory where the nearest point of the appropriate baseline is located. Section 9 overrides the entire Act as far as POS is to be ascertained. For ascertaining the POS you need to determine the distance between the ship in water to the nearest state and clients location and ascertain the C+S or I accordingly. Though payment is received in USD, it shall not be export. Thanks and Regards CA Susheel Gupta 9811004443 – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = Sh.Sushil Gupta, C.A. Sir, Thanks a lot f

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – GANESH IYER – Dated:- 29-11-2018 Last Replied Date:- 4-12-2018 – I want to understand the GST applicability on the Transport services by a truck Owner to a GTA .. The GST is applicable only for GTA as they only issue LR to the customer.. we understand as per the Notification 12/2017 dt 28 06.2017 other than GTA all other transportaion will be exempted from the GST.. We have Two sscenario.. 1)We provide our own vehicles for the transortation to GTA -No GST

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Detention of goods – dispute with regard to rate of tax and classification of the goods – the process of detention of the goods cannot be resorted to when the dispute is bona

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Detention of goods with vehicle – the seizure of the goods on the ground that accompanying e-way bill had expired is not justified rather it was allowed to expire after the de

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Rate of GST – work contract services involving the supply of goods and services to CSPDCL, a government authority – The nature of activities of CSPDCL being principally and pr

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

VAT and Sales Tax – Forfeiture of tax paid u/s 46A of KGST Act – Sale of SIM Cards – The claim for refund, if any, would subsist only in the consumer and it is the State who is competent to make such

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – 63/2018-Central Tax – Dated:- 29-11-2018 – Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Notification No. 63/2018-Central Tax New Delhi, the 29th November, 2018 G.S.R. 1147 (E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 37 read with section 168 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Commissioner, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 44/2018- Central Tax, dated the 10th September, 2018, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

les, 2017 for the month of October, 2018 for registered persons whose principal place of business is in Srikakulam district in the State of Andhra Pradesh shall be furnished electronically through the common portal, on or before the 30th November, 2018: Provided also that the details of outward supply of goods or services or both in FORM GSTR-1 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 for the month of October, 2018 for registered persons whose principal place of business is in in Cuddalore, Thiruvarur, Puddukottai, Dindigul, Nagapatinam, Theni, Thanjavur, Sivagangai, Tiruchirappalli, Karur and Ramanathapuram in the State of Tamil Nadu shall be furnished electronically through the common portal, on or before the 20th December, 2018.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – 62/2018 – Dated:- 29-11-2018 – Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Notification No. 62/2018 – Central Tax New Delhi, the 29th November, 2018 G.S.R. 1146 (E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 168 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) read with sub-rule (5) of rule 61 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereafter in this notification referred to as the said rules), the Commissioner, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby makes the following further amendments in notification number 34/2018 – Central Tax, dated the 10th August, 2018, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – 64/2018-Central Tax – Dated:- 29-11-2018 – Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Notification No. 64/2018-Central Tax New Delhi, the 29th November, 2018 G.S.R. 1148 (E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Central Government, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 43/2018- Central Tax, dated the 10th September, 2018, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 854(E),

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – 65/2018 – Dated:- 29-11-2018 – Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Notification No. 65/2018 – Central Tax New Delhi, the 29th November, 2018 G.S.R. 1149 (E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (6) of section 39 read with section 168 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Commissioner hereby extends the time limit fo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – 66/2018-Central Tax – Dated:- 29-11-2018 – Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Notification No. 66/2018-Central Tax New Delhi, the 29th November, 2018 G.S.R. 1150 (E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (6) of section 39 read with section 168 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Commissioner hereby extends the time limit for furnish

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – 17/2018-TNGST-Rc.46/2018/Taxation/A1 – Dated:- 29-11-2018 – Office of the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai -600 005. No. 17/2018-TNGST-Rc.46/2018/Taxation/A1 Chennai, Thursday, November 29, 2018 Karthigai 13, Vilambi, Thiruvalluvar Aandu-2049 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 168 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Tamil Nadu Act 19 of 2017) read with sub-rule (5) of rule 61 of the Tamil Nadu Goo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – 18/2018-TNGST-Rc.46/2018 /Taxation/A1 – Dated:- 29-11-2018 – Office of the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai -600 005. No. 18/2018-TNGST-Rc.46/2018 /Taxation/A1 Chennai, Thursday, November 29, 2018 Karthigai 13, Vilambi, Thiruvalluvar Aandu-2049 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by section 168 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Tamil Nadu Act 19 of 2017), read with sub-rule (5) of rule 61 Of th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (12) TMI 138 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Detention of goods with vehicle – goods detained on the ground Part B of the accompanied e-way bill has not completed – Section 129(3) of GST Act – Held that:- The petitioner may not insist on the provisional release of the goods, but contest the matter before the State Tax Officer. It may then invite an order under Section 129 and 130. Then, Perhaps, every plea including those provided under Section 126 may be available. But if the petitioner desires to have the interim release of the goods, there is no escape from Section 129. As with Section 74, it is evident that the provision concerns the assessment but not transport and its interception, much less the detention and the provisional release.
–
Exts.P5 to P7 notices of detention do not suffer from any legal infirmity – petition dismissed. – WP (C). No. 35665 of 2018 Dated:- 29-11-2018 – MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. For The Petitioner : ADV. SMT. S. SUJINI For The Respondent : DR THU

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ounsel, mentioned the matter and submitted that the petitioner never consented. It wanted to have an order on merits. So I recall the judgment, dated 01.11.2018. 4. Smt. Sujini has submitted that the petitioner is only a transporter, and it receives paltry sums never exceeding 2,000/- rupees as transport charges. According to her, Section 129 in its entirety does not apply to the transporter; it may affect either the consignor or the consignee, at best. As the consignor and the consignee have insisted that the transporter has the obligation of reaching the goods to their destination, the petitioner has taken the trouble of coming to this Court, Smt. Sujini submits. 5. Drawing my attention to Section 129 (3) of the Act, Smt. Sujini contends that the provision does not refer to the transporter, who according to her, has no role to play in the entire scheme of the GST. 6. In the alternative, Smt. Sujini has submitted that the transaction is genuine and there is no possibility of, not even

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the interplay between Sections 126 and 129 of the Act, Dr.James has submitted that Section 129 begins with a non-obstante clause. It stands protected from every other provision. She has also pointed out that earlier this Court, on more than one occasion, has held that unfilled Part B of the e-way bill cannot be treated as a minor omission even as for the CBITC circular, dated 14th September 2018. She has, in the alternative, submitted that whatever is the defence the petitioner may have, that could not exonerate it from complying with Section 129 (3) if it wants provisional custody of the goods. In other words, under Section 129, if the petitioner wants the goods provisionally released, then it must comply the statutory mandate. 9. Heard Smt. Sujini, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Thushara James, the learned Government Pleader, for the respondents. 10. Indeed, as seen from the detention notice, the petitioner carried an e-way bill, in which Part B remained unfilled. True,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ed to be easily rectifiable if the same is an error apparent on the face of the record (2) The penalty imposed under this Act shall depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and shall be commensurate with the degree and severity of the breach. (3) No penalty shall be imposed on any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. (4) The officer under this Act shall while imposing penalty in an order for a breach of any law, regulation or procedural requirement, specify the nature of the breach and the applicable law, regulation or procedure under which the amount of penalty for the breach has been specified. (5) When a person voluntarily discloses to an officer under this Act the circumstances of a breach of the tax law, regulation or procedural requirement prior to the discovery of the breach by the officer under this Act, the proper officer may consider this fact as a mitigating factor when quantifying a penalty for that person. (6) The provisions of this section sh

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (12) TMI 139 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Detention of goods – mismatch between the delivery challan and the e-way bill – Held that:- The Department's demand on the petitioner to comply with Section 129(1)(a) cannot be faulted.
–
At any rate, the Department's insisting on both the penalty and tax covering all the set-top boxes cannot be sustained. To be specific, the petitioner has already shown in the delivery challan 200 set-top boxes and mentioned its value as well. So for the remaining boxes, that is 600, the cost was not reflected. – Subject to further adjudication of the issue before the State Tax Officer, the petitioner could provide a bank guarantee and personal bond under Section 129(1)(a) for the amount to be confined to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

on undisputed, we may refer to the discrepancy the ASTO has pointed out justifying the detention. The authority has found a mismatch between the delivery challan and the e-way bill. The value of goods noted in the e-way bill is ₹ 10,04,888/-, whereas in the delivery challan, it is 3,20,000/-. 3. The petitioner's defence, as now urged through its counsel, is that the e-way bill has correctly reflected the value of the goods. But in the delivery challan, the set-top boxes were shown in two lots. The first lot comprises 200 boxes, and the value was shown as ₹ 3,20,000/-. Though the petitioner mentioned the second lot as 600 boxes, the value was shown as zero because of, what the learned counsel terms, a computer error. Once the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rcumstances, I hold that the Department's demand on the petitioner to comply with Section 129(1)(a) cannot be faulted. At any rate, the Department's insisting on both the penalty and tax covering all the set-top boxes cannot be sustained. To be specific, the petitioner has already shown in the delivery challan 200 set-top boxes and mentioned its value as well. So for the remaining boxes, that is 600, the cost was not reflected. Subject to further adjudication of the issue before the State Tax Officer, the petitioner could provide a bank guarantee and personal bond under Section 129(1)(a) for the amount to be confined to the 600 set-top boxes. With these observations, I dispose of the writ petition. – Case laws – Decisions – Judgem

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =