Author: admin_gst

2018 (11) TMI 161 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – transfer of credit by EOU – both units merged subsequently – revenue neutrality – Held that:- As seen from the show cause notice, later both the units have merged to one unit, pursuant to debonding of the EOU. Taking note of these facts, it is very much clear that the situation is a revenue neutral one, even if the demand is confirmed, both the units which has been now merged into one unit of the same assessee, shall be availing the credit – demand requires to be set aside – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. E/41904/2018 – Final Order No. 42751/2018 – Dated:- 1-11-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri M. Kannan, Advocate for the Appellant

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of credit by EOU was barred. In the present case, the EOU continued to avail credit in respect of DTA also for renting of immovable property service which was noticed by audit of accounts for the impugned period. Pursuant to such audit, show cause notice was issued proposing to recover the irregularly availed credit to the tune of ₹ 14,82,351/- along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed equal penalty. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri M. Kannan submitted that the EOU was continuously availing the credit for both the units prior to July 2014 and by bona

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rgued by him that the appellants were availing the credit in violation of provisions of law which got amended with effect from 2014. The irregularity would not have come to light but for the audit conducted by the departmental officers. Therefore, the confirmation of demand is legal and proper. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The foremost argument put forward by the ld. counsel for appellant is that the situation is a revenue neutral one and the EOU and DTA units being of the same assessee, even if the service tax as paid is confirmed, the other DTA would be eligible for the credit. As seen from the show cause notice, later both the units have merged to one unit, pursuant to debonding of the EOU. Taking note of these facts, it is very much clear th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (11) TMI 230 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – Non-payment of duty @ 6%/7% of the trading value – non-maintenance of separate dutiable and exempted accounts to avail CENVAT credit – Rule 6 of CCR 2004 – Bonafide belief – Demand based on audit objections – Held that:- It is apparently clear that a pure sale, un-associated with delivery of goods and services together, is not to be considered as service. Therefore what is contained in Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994 dealing with negative list of services concerning trading of goods and the clarificatory circular referred above as well as inclusion of the same in the explanation appended to clause 2(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 are mere clarificatory in nature since definition of service as contained in 65B(44) and exempted service in 66D are to be read conjointly and not in exclusion of each other – sale of goods-be it made in the high sea or within the territorial boundary of India in which Finance Act, 1994 has it

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

erials by selling the same to M/s Cipla Ltd., Mumbai, on whose behalf it also undertakes manufacturing process on job work basis. As per Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, if separate account for manufacturing on such trading by way of sale is not maintained, the assessee is liable to pay 6%/7% of the value of exempted goods/services besides payment under sub-rule 3A of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Appellant was put to notice on the basis of such Audit report which was objected by it but ultimately resulted in imposition of such duty liability including interest and penalty covering extended period on the ground of suppression of facts etc. 3. During the course of hearing of the appeal, Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that such activity of the appellant can never be treated as trading since show cause cum demand notice itself indicated that commercial invoices for landing cost to compute Sales Tax formality only invoices were raised and it did not derive any profit o

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rules, 2004. Further Learned Counsel for the appellant contented that the imposition of penalty is not in conformity to the law and procedure prevailing during the disputed period which should never had extended the duty demand for the extended period. He prayed for setting aside of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the various judgments in his support: (i) CCE & SERVICE TAX, Ghaziabad Vs. Mahaveer Cylinders Ltd. – 2016 (341) ELT 361 (Tri.-All.) (ii) CCE, Ghaziabad Vs. UP Telelinks – 2015 (329) ELT 888 (Tri.-Del.) (iii) A. R. Casting (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Chandigarh – 2010 (256) ELT 420 (Tri.-Del.) (iv) Chitrakoot Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai- 2008 (10) STR 118 (Tri. Chennai) (v) CCE, Chandigarh-I Vs. Punjab Steels – 2011 (21) STR 5 (P & H) (vi) Exide Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Raigad – 2018-TIOL-1541- CESTAT-MUM 4. Learned AR for the Department, in response to appellant s contention, fully sup

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

case (AIR) 1958 SC 560 whereby the sale of goods as used in entry of the 7th schedule to the constitution was treated to have carried the same meaning as in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, coupled with subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were the prelude to passage of such an amendment act that suitably amended tax on the sale or purchase of goods and included the same in Article 366 of the Constitution of India under a new Article (29A). 5.2 On the other hand Service as defined under 65B (44) of the Finance Act, 1994 excludes (ii) such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods which is deemed to be a sale within the meaning of clause (29A) of article 366 of the Constitution. 6. From a bare reading of the definition and provision reproduced above, it is apparently clear that a pure sale, un-associated with delivery of goods and services together, is not to be considered as service. Therefore what is contained in Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994 dealing with negative

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

as duty, escapes taxation and the process of verification is always carried out in the presence of assessee and in the process, the auditor is required to discuss the matter with the assessee and advice him to follow correct procedure in future. It is 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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – S.O. No. 78-53/2018-State Tax – Dated:- 1-11-2018 – COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT – Notification 1st November, 2018 Notification No. 53/2018-State Tax S.O. No.78- Dated- 1st November, 2018 – In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Government of Jharkhand hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:- 1. (1) These rules may be called the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2018. (2) They shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from the 23rd October, 2017. 2. In the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, in rule 96, for sub-rule (10), the followin

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1321 (E), dated the 23rd October, 2017 or notification No. 78/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1272(E), dated the 13th October, 2017 or notification No. 79/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1299 (E) dated the 13th October, 2017. . [File.No Va Kar / GST / 04/ 2018] By the order of the Governor of Jharkhand K. K. Khandelwal, Additional Chief Secretary. Note :- The principal rules were published in the Gazette of Jharkhand, Extraordinary, S

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – S.O. No. 79-54/2018-State Tax – Dated:- 1-11-2018 – COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT – Notification 1st November, 2018 Notification No. 54/2018 – State Tax S.O. No.79- Dated- 2nd November, 2018 – In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017),the Government of Jharkhand hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:- 1. (1) These rules may be called the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2018. (2) This notification shall be deemed to be effective from 9th October, 2018. 2. In the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), in rule 89,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he benefit of notification No. 78/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1272(E), dated the 13th October, 2017 or notification No. 79/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1299(E), dated the 13th October, 2017, the refund of input tax credit, availed in respect of inputs received under the said notifications for export of goods and the input tax credit availed in respect of other inputs or input services to the extent used in making such export of goods, shall be granted. . 3. In the said rules, in rule 96, for sub-rule (10

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

azette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1321 (E), dated the 23rd October, 2017 has been availed; or (b) availed the benefit under notification No. 78/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1272(E), dated the 13th October, 2017 or notification No. 79/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i),vide number G.S.R 1299 (E), dated the 13th October, 2017 except so far it relates to receipt of capital goods by such person against Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme. . [File.No Va Kar / GST / 04/ 2018] By th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (11) TMI 335 – APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING MAHARASHTRA – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 820 (App. A. A. R. – GST), [2019] 61 G S.T.R. 47 (AAR) – Levy of GST – supply of food or drinks or any articles for human consumption – food supplied to SEZ area to employees of company – Zero rated supply or not – rate of GST – running a restaurant in the SEZ area – Held that:- The supply made by the appellant to the employees of the unit located in SEZ cannot be construed as zero rated supply by any stretch of imagination, as the employees can neither be treated as SEZ developer nor as SEZ unit. Accordingly, GST will be applicable as per the classification of the services determined in terms of the scheme of the classification of services as provided under Annexure A to the N/N. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by the N/N. 46/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 14.11.2017.
–
Running a restaurant in the SEZ area – rate of GST @ 5% or not – Held that:- The food is being cooked at one p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

visions of both the CGST Act and the MGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provisions under the MGST Act. The present appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as the CGST Act and MGST Act ] by Merit Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred to as the Appellant ) against the Advance Ruling No. ARA-22/2017-18/B-29 dated 05.05.2018 = 2018 (7) TMI 1492 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING – MAHARASHTRA. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE A. Merit Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Appellant or the Company ) is engaged in the business of providing catering services to the various corporate offices on regular basis under contracts. The Company is registered as Outdoor Caterers under the GST

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Merit Hospitality has to supply the food at A Ltd. s premises. The distribution of the foods is directly done by the staff of A Ltd. The menu and the material specifications are mentioned in the contract and also the rate of various items are pre-determined between Merit Hospitality and the company. The billing is done by the Merit Hospitality, directly to the company on the monthly basis and payment is received from the company to Merit Hospitality directly as per terms of payment mentioned in the contract. Question: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, can the above activity be called as canteen activity, and the applicable rate of 5% be charged on our bills. Case (II) The facts mentioned in the case I remains the same except that in addition to the supply of food on the request of the client, Merit Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. also undertakes the services of distribution of food for which Merit Hospitality raises separate bill charging 18% GST. Question: Can both the activit

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Hospitality claim that since the food is supplied directly to the SEZ area, hence no GST is applicable? ; or (b) Can Merit Hospitality claim that it is running a canteen in SEZ area, hence no GST is applicable? Or (c) Can Merit Hospitality claim that it is running a restaurant in SEZ area and hence applicable rate is 5% only? B. The appellant filed an application for advance ruling u/s 97 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the MGST Act 2017 raising the above enumerated questions/issues before the Authority for the Advance Ruling (AAR). C. AAR vide its Ruling No. ARA-22/2017-18/B-29 dated 05.05.2018 decided the issues as under:- Case I: The above question pertaining to the Case I mentioned above is answered in negative. Case II: The above question pertaining to the Case Il mentioned above is answered in negative. Case III: The above question pertaining to the Case Ill mentioned above is answered in negative. Case IV: Question (a) pertaining to case IV could not be answered by the authority due t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

to unit situated in Special Economic Zone (SEZ) as raised in the case IV of the application stating that all the facts required for decision in respect of the specific case were not put before the authority when factually all documents as listed and demanded by the Authority were promptly submitted by the Appellant during the course of proceeding as evidenced by various submissions made by the Appellant. 3. The Ld. Advance Ruling Authority failed to state in the order that the facts which he had required to decide the issue and according to him were demanded by him during the hearing proceedings by the applicant did not provide or was unable to furnish such information or documents related to those facts. 4. The Ld. Advance Ruling Authority erred in quoting, relying and concluding his opinion based to his observations in respect of the applicant s other transactions pertaining to the domestic market and applying such observations in the case of transactions with the unit based in SEZ

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

er on Case IV in the Original Advance Ruling Application; b. Grant an opportunity for a personal hearing and make further submission of documents if any; c. Pass any such further or other order as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Personal Hearing 6. Personal hearing in the matter was conducted on 03.10.2018, wherein the appellant was represented by Shri Vivek Tamhane, who reiterated the written submissions made at the time of filing appeal as well as the additional submissions dated 01.10.2018 as stated above. He deposed that the appellant have come before the Appellant Authority for the ruling in respect of questions asked pertaining to case IV of the original application filed before the Advance Ruling Authority, adding that they are not contending the ruling pronounced in respect of the questions asked pertaining to case l, case II and case III. Discussions and findings 7. Heard the appellant s arguments, wherein they intend to contend the rul

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

by any stretch of imagination, as the employees can neither be treated as SEZ developer nor as SEZ unit. Accordingly, GST will be applicable as per the classification of the services determined in terms of the scheme of the classification of services as provided under Annexure A to the Notification 11/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by the Notification No. 46/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 14.11.2017. 10. As regards the question c pertaining to the case IV of the appeal/application, wherein the appellant has claimed that since it is running a restaurant in the SEZ area, the applicable rate of GST will be 5%, it is observed that question raised in the application is not relevant and lacks rational in as much as the appellant is presuming and is putting pre-emptive notion before the Appellate Authority as to they are running the restaurant in the SEZ area and then asking authority to decide upon the GST rate applicable on such activities. To answer this question, first we would like

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (11) TMI 350 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Imposition of penalty – duty demand along with interest has been paid by the appellant much before the issuance of SCN – difference in the assessable value adopted by the appellant when cars were cleared from its factory premises and the final sale price adopted by Renault India Pvt. Ltd. to the dealer – Short payment of service tax – no suppression of facts – Held that:- Taking into consideration the fact that the appellants have discharged excess duty during the impugned period and also the fact that the department has quantified the figure on the basis of the exercise undertaken by the appellant themselves for confirming the demand, it is held that the ingredients necessary for imposing penalty under section 11AC is not attracted in the present case.
–
There is nothing to establish that the appellants have suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The scenario that short-payment of duty had occurred was only because the a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ss payment when the price was adopted with Delhi dealer and there was shortage of ₹ 20,94,086/-. Show cause notice was issued proposing to demand the differential duty for the impugned period from July 2011 to March 2012 along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed equal penalty. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. consultant Shri Rajaram submitted that the appellant is contesting only the penalty imposed. The duty demand along with interest has been paid by the appellant much before the issuance of show cause notice. He submitted that the difference / shortage was only because of the mistake in the method adopted by the appellant for arriving the assessable value. They had adopted the assessable value of the clearances made to the dealers in Delhi on the belief that this is the highest price. In fact, on intimati

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Central Excise – 2018 (8) TMI 1574; Woosu Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – 2018 (8)TMI 1568 and Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – 2009 (6) TMI 704. He therefore prayed that the penalty may be set aside. 3. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order. He argued that the impugned payment of duty would not have come to light unless the department conducted investigations. The appellants have violated the provisions of law since they have wrongly arrived at the assessable value. The ingredients of imposing equal penalty are sufficiently attracted and there is no ground for interference with the order impugned. 4. Heard both sides. 5. On perusal of records, it is seen that the appellants have issued letter dated 29.3.2016 to the Assistant Director, DGCEI wherein the appellants have stated as under:- Pursuant to your visit, we have undertaken the excise of reconciling the actual excise dut

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

follows:- Sl. No. Years Value Rs. Excise Duty Rs. Interest Remarks 1. 2010-11 NIL NIL NIL There is no excise duty shortage identified 2. 2011-12 1,80,55,683/- 20,94,06/- 15,06,752/- GAR challans enclosed 6. From the above letter, it can be seen that, on being pointed out by the department, the appellant themselves have undertaken the exercise of verifying whether there is difference in the higher value adopted by them for discharging the central excise duty. They had been in the practice of adopting the price of cars cleared to the Delhi dealers on the notion that, that was the highest price. After conducting verification by themselves, it was found that clearances made to some other dealers were also on higher rate. They have immediately discharged the excise duty along with interest. It is also noted in the reply to the notice that they had discharged excess duty of ₹ 10,06,683/- and they have not filed any refund claim for this amount since the same was hit by limitation. Whe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (11) TMI 356 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – inputs which were subsequently cleared “as such” to their sister unit without reversal of credit – Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules – time limitation – Held that:- The appellant being the public sector undertaking cannot be saddled with any malafide suppression or mis-statement, with intent to evade the payment of duty. In any case the credit required to be reversed by the Appellant was available as credit to their sister units, who could be utilise the same for the payment of duty of excise. Thus leading to a Revenue neutral situation even after the subsequent obtaining of centralised registration, the appellant was paying the entire duty on behalf of the other units.
–
In as much as and admittedly Revenue neutral situation is involved in the present appeal and the appellant is a PSU, the extended period is not invokable – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. E/51317/2017- (DB) – Final Order No.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

voking the longer period of limitation. Proposing to confirm the demand of around two lacks crores approximately. The said Show Cause Notice culminated into an order passed by the Commissioner confirming the demand along with the interest and imposition of interest of identical amount. The said order of the Commissioner is impugned before us. 2. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant bring to our notice that subsequently they obtained the centralised registration and a common return on behalf of all the units were being filed by them. As such he submits that there is no dispute after the period of registration. Prior to Registration, they had availed the credit and transferred the inputs to their sister units, who had utilised the same for manufacture of their final product, which was leviable to duty of excise. As such he submits that duty required to be paid by them was available as Credit to their sister units and the entire exercise was Revenue neutral. In such a scenario no malaf

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ppression or mis-statement, with intent to evade the payment of duty. In any case the credit required to be reversed by the Appellant was available as credit to their sister units, who could be utilise the same for the payment of duty of excise. Thus leading to a Revenue neutral situation even after the subsequent obtaining of centralised registration, the appellant was paying the entire duty on behalf of the other units. 5. As per the Hon ble Mumbai High Court s decision in the case of Commissioner of Custom & Excise & S.T., VAPI vs. Tarapur Grease India Pvt Ltd. 2016 (334) ELT 416 (Bom.), the identical issue stands considered and it stands held that non reversal of removal of inputs as such to their sister units involves the doctrine of Revenue neutrality. As the Tribunal had set aside the demand in that case but imposed penalty on technical contraventions, Hon ble High Court held that even penalties were not imposable. To the same effect is the decision of the Mumbai High Co

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (11) TMI 420 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Refund of Service tax paid – denial of refund on the ground of time bar – Held that:- It is brought out that the refund claim has been filed within one year from the date of payment of service tax as provided under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. When the appellant have complied the time limit prescribed under section 11B and there is provision for extension of time in the notification, the authorities below ought not to have rejected the refund claim stating that the appellants have not furnished sufficient reasons for condonation of delay – refund allowed – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – ST/Misc./40816/2017 & ST/40277 And 40278/2014 – Final Order Nos. 42759-42760/2018 – Dated:- 1-11-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri Harish Bindumadhavan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER In both these appeals, the appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of refu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

from the service provider. However, in the invoices with regard to certain sale of immovable properties, the service provider had noted the category of service as Real Estate Agent Service. In fact, the agreement itself stipulates that there is no agency relationship between the service provider and the appellant herein. The service would therefore be classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service / Business Support Service which are approved service for the appellant. Therefore, the rejection of refund claim stating that the services are not approved cannot sustain. He relied upon the decision in the cases of Mast Global Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore North – 2018-TIOL-3115-CESTAT-BANG and Petronet LNG Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi – 2017 (7) GSTL 54 (Tri. Del.). 3. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order. He argued that since the Real Estate Agent Service are not approved service for the appel

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

long with marketing services. Therefore, I am of the view that the mis-classification of services in the invoices cannot be a ground for rejection of refund claim. I hold that the appellant is eligible for refund in Appeal No. ST/40277/2014. 6. In Appeal No. ST/40278/2014, the issue is rejection of refund claim on the ground of being time-barred. Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that as per Notification 9/2009, the refund claim has to be filed within six months of payment of service tax. The notification also stipulates in para 2 clause (f) that the time can be extended by the Assistant / Deputy Commissioner, if necessary. The period for condonation of delay or extension has not been fixed in the notification. It is submitted by him that the refund claims have been filed within one year of the payment of service tax and would be well within the time prescribed under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He relied upon the decision in the case of TATA Consultancy Services

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

elow ought not to have rejected the refund claim stating that the appellants have not furnished sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. In the decision relied by the ld. counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal has held that though the refund claim is not filed within six months as provided in Notification 9/2009, when the claim has been filed within one year as provided under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, the claim ought not to have been rejected. Following the said decision and also appreciating the facts, I am of the view that the rejection of refund claim, to the extent disallowed on the ground of time-bar, is unjustified. I hold that the appellants are eligible for refund. The impugned order rejecting the refund claim to the extent of being time-barred is set aside and the Appeal No. E/40278/2014 is allowed with consequential relief, if any. 10. The miscellaneous application filed by Revenue for change of cause title is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Customs – 144/2018 – Dated:- 1-11-2018 – OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (NS- II), JAWAHARLAL NEHRU CUSTOM HOUSE, NHAVA SHEVA, TAL-URAN, DISTRICT – RAIGAD, MAHARASHTRA -400 707. F.No. S/12-Gen-Misc.-984/2018-19/DBK Public Notice No. 144/2018 Date: 01-11-2018 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 authorised 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 for more than a year now, errors are still being co

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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 lesser IGST amount than what has actually been paid against

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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. 5. 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 Shri Siddharth Jaiswal, Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Drawback & IGST Refund). A scanned copy of the signed RRR can also be mailed to igstrefundjnch@gmail.com. 6. 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 IGST amount. Thus, utmost care may be

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (11) TMI 731 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Refund of duty paid under protest – remission of duty – scope of SCN – CBEC Circular No. 800/33/2004-CX dated 01.10.2004 – Held that:- It is settled legal principle that no authority is allowed to travel beyond the show cause notice – In the present matter, the show cause notice proposes the disallowance of refund mainly on the ground of clarification issued by CBEC Circular dated 01.10.2004, and the Adjudicating Authority also rejected the claim on the said ground. But in the impugned order there is not even a whisper by the Commissioner (Appeals) about the said Circular.
–
A new case cannot be made out at the Appellate level and the department cannot travel beyond the show cause notice.
–
The matter is remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals), Raigad for passing a fresh order after taking into consideration all the contentions raised by the Appellant – appeal allowed by way of remand. – APPEAL NO: E/86260-86261/2018 – A/87820-87821/20

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

/- vide GAR challan dated 05.01.2015 and ₹ 2,84,733/- vide GAR challan dated 13.10.2015 for respectively under protest. The Appellant thereafter filed two refund claims on 17.10.2016 for the interest paid under protest. The department issued show cause notices to the appellant for rejection of the refund in terms of the said CBEC Circular No. 800/33/2004-CX dated 01.10.2004 issued under F.No. 267/22/2002-CX-8. The Adjudicating Authority vide order-in-original no. Bel-V/Tech-II/164/Refund/AC/2016 dated 26.12.2016 rejected both the refund claims of the appellant in view of the clarification issued in the CBEC Circular dated 01.10.2004. Aggrieved the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that CBEC's Circular dated 01.10.2004 was based on decision of this Tribunal in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. CCE & Custom, Ahmadabad; reported in 2003(154) ELT 543(Tri-Mumbai) but the same was overruled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the c

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appellant submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside solely on the ground that the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals) has travelled beyond the show cause notice which is not permissible. He further submitted that the only reason mentioned in the show cause notice as well as in the adjudicating Order for rejecting the refund claim was that considering the clarification issued by the CBEC Circular dated 01.10.2004, the interest was correctly demanded. He further submitted that he filed the appeal before the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals) and pointed out that the Board Circular, as cited in the show cause notice and in the Adjudication Order, was no longer good law in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra) which had been cited in the said circular since the basis for the said circular, had been expressly overruled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra) and the said decisi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (11) TMI 1187 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Revision of monthly returns – Initially, on 25. 10. 2016, the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) allowed the petitioner to revise the monthly returns from November 2015 to March 2016. But the request concerned the months from April 2015 to March 2016 – revision of return was rejected from the Office of the Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax Department, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.
–
Held that:- The Assistant Commissioner discharges the functions of a quasi judicial authority. And the reasoning is the heart of the adjudication. Here, the Ext. P4 reads more like a fiat. It contains no reasons for rejection – the Ext. P4 is set aside and matter remanded for fresh adjudication. – WP (C).

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

pondent's notice, he passed the Ext. P4 order, and the order reads: This is to inform you that the above referred return revision application filed by the dealer M/s Sree Lekshmi Cashew Company bearing TIN 32020294252 for the year 2015-16 is rejected from the Office of the Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax Department, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram. 3. The Assistant Commissioner discharges the functions of a quasi judicial authority. And the reasoning is the heart of the adjudication. Here, the Ext. P4 reads more like a fiat. It contains no reasons for rejection. 4. I, therefore, set aside the Ext. P4 and remand the matter for fresh adjudication. Until the second respondent passes fresh orders on the petitioner's request, the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (11) TMI 1263 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Release of detained consignments – non-filing up of Part-B – Held that:- The issue stands squarely covered in favour of the petitioner in the case of SABITHA RIYAZ VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. [2018 (11) TMI 213 – KERALA HIGH COURT], where it was held that typographical error in the E-way bill must be condoned – petition disposed off. – WP(C). No. 35665 of 2018 Dated:- 1-11-2018 – MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. For The Petitioner : ADV. SMT. S. SUJINI For The Respondent : GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES JUDGMENT The petitioner, a partnership firm, seeks the following reliefs: 1) issue a writ of mandamus, thereby directing the first respondent to drop the proceedings against the petitioner. 2) Iss

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Customs – 34 /2018 – Dated:- 1-11-2018 – GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM(CHENNAI IV) CUSTOM HOUSE, 60, RAJAJI SALAI, CHE AI-600 001. Telephone: 044-25231217 – Fax: 044-25221861 Email.:commrchivc gmail.com (IS 15700:2005 (Sevottam ( Certified) F.No. S. Misc. 07/2018-Refunds-Ch-IV DATED: 01.11.2018 PUBLIC NOTICE No. 34 /2018 Sub: Creation of GST Helpdesks for MSME sector by CBIC to support MSMEs Reg. Exporters/importers / Customs Brokers / Steamer Agents / Other Stakeholders and the Trading Public are hereby informed that Government of India is launching a program to support MSMEs and to reach out to them for which Department of Financial Services will be the nodal agency to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ils of the same are available on the CBIC's website. It is also informed that the following activities would be carried out by the CBIC field formations in coordination with the 'Prabhari Officers' in relevant districts. a. GST Help-desk for MSME sector with special emphasis on helping them in GST Registration / Return filing and refund claims; b. Publicity of activities / awareness campaign carried out by CBIC. in relation to GST; c. Publicity of the CBIC GST apps; d. Distribution of updated of Act, Rules, FAQs, flyers and other educational material. 3. To bolster the efforts of GST field formations, it has been decided to create Help-desk for MSME sector in this office to address the issues pertaining to Export related IGST re

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Anbu Motors, M/s. Anbu Automobile Versus The Principal Chief Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax Act, Union of India, The Chairman, Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTIN) , Government of Tamil Nadu, The State Tax Officer And The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise – 2018 (12) TMI 1406 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI – Filing of GST TRAN-1 – input tax credit – the grievance of the petitioners is that so far, no such Nodal Officer is appointed, which is not refuted by the learned Standing Counsel – Held that:- On a perusal of the typed set of papers accompanying the petition, this Court finds the various communications addressed by the petitioners with regard to the technical glitches faced by them in filing TRAN-1. Going by the supporting documents filed in the typed set of papers, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners have made genuine attempts to file their returns, which satisfies the ingredient of the circular in Circular No. 39/13/2018-GST also.
–
Petitions are dispose

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nder the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and they had attempted to file GST TRAN-1 form in GSTN portal to avail transitional credit upon the implementation of GST. But, according to the petitioners, due to technical glitches in the portal, they could not complete the filing process within the statutory due date ie. before 27.12.2017. Therefore, according to the petitioners, they had tried the Help Desk / Seva Kendra, Grievance Redressal Portal as well as the jurisdictional officers, but, all the efforts made by the petitioners have ended in vain. According to the petitioners, they were driven from one end to the other and having left with no other option, they are before this Court. 4. The Government of India, in order to address the technical issues and the grievances, has issued a circular in Circular No.39/13/2018-GST, to facilitate, among other things, TRAN-1 submission. This circular contemplates appointment of Nodal Officers to facilitate the filing by the struggling TRAN

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e., 27.12.2017. The onus to provide evidences, for non-filing before the due date because of technical glitches, was left with the tax payers, vide the above circular. Here, the petitioner has made attempts even to file their return by manual mode, before the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Tirunelveli, on 31.01.2018, which, in the opinion of this Court, is a genuine attempt made by the petitioner. 8. GST is a new progressive levy. One of the progressive ideal of GST is to avoid cascading taxes. GST Laws contemplate seamless flow of tax credits on all eligible inputs. The input tax credits in TRAN 1 are the credits legitimately accrued in the GST transition. The due date contemplated under the laws to claim the transitional credit is procedural in nature. In view of the GST regime and the IT platform being new, it may not be justifiable to expect the users to back up digital evidences. Even under the old taxation laws, it is a settled legal position that substantive

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ed by the petitioners with regard to the technical glitches faced by them in filing TRAN-1. Going by the supporting documents filed in the typed set of papers, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners have made genuine attempts to file their returns, which satisfies the ingredient of the circular in Circular No. 39/13/2018-GST also. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.18532 of 2018, dated 10.09.2018 (cited supra) would squarely apply to the present cases on hand. 7. Following the same, these writ petitions are disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to open the portal, so as to enable the petitioners to file their TRAN-1 electronically for claiming the transitional credit and allow the input credits, after processing the same, if it is otherwise eligible in law. No costs. – Case laws – Decisions – Judgements – Orders – Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxman

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Customs – PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 30/2018 – Dated:- 1-11-2018 – OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS (PREV.), JAMNAGAR SARDA HOUSE , BEDI BUNDER ROAD, OPP.PANCHAVATI, JAMNAGAR – 361008 PHONE NO.: 0288 2757509/10, FAX NO. : 0288 2757538/39 E-Mail: custechjmr@gmail.com F.No.VIII/48-251/Cus-T/2018 Date: 01.11.2018 PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 30/2018 Subject: regarding. Attention of Exporters, Customs Brokers, Shipping Lines, Field Officers & of other concern stakeholders is invited to the above captioned subject. 2. In pursuance to the Government of India's initiative program to support MSME. a special IGST Helpdesk for liquidating pending IGST refunds is famed of district of Rajkot and Gir Somnath as detailed below: Sl. No. Jurisdiction Name of the O

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Rate of GST – The product ‘Militry Malai Mithai’ as described in the Application will merit classification under Chapter Heading 2106 90 of the GST Tariff as ‘Sweetmeat’ and w

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Interest on delayed refund – tax paid in respect of exported goods – section 16 of IGST Act – mismatch of invoices – Adjudicating authority to apply his mind independently – TMI Updates – Highlights

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Profiteering – benefit of reduction in the GST rates not passed to customers – Amway Business Owners (ABOs). – Petitioner could not establish profiteering for want of cogent and reliable evidence – TMI Updates – Highlights

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Profiteering – restaurant service – benefit of reduction of tax from 18% to 5% not passed to customers – applicant could not establish profiteering for want of credible evidence – TMI Updates – Highlights

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST MSME FLYER – Goods and Services Tax – GST – Dated:- 31-10-2018 – PDF DOWNLOAD – News – Press release

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – Started By: – RAJIV KR – Dated:- 31-10-2018 Last Replied Date:- 12-2-2019 – Dear Experts, If a Person deals with development of Residential Layout which has the basic amenities like drainage,Park,water Supply etc and he is also Constructing the buildings for Gym,Club house,Community hall,Pool etc as Special ameneties. What is the GST applicable in this Senerio and is there any GST on the Land we Purchase from him. – Reply By HIREGANGE& ASSOCIATES – The Reply = 1. Sale of land is treated a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – GST DRC – 07A – 1[FORM GST DRC-07A [See rule 142A(1)] Summary of the order creating demand under existing laws Reference No. Date – Part A – Basic details Sr. No. Description Particulars (1) (2) (3) 1. GSTIN 2. Legal name << Auto >> 3. Trade name, if any << Auto >> 4. Government Authority who passed the order creating the demand __ State /UT __ Centre 5. Old Registration No. 6. Jurisdiction under earlier law 7. Act under which demand has been created 8. Period for which demand has been created From – mm, yy To mm, yy 9. Order No. (original) 10. Order date (original) 11. Latest order no. 12. Latest order date 13. Date of service of the order (optional) 14. Name of the officer who has passed the order (Optional)

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

__________ (Address) Copy to – Note – 1. In case of demands relating to short payment of tax declared in return, acknowledgement / reference number of the return may be mentioned. 2. Only recoverable demands shall be posted for recovery under GST laws. Once, a demand has been created through FORM GST DRC-07A, and the status of the demand changes subsequently, the status may be amended through FORM GST DRC-08A. 3. Demand paid up to the date of uploading the summary of the order should only be mentioned in Table 20. Different heads of the liabilities under existing laws should be synchronized with the heads defined under Central or State tax. 4. Latest order number means the last order passed by the relevant authority for the particular deman

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – GST DRC – 08A – 1[FORM GST DRC-08A [See rule 142A(2)] Amendment/Modification of summary of the order creating demand under existing laws Reference no. Date – Part A – Basic details Sr. No. Description Particulars (1) (2) (3) 1. GSTIN 2. Legal name << Auto >> 3. Trade name, if any << Auto >> 4. Reference no. vide which demand uploaded in FORM GST DRC-07A 5. Date of FORM GST DRC-07A vide which demand uploaded 6. Government Authority who passed the order creating the demand __State UT __ Centre << Auto >> 7. Old Registration No. << Auto, editable >> 8. Jurisdiction under earlier law << Auto, editable >> 9. Act under which demand has been created << Auto

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

mand posted originally through Table 21 of FORM GST DRC-07A (Amount in Rs. in all tables) << Auto >> Act Tax Interest Penalty Fee Others Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Central Acts State / UT Acts CST Act 23. Updation of demand Act Type of updation Tax Interest Penalty Fee Others Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Quashing of demand (Complete closure of demand) 2. Amount of reduction, if any 3. Total reduction (1+2) 24. (22-23) Balance amount of demand required to be recovered under the Act << Auto-populated >> Act Tax Interest Penalty Fee Others Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Central Acts State / UT Acts CST Act Signature Name Designation Jurisdiction To _______________ (GSTIN/ID) -Name _______________ (Address ) Copy to – Note – 1. Reduction incl

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rule 142A – Rules – DEMANDS AND RECOVERY – Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 – Rule 142A – 1[142A. Procedure for recovery of dues under existing laws. – (1) A summary of order issued under any of the existing laws creating demand of tax, interest, penalty, fee or any other dues which becomes recoverable consequent to proceedings launched under the existing law before, on or after the appointed day shall, unless recovered under that law, be recovered under the Act and may be uploaded in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rule 83A – Rules – Returns – Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 – Rule 83A – 1[83A. Examination of Goods and Services Tax Practitioners.- (1) Every person referred to in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 83 and who is enrolled as a goods and services tax practitioner under sub-rule (2) of the said rule, shall pass an examination as per sub-rule (3) of the said rule. (2) The National Academy of Customs, Indirect Taxes and Narcotics (hereinafter referred to as NACIN ) shall conduct the examination. (3) Frequency of examination.- The examination shall be conducted twice in a year as per the schedule of the examination published by NACIN every year on the official websites of the Board, NACIN, common portal, GST Council Secretariat and in the leading English and regional newspapers. (4) Registration for the examination and payment of fee.- (i) A person who is required to pass the examination shall register online on a website specified by NACIN. (ii) A person who registers for th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

l be as specified in the second proviso of sub-rule (3) of said rule. (ii) A person required to pass the examination may avail of any number of attempts but these attempts shall be within the period as specified in clause (i). (iii) A person shall register and pay the requisite fee every time he intends to appear at the examination. (iv) In case the goods and services tax practitioner having applied for appearing in the examination is prevented from availing one or more attempts due to unforeseen circumstances such as critical illness, accident or natural calamity, he may make a request in writing to the jurisdictional Commissioner for granting him one additional attempt to pass the examination, within thirty days of conduct of the said examination. NACIN may consider such requests on merits based on recommendations of the jurisdictional Commissioner. (7) Nature of examination.-The examination shall be a Computer Based Test. It shall have one question paper consisting of Multiple Choic

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

th the result of the examination; (e) found in possession of any paper, book, note or any other material, the use of which is not permitted in the examination center; (f) communicating with others or exchanging calculators, chits, papers etc. (on which something is written); (g) misbehaving in the examination center in any manner; (h) tampering with the hardware and/or software deployed; and (i) attempting to commit or, as the case may be, to abet in the commission of all or any of the acts specified in the foregoing clauses. (10) Disqualification of person using unfair means or practice.- If any person is or has been found to be indulging in use of unfair means or practices, NACIN may, after considering his representation, if any, declare him disqualified for the examination. (11) Declaration of result.- NACIN shall declare the results within one month of the conduct of examination on the official websites of the Board, NACIN, GST Council Secretariat, common portal and State Tax Depar

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the enrolling authority in FORM GST PCT-1 has been selected as Centre, or the Commissioner of State Tax if the enrolling authority in FORM GST PCT-1 has been selected as State; (b) NACIN means as notified by notification No. 24/2018-Central Tax, dated 28.05.2018. Annexure-A [See sub-rule 7] Pattern and Syllabus of the Examination PAPER: GST Law & Procedures: Time allowed: 2 hours and 30 minutes Number of Multiple Choice Questions: 100 Language of Questions: English and Hindi Maximum marks: 200 Qualifying marks: 100 No negative marking Syllabus: 1 The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 2 The Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 3 All The State Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017 4 The Union territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 5 The Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 6 The Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 7 The Integrated Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 8 All The State Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 9 Notifications, Circulars

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =