Author: admin_gst

2018 (11) TMI 1350 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 342 (A. A. R. – GST) – Maintainability of Advance Ruling application – Liability to pay tax on the services supplied to applicant – exemption to service providers on imported agricultural products Viz., Wheat – exemption under chapter heading 9986 in Sl.No. 54(e) of GST Notification No.12/2017-CT (R) dated 28.6.2017 – recipient of services.
–
Held that:- It is evident that an applicant can seek an Advance Ruling in relation to supply of goods or services or both undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. Further, as per Section 103(1) of the CGST Act, the ruling is binding only the applicant and the Concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer of the applicant – In the case at hand, the applicant is the recipient of the services and not supplier of such service. Accordingly, the Application is not liable for admission and therefore rejected without going into the merits of the ca

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

mil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act. M/s. Naga Limited, No.1, Trichy Road, Dindigul 624005. (herein after referred as the Applicant or Naga) is a registered person under GST 2017 with GSTIN 33AAACN2369LIZD. They have sought Advance Ruling on the following question : Whether exemption provided under the chapter heading 9986 in Sl.No. 54(e) of GST Notification No.12/2017-CT (R) dated 28.6.2017 for the service providers who have rendered Handling services such as loading , unloading, packing, storage or ware housing of agricultural products is applicable for agricultural products viz. Wheat, when imported through sea ports . The Applicant has submitted the copy of application in Form GST ARA – 001 and also submitted a copy of Challan evidencing payment of application fees of ₹ 5,000/- each under sub-rule (1) of Rule 104 of CGST rules 2017 and SGST Rules 2017. 2.0 The Applicants are importer of Agricultural products viz. Wheat through various Sea Ports for carrying out Milling operati

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

only to the supply chain commencing from the stage of the Cultivator or Producer and extended up to the primary market. It did not include an entire market including further traders and ultimate consumers. Since, in the instant case, the service is not for the supply from Cultivators to the primary market, but from an importer (through availing the handling services of the port company) to the secondary or tertiary market in respect of unprocessed Agricultural produce, few service providers feel exemption may not be applicable in respect of imported goods and pay GST on the services rendered and claim the same from the applicant. The applicant has stated that as per the definition of Agricultural Produce , the restriction of primary market is applicable only in respect of processed Agricultural produce and the restriction is not applicable to unprocessed Agricultural produce. Therefore, as far as wheat is concerned, when there is no processing is carryout out the exemption will cover o

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

cant avails the services of loading, unloading, storage, etc from various service providers. It is made clear that the applicant do not make any of the supplies in question, but are in fact the recipients of the various supplies as stated in their application. Thus, the question is on the liability to pay tax on the services supplied to them and not on the supply made by them. 4.1 Section 95 (a) of CGST and TNGST Act defines advance ruling as (a) advance ruling means a decision provided by the Authority or the Appellate Authority to an applicant on matters or on questions specified in sub-section (2) of section 97 or sub-section (1) of section 100, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant;; From the above, it is evident that an applicant can seek an Advance Ruling in relation to supply of goods or services or both undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. Further, as per Section 103(1) of the C

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (11) TMI 1467 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service – Non-payment of Service tax – works contract service – non-payment on the ground that the services performed for road, bridges etc. is excluded from the service tax purview under section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 – period involved in the present case is July 2007 to September 2011 – Held that:- The contract entered between the appellant and the service recipient is a composite contract which involves both supply of materials as well as rendering of service.
–
The Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. [2018 (9) TMI 1149 – CESTAT CHENNAI] had occasion to analyze the issue regarding demand of service tax under construction of residential complex services, commercial or industrial construction service and construction of complex service. The Tribunal has held that prior to 1.6.2007, levy of service tax can be under the above categories only for contracts which are p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for Revenue ORDER Per Bench The issue involved in all these appeals being the same, they were heard together and are disposed by this common order. The parties herein are referred to as assessee and department for the sake of convenience. 2. The assessees are engaged in execution of contracts for erection, installation of electrical poles for street lights etc. for Government and other local bodies namely Municipalities and Panchayats etc. During audit of accounts, it was observed that the assessee was paying service tax under erection, commissioning or installation services upto 30.6.2007 and from 1.7.2007 they opted to pay service tax under works contract service. It was noticed that while paying service tax under works contract service, they have short-paid service tax to the tune of ₹ 1,64,159/- upto March 2008 and also noted that they stopped paying service tax under works contract service on the ground that the services performed for road

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

No.. 187 & 188/2012 dt. 30.10.2012 SCN No. 290/2011 dt. 25.8.2011 andSCN No. 88/2012 dt. 4.4.2012 April 2010 to March 2011 Apr. 11 to Sep. 11 Rs.27,79,551/- Rs.33,02,028/- 3. On behalf of the assessee, ld. counsel Shri J. Shankar Raman submitted that in Appeal No. ST/397/2011, the period involved is from July 2007 to September 2008 and the demand made in the show cause notice is under erection, commissioning and installation services. As per the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. Vs. CCE – 2018-TIOL-2867-CESTAT, Chennai, the demand under erection, commissioning and installation service for composite contracts will not sustain. In the said show cause notice, there is an allegation of irregularly availed CENVAT credit on rent-a-cab service also. He submitted that the period is prior to 1.4.2011 and the said services are eligible for credit. In the other show cause notices, the demand is made under ECIS and the original authority confirmed the demand aga

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e department. 5. After hearing both sides, it is brought to light that the period involved in the present case is July 2007 to September 2011. The demand has been raised in the show cause notice under ECIS. The contract entered between the appellant and the service recipient is a composite contract which involves both supply of materials as well as rendering of service. The Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. (supra) had occasion to analyse the issue regarding demand of service tax under construction of residential complex services, commercial or industrial construction service and construction of complex service. The Tribunal has held that prior to 1.6.2007, levy of service tax can be under the above categories only for contracts which are purely for services. That after 1.6.2007, the above categories would be applicable only if the contracts are purely services and which are not composite contracts. Further, it was held that after 1.6.2007, demand in respect of composit

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

x will be levied at only 2 per cent of the total value of the words contract . 7.10 The issue was analyzed by the Hon ble Apex Court in Larsen & Toubro case (supra) and held that there can be no levy of service tax on composite contracts (involving both service and supply of goods) prior to 1.6.2007. This read together with the budget speech as above would lead to the strong conclusion that composite contracts were brought within the ambit of levy of service tax only with effect from 1.6.2007 by introduction of Section 65(105)(zzzza) i.e. Works Contract Services. As pointed out by the ld. counsels for appellants, there is no change in the definition of CICS/CCS/RCS after 1.6.2007. Therefore only those contracts which were service simpliciter (not involving supply of goods) would be subject to levy of service tax under CICS / CCS / RCS prior to 1.6.2007 and after. Our view is supported by the fact that the method / scheme for discharging service tax on the service portion of composi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

on of aforesaid services would undergo a change in case of long term contracts even though part of the service was classified under the respective taxable service prior to 1-6-2007. This is because works contract describes the nature of the activity more specifically and, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994, it would be the appropriate classification for the part of the service provided after that date. 7.12 Thus, for example, while construction of a new residential complex as a service simpliciter would find a place under section 65(105)(30b) of the Act, the same activity as a composite works contract will require to be brought under section 65(105)(zzzza) Explanation (c). For both these categories for the definition of residential complex, the definition given in section 65(105)(91a) will have to be adopted as discussed above will have to be taken into account. 7.13 We find sustenance in arriving at this conclusion by a number of decisions of the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

evenue submitted that the respondent were engaged in construction services liable to tax under tax entry Section65(105) (xxq). The grievance of the Revenue is with reference to commercial nature of the construction undertaken by the respondent and not on the correct classification of taxable activity. b. In the case of Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai – 2018-TIOL-360-CESTAT-MUM, in respect of identical issue for the period from 2005 to 2012, the Tribunal in para 7 has held as under:- 7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the issue falls for consideration is whether the services rendered by the appellant in respect of 52 contracts entered with various Govt. authorities need to be taxed under MMRC/CICS/ECIS or otherwise. It is on record and undisputed that the adjudicating authority has specifically held that all the 52 contracts which has been executed by the appellants are with material. Learned Counse

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

so. c. In the case of URC Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem – 2017 (50) STR 147, the Tribunal in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 has held as under:- 9. The Hon ble Supreme Court in re Larsen & Toubro & Ors. has decided thus 24. A close look at the Finance Act, 1994 would show that the five taxable services referred to in the charging Section 65(105) would refer only to service contracts simpliciter and not to composite works contracts. This is clear from the very language of Section 65(105) which defines taxable service as any service provided . All the services referred to in the said sub-clauses are service contracts simpliciter without any other element in them, such as for example, a service contract which is a commissioning and installation, or erection, commissioning and installation contract. Further, under Section 67, as has been pointed out above, the value of a taxable service is the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service r

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

On the contrary, the submission of the appellant that they had been providing works contract service had been rejected by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, even as the services rendered by them are taxable for the period from 1st June, 2007 to 30th September, 2008 the narrow confines of the show cause notices do not permit confirmation of demand of tax on any service other than commercial or industrial construction service . It is already established in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court that the entry under Section 65(105)(zzd) is liable to be invoked only for construction simpliciter. Therefore, there is no scope for vivisection to isolate the service component of the contract. d. In the case of Logos Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise as reported in 2018 (6) TMI 1361, the Tribunal has held as under:- 5.1 The payment upto 01.06.2007 will get extinguished on account of the law that has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Larsen

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

#8377; 82 lakhs under this category after the visit of the departmental officers and therefore an amount of ₹ 36,88,611/- demanded in the impugned order should be considered as having been discharged. We find merit in his argument and hence the demand of ₹ 26,88,611/- under works contract service for the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008 is required to be considered as having been paid, albeit subsequent to the visit of the officers. However, the interest liability if any that arise on this amount if not paid already will have to be discharged by the appellants. So ordered. 8. In the light of the discussions, findings and conclusions above and in particular, relying on the ratios of the case laws cited supra, we hold as under:- a. The services provided by the appellant in respect of the projects executed by them for the period prior to 1.6.2007 being in the nature of composite works contract cannot be brought within the fold of commercial or industrial construction service or

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ction of Complex Service, cannot therefore sustain. In respect of any contract which is a composite contract, service tax cannot be demanded under CICS / CCS for the periods also after 1.6.2007 for the periods in dispute in these appeals. For this very reason, the proceedings in all these appeals cannot sustain. 5. Following the above decision, we are of the considered opinion that the demand of service tax under ECIS cannot sustain after the period 1.6.2007. The denial of CENVAT credit on rent-a-cab service being prior to 1.4.2011 is unjustified and the assessees are eligible to avail CENVAT credit on the same. 6. From the discussions made above, we hold that the impugned orders cannot sustain and are set aside. The appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with consequential relief, if any. The appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed. The cross-objections filed by the assessee are disposed accordingly. The miscellaneous application filed by Revenue for change of cause title is allowed

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (11) TMI 1468 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Business Auxiliary Service – respondents as distributors were receiving 1% volume discount on the total turnover – liability of service tax – Held that:- The important takeaway from the discussions on the differing nature of assessable value, one for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty and the other for levy of service tax, is that they are two different and distinct entities. This indeed has to be so, since the purpose of levy of central excise duty is to levy tax on production or manufacture of excisable goods in India whereas service tax is a levy on service, which by its very intrinsic nature cannot then be an activity amounting to “manufacture” and subject to Central Excise levy.
–
A value or consideration undisputedly forming part of assessable value for purposes of levy of central excise duty cannot then be also considered as part of the value of taxable service for levy of service tax. This is in keeping with the fundament

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ted diligently in accordance with the provisions of law – there is no suppression of any information or facts.
–
The Commissioner has correctly applied the law after appreciating the facts of the case – appeal dismissed. – Application No.ST/MISC/40793/2017 Appeal No.ST/330/2012 – FINAL ORDER No. 42883/2018 – Dated:- 29-10-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) For the Appellant Shri C. Manickam, Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate & Shri D. Senthil Nathan, Consultant For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that the respondents, M/s. Redington (India) Ltd are engaged in the business of distributing computer hardware and software of various manufacturers such as M/s. Hewlett Packard, IBM, Microsoft, etc. They are also engaged in maintenance and repair for these products during the warranty period as well as post warranty period. On intelligence that the respondents are not paying servic

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ors for providing reseller sell-through reports as inventory reports on weekly basis to HP. 2. From the foregoing it appeared that respondents as distributors were receiving 1% volume discount on the total turnover made, in respect of HP Products and that this was not a trade or sales discount but a commission for providing HP with strategic market information to enable them to maximize the sales of HP products wherever required. The department was of the view, that respondent were providing Business Auxiliary Service to M/s. HP. Therefore a Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to demand the service tax alongwith interest and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority dropped the proceedings holding that 1% discount is not consideration received for rendering services and hence not taxable. Aggrieved, the department is now before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR, Sh.S.Govindarajan reiterated the grounds of appeal. He submitted that the findings of the adjudica

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

y service in relation to promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced or provided by or belonging to the client would fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. Therefore when the respondents are furnishing strategic inventory reports on weekly basis, in a format specified by HP, the same is service incidental or auxiliary or promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced by HP and the 1% discount received by the respondents from HP is chargeable to service tax under Business Auxiliary Service. It is submitted that in a similar case involving M/s.HP and the respondent pertaining to the 1% discount offered to the dealer / distributor as in the present case, the CESTAT, Bangalore [2003(162) ELT 399(T)] considered the issue of includibility of the said 1% additional discount paid to the assesse as a distributor / dealer in the assessable value of the excisable goods manufactured by M/s.HP. In the said case, the Hon ble Tribunal held that the reports sent by the dealers,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e distributors for providing reseller sell on the basis of reports and inventory reports submitted to M/s.HP. The adjudicating authority has rightly dropped the proceedings finding that the respondent was neither commission agent nor was rendering any Business Auxiliary Service. The relationship between the respondent and M/s.HP is that of manufacture and buyer and merely because an inventory report is furnished to the manufacturer in regard to the sale of goods, it cannot be said that the appellant has rendered any services to M/s.HP. The decision of the Tribunal, Bangalore rendered in 2003 (162) E.L.T.399 (Tri.-Bang) relied in the grounds of appeal by the department, has held that the 1% discount does not fall in category of permissible discount to be excluded from the assessable value of goods manufactured by HP in terms of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. For this very same reason, the said discount, if any, has to be included in the assessable value by the manufacturer namel

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

r :- As per Section 65 (19) of Finance Act, 1994 ―Business Auxiliary Service‖ means any service in relation to – (i) promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced or provided by or belonging to the client; or (ii) promotion or marketing of service provided by the client; or (iii) any customer care service provided on behalf of the client; or (iv) … … … … … … … … … (v) … … … … … … … … … (vi) provision of service on behalf of the client; or (vii) a service incidental or auxiliary to any activity specified in sub-clauses (i) to (vi), such as billing, issue or collection or recovery of cheques, payments, maintenance of accounts and remittance, inventory management, evaluation or development of prospective customer or vendor, public relation services, management or supervision, and includes services as a commission agent, but does not include any activ

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

isions of this Chapter, where service tax is chargeable on any taxable service with reference to its value, then such value shall, – (i) in a case where the provision of service is for a consideration in money, be the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service provided or to be provided by him; (ii) in a case where the provision of service is for a consideration not wholly or partly consisting of money, be such amount in money as, with the addition of service tax charged, is equivalent to the consideration; (iii) in a case where the provision of service is for a consideration which is not ascertainable, be the amount as may be determined in the prescribed manner. (2) Where the gross amount charged by a service provider, for the service provided or to be provided is inclusive of service tax payable, the value of such taxable service shall be such amount as, with the addition of tax payable, is equal to the gross amount charged. (3) The gross amount charged for the tax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nt gets such ticket. 6.4 Duties of excise have been made leviable on goods manufactured or produced, under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as amended. For the purpose of working out the duty of excise chargeable on any excisable goods, as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, inter alia, such value shall – (a) in a case where the goods are sold by the assessee, for delivery at the time and place of the removal, the assessee and the buyer of the goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, be the transaction value; (b) in any other case, including the case where the goods are not sold, be the value determined in such manner as may be prescribed. 6.5 For the removal of doubts, Explanation to Section 4 (1) declares that that the price-cum duty of the excisable goods sold by the assessee shall be the price actually paid to him for the goods sold and the money value of the additional consideration, if any, following directly or indirectly fr

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rther clarity in respect of valuation for the purposes of levy of Central Excise duty is brought about in Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. So also, Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 have been introduced vide Notification No.12/2006-ST dt. 19.4.2006. 6.8 The important takeaway from these discussions on the differing nature of assessable value, one for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty and the other for levy of service tax, is that they are two different and distinct entities. This indeed has to be so, since the purpose of levy of central excise duty is to levy tax on production or manufacture of excisable goods in India whereas service tax is a levy on service, which by its very intrinsic nature cannot then be an activity amounting to manufacture and subject to Central Excise levy. 6.9 The basic nature of service tax was dealt with by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of All India Federation of Tax Practitioners Vs UOI – 2007 (7) STR 625 (S.C.) wherein it w

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the principle of equivalence in a sense that consumption of goods and consumption of services are similar as they both satisfy human needs. Today with the technological advancement there is a very thin line which divides a sale from service . That, applying the principle of equivalence, there is no difference between production or manufacture of saleable goods and production of marketable/saleable services in the form of an activity undertaken by the service provider for consideration, which correspondingly stands consumed by the service receiver. It is this principle of equivalence which is inbuilt into the concept of service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. That service tax is, therefore, a tax on an activity. That, service tax is a value added tax. The value addition is on account of the activity which provides value addition, for example, an activity undertaken by a chartered accountant or a broker is an activity undertaken by him based on his performance and skill. This is from t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ture and subjected to excise levy and at the same time considered to be a service and subjected to service tax. In fact, the process amounting to manufacture is kept specifically out of the scope of Section 65 (19) of Finance Act, 1994 which prescribes service tax liability on processing of goods not amounting to manufacture. 6.11 It has been consistently laid down by the Tribunal, in a plethora of decisions, that consideration which is subject to payment of excise duty is not liable for payment of service tax liability. Some of such decisions, correctly cited by the Ld. Advocate for respondents, are as under : 1) Allengers Medical Systems Ltd. Vs CCE Chandigarh 2009 (14) STR 235 (Tri.-Del.) 2) Alidhara Texspin Engineers Vs CCE & Customs, Vapi 2010 (20) STR 315 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 3) Sharma and Associates Firetech Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Indore 2017 (51) STR 289 (Tri.-Del.) 4) Vidarbha Grindeers (P) Ltd. Vs CCE Nagpur 2015 (40) STR 331 (Tri.-Mumbai) In Jubiliant Industries Vs CCE Ghaziabad – 201

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

) ELT 399 (Tri.-Bang.) and subsequently affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court on 06.02.2004 [2004 (167) ELT A137 (SC)]. The department should have taken precautionary measures to issue periodical SCNs on the very same issue from time to time pending final decision in the matter. This being the case, we are unable to fathom the how and why of the department having taken a stand contrary to that settled by the Hon ble Apex Court on 06.02.2004 and deemed it proper to issue a SCN taking an antipodal and opposite proposition. Unless the said judgment of the Supreme Court has been further reviewed, or for that matter, the ratio laid down had been overturned by the Hon ble Apex Court itself, which is certainly not the case here, there is no justification for the department to have initiated the impugned proceedings. In our view, seeking to tax a particular commission amount under excise duty on the one hand, and in respect of the identical transaction, demanding service tax liability on the very

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d in the transaction. 14. In this connection I take support of the decision of Hon ble CESTAT in the case of M/s.Pratap Singh & Sons Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I, as reported in 2007 (5) STR 389 (Tri-Mumbai), wherein it was held as follows : 5. The appellant have purchased and sold from the principals as their distributor. On purchase of the goods, the ownership changes to the appellant and as owner, dealer or transferee of the goods, it was in his own interest to promote the sales activities and to make advertisement and keep the trained salesman and hence, they are part of the dealers job. This cannot be treated as service rendered to the principals namely the manufacturers. If there was any special relationship or additional consideration leading to charging of lower price to the appellant, at the most, it can become an issue relating to valuation of the goods. The discount given by the manufacturer cannot be taken as service charges. The decision of the Commissio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

03.2007, 03.03.2008 to 05.03.2008, 26.03.2009 to 27.03.2009 and 06.07.2009 to 10.07.2009; that in the process of auditing, all the transactions were duly and properly audited by the Department; that such neither any attempt was made to conceal the facts nor to hide any information and the respondent had acted diligently in accordance with the provisions of law; that therefore it is submitted that there is no suppression of any information or facts. We find merit in these contentions also. 7. From the findings, discussions and conclusions herein above, we hold that the Commissioner has correctly applied the law after appreciating the facts of the case. We find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. The miscellaneous application for change of cause title filed by department is allowed. (Operative part of the order pronounced in open court) – Case laws – Decisions – Judgements – Orders – Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia – taxmanagement – taxma

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (12) TMI 1578 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – TMI – Validity of attachment order – petitioner could not discharge its GST liabilities for the past several months – According to the petitioner, since it was unable to pay the tax, the Returns could not be filed. – Held that:- The petitioner can restart its manufacturing activities and start repaying the Government dues. In this context, few things become relevant. Firstly, according to the petitioner, the outstanding dues are in the vicinity of ₹ 64.00 Lacs. This does not account for possible interest or penalty or late payment charges. The petitioner must clear the dues as soon as possible. The petitioner, having collected such taxes, would not get any sympathy from us, if the unpaid taxes are not deposited in the Government revenue – The petitioner shall place before the respondent authorities material regarding its purchases and clearances in order to enable the authority to form the best judgment assessment, if so found necessary.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

plant. The petitioner is in the business of manufacturing agrochemicals. 3. The facts admitted by the petitioner are that the petitioner could not discharge its GST liabilities for the past several months. According to the petitioner, tax of ₹ 97.00 Lacs was collected but, could not be deposited with the Government on account of severe financial crisis. Out of such amount, the petitioner has, by now, paid about ₹ 33.00 Lacs, leaving a residue of about ₹ 64.00 Lacs. According to the petitioner, since it was unable to pay the tax, the Returns could not be filed. 4. The GST authorities, therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 83 of the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 passed the impugned order attaching the petitioner s plant, machinery and stock. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was on account of acute financial crisis resulting out of the meltdown conditions in the market that the petitioner could not deposit the tax. The order pass

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

things become relevant. Firstly, according to the petitioner, the outstanding dues are in the vicinity of ₹ 64.00 Lacs. This does not account for possible interest or penalty or late payment charges. The petitioner must clear the dues as soon as possible. The petitioner, having collected such taxes, would not get any sympathy from us, if the unpaid taxes are not deposited in the Government revenue. Learned AGP may also be correct in pointing out that the figures of unpaid taxes are based on the petitioner s selfassessment and this would be subject to verification. The law permits the authorities to carry out best judgment assessment in case the Returns are not filed. The petitioner shall place before the respondent authorities material regarding its purchases and clearances in order to enable the authority to form the best judgment assessment, if so found necessary. All these procedures can continue. 8. In the meantime, however, subject to certain strict conditions, we would perm

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Customs – PUBLIC NOTICE N0. 137/2018/ 30.10.2018 – Dated:- 29-10-2018 – OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (Export) NEW CUSTOM HOUSE, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400 001 Email : Drawback.nch@gov.in F. No. S/26.Misc-12/2018-19 IGST Refund Date: 29.10.2018 PUBLIC NOTICE N0. 137/2018/ 30.10.2018 Sub: reg. Attention of the trade is invited to Board's Circular No. 40/2018-Customs issued vide F. No. 450/119/2017-cus IV dated 24th October 2018. 1. Exporters are availing the refunds of IGST paid on exports regularly for more than a year now. It has been observed that exporters have committed many errors which have hampered sanctioning of IGST refund. CBIC has introduced several options and alternative mechanisms through which various mismatch errors between the Shipping Bill (SB) and GSTR 1 data can be handled in the system. 2. CBIC has issued circulars 05/2018-Customs dated 23.02.2018, 08/2018-Customs dated 23.03.2018, 15/2018-Customs dated 06.06.2018 and 22/2018-Customs dated 18.07.2018 resp

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ther since the same transaction is being reported under GST laws and Customs Act. 3. It may be noted that SBS which have not been scrolled due to the IGST paid amount erroneously declared as 'NA' are already being handled through officer interface as per Board's 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. 4. CBIC has been receiving representations where the refund scroll has been generated for a much lesser IGST amount than what has actually been paid against the exported goods. Broadly, this has happened due to: a. Error made by the exporter/CHA in declaring the IGST paid amount in SB or, b, cases where compensation cess paid amount was not entered by the exporter in the SB along With the IGST paid amount or the same details were not transmitted by GSTN, and the scroll consequently got generated only for the IGST amount or,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

lso be mailed to dedicated email address of Customs locations from where exports, took place, The designated/concerned AC/DC will then proceed to sanction the amount after due verification through the option provided in ICES, a detailed advisory on which Will be communicated by DG Systems to all the System Managers shortly. Once the revised amount is approved by the designated AC/DC in the system, a fresh scroll will be available for generation for the differential amount only. 7. It may be noted that only those SBS which have already been scrolled shall be available in this facility, Further, this facility can be used only once for each eligible SB to sanction the revised IGST amount, Thus, utmost care may be taken by the exporter while submitting the RRR as no further provision will be available for revising the refund sanction again. 8. With this facility, it is hoped that the eligible exporters will come forward for rectification of the mistakes to enable sanction of balance refund

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – sarang takalkar – Dated:- 27-10-2018 Last Replied Date:- 30-10-2018 – Respected,When travel agent deals in B2B category, there is double taxationSupplier pays GST and again the agent pays GST on total amount. Is there any clarification ? thanks, – Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN – The Reply = Supplier pays tax the supply provided by him. Agent pays GST for the commission obtained for his service rendered to the principal. The principal will take input t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Income Tax – Nature of expenditure – fertility improvement program amongst milk animals – The expenditure was general in nature and to be allowed as revenue expenditure. – TMI Updates – Highlights

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – E-way bill – Goods did not reach destination within prescribed time on account of strike – constitutional validity of portions of Sections 129 and 130 of the Central Goods and

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Dinesh Kumar – Dated:- 27-10-2018 – 1. Prologue Corporate Restructuring through amalgamation, arrangement, mergers, acquisition and takeover has become vital to corporate strategy to day. To attain accelerated growth, corporate in India now a days resort more towards restructuring strategies. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) has been envisaged as an efficient tax system and it affects the structuring of the various operations in India. Corporate transaction in pursuance of amalgamation, arrangement, mergers, acquisition and takeover are also affected by GST. Thus, the industries are required to analyse the provisions of the GST Law and its impact on their business. 2. Registration Registration of any business entity under the GST Law implies obtaining a unique number from the concerned tax authorities for the purpose of collecting tax on behalf of the government and to avail Input tax credit for the taxes on his inward supplies. By virtue of sectio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

sale, merger, demerger, amalgamation, lease or transfer of business, the registered person would be allowed to transfer the unutilized input tax credit to transferor. In this context, the registered person is required to furnish the details of sale, merger, de-merger, amalgamation, lease or transfer of business in Form GST ITC-02 electronically on the Common Portal along with a request to transfer the unutilized input tax credit lying in his electronic credit ledger to the transferee. The transferee would accept the details so furnished by the transferor on the Common Portal and, upon such acceptance, the unutilized credit would be credited to his electronic credit ledger. In the case of demerger, the input tax credit would be apportioned in the ratio of the value of assets of the new units as specified in the demerger scheme. 4. Itemised Sales Where assets and liabilities of a business are transferred by way of assigning a value to each item then it is called as itemized sale. Such sa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

y, transfer of business assets is supposed as supply. The transfer of business is amounted to transfer of a part of the assets and not the whole business. Moreover, para 4(c) of the schedule II specifies that in case business is transferred as a going concern then it would not constitute as supply. However, in pursuance of Notification No. 12/2017 Central tax (rate) dt 28.06.2017 services, which are provided by way of transfer of a going concern as a whole or an independent part thereof, are exempted from GST. Thus, no GST would applicable on slump sale transaction as transfer of business on a going concern basis. 6. Liability of companies w.r.t. order of court or Tribunal According to section 87 of the CGST Act, when two or more companies are amalgamated or merged in pursuance of an order of court or of Tribunal or otherwise and the order is to take effect from a date earlier to the date of the order and any two or more of such companies have supplied or received any goods or services

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal – Dated:- 27-10-2018 – Advance rulings are important in any tax law as it provides a forum for clarification and possible interpretation of statutory provisions. Moreover, it conveys the legislative intention from the revenue s view point. Provisions of advance ruling are contained in section 95 to 106 of CGST Act, 2017 and State / UT GST enactment. Rules 103 to 107 of also provide for forms, manner, certification etc. The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) have been set up in all the states and we have now over 200 advance rulings on different issues already pronounced by various State Authorities. The appellate mechanism for filing appeals against AAR rulings is also in place and we have about twenty such appellate orders confirming or modifying the AAR orders. One major issue presently being faced is about multiple authorities (equal to number of States), each pronouncing a ruling of its own even if the matter is covered by s

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

taxes category? In the instant case, on verification of record submitted by jurisdictional authority, it was found that proceedings were initiated well before filing of application before AAR and applicant himself admitted that they had preferred writ petition before High Court on same issue which was pending for disposal. The AAR ruled that the application did not qualify pre-requisitions for admission as per section 98(2) of CGST Act, 2017. [Crux Bio Tech India (P.) Ltd., In re. ((2018) 6 TMI 462 (AAR- Andhra Pradesh);] Advance ruling on issue not within the scope of authority Where the applicant was engaged in the manufacture of textile yarn and it approached AAR to specify the complete procedure for supplies by DTA to Advance Authorization Holder and specify the applicability of Foreign Trade Policy 2015 2020 mid-term review and specify procedure for procuring goods from DTA against Advance Authorization. It was observed that the questions posed before the Authority in the instant

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e applicant had sought a ruling for applicability of Foreign Trade Policy which was clearly beyond the ambit of Authority for Advance Ruling. Thus, the application was held to be not worthy of admission. Thus, the application filed by the applicants, being beyond the scope of section 97(2), merit rejection at the stage of admission itself and was rejected.[Spentex Industries Ltd., In re, (2018) 8 TMI 285 (AAR- Madhya Pradesh); ]. Advance ruling on applicability of notifications and circulars not issued under CGST Act, 2017 Where the applicant had sought advance ruling on applicability of Notification dated 5.10.2017 issued by DIPP, Ministry of Commerce and Industry read with CBEC Circular No. 1060/9/2017-Cx. Dated 27th November 2017 in following situations: If the assessee takes over an eligible unit as a going concern under slump sale agreement and there is a change in the ownership of the unit which was availing the benefit of area based exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Kailash Sahoo – Dated:- 27-10-2018 Last Replied Date:- 30-10-2018 – Dear Expert,I am a small proprietorship firm and my job is to supply services to my client based out in USA. My work nature of work is recruitment and I supply service by recruiting candidate for my client in USA. the candidates are in USA and the job requirements also in USA. I have a small team here and the entire income spend on my employees salary, and other office expenses.So my doubt: is there any GST on consulting fees which I am receiving from my client in USA? – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = GST is consumption based tax. Service is being enjoyed in non-taxable territory. It falls under the category of 'Manpower Sup

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

irecting you to check whether it is qualify as 'export of service'​​, if it qulaified as export of serive then it will be treated as 'Zero rated supply' as per sec 16 of IGST. if it is zero rated, follow either of options given in same section. dear experts am looking forward to your earliest response in this regard. Thanks. ​​​​​ – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = Sh.Vamsi Krishna Ji,. Actually I was emphasising that it is export of service. There is no doubt that export of goods or services is inter-State supply. Procedure detailed by you is correct. I should have mentioned and emphasised on zero rated supply instead of writing, GST not applicable. . – Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOV

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – 58/2018-State Tax – Dated:- 27-10-2018 – Government of Himachal Pradesh Excise and Taxation Department No. EXN-F(10)-31/2018 Dated: Shimla-2 the 27th October, 2018 Notification No. 58/2018-State Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (10 of 2017) (hereafter in this notification referred to as the said Act ), read with section 45 of the said Act and rule 81 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – (04-U/2017) No. FD 47 CSL 2017 – Dated:- 27-10-2018 – FINANCE SECRETARIAT NOTIFICATION(4-U/2017) No. FD 47 CSL 2017, Bengaluru dated: 27/10/2018 In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 164 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Karnataka Act 27 of 2017), on the recommendation of the GST Council, the Government of Karnataka hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely: – RULES 1. Title and commencement.-(1) These rules may be called the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2018. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 2. Amendment of rule 89.- In the Karnataka Goods and Serv

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

(E), dated 23rd October, 2017; or (b) availed the benefit of Government of India Notification No. 78/2017-Customs, dated 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 13th October 2017 or Government of India Notification No. 79/2017 -Customs, dated 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 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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

, No. 974, dated 23rd October 2017 or Government of India Notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 23rd October 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1321 (E), dated 23rd October 2017 has been availed; or (b) availed the benefit under Government of India Notification No. 78/2017-Customs, dated 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 13th October 2017 or Government of India Notification No. 79/2017-Customs, dated 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 13th Oct

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – (04-T/2017) No. FD 47 CSL 2017 – Dated:- 27-10-2018 – FINANCE SECRETARIAT NOTIFICATION(4-T/2017) No. FD 47 CSL 2017, Bengaluru, dated: 27/10/2018 In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 164 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Karnataka Act 27 of 2017), on the recommendation of Goods and Services Tax Council, the Government of Karnataka hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely: – RULES 1. Title and commencement.-(1) These rules may be called the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax (Tenth Amendment) Rules, 2018. (2) They shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from the 23rd October 2017. 2. Amendment of rule 96.- In the Karnataka G

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

grated Tax (Rate), dated 23rd October 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1321 (E), dated 23rd October 2017 or Government of India Notification No. 78/2017-Customs, dated 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 13th October 2017 or Government of India Notification No. 79/2017-Customs, dated 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 13th October 2017." By Order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka, K.S. PADMAVATHI Under Secretary to Government, Finance Department

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Customs – PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 35/2018 – Dated:- 27-10-2018 – GOVENMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR CARGO), CHENNAI-VII COMMISSIONERATE, NEW CUSTOM HOUSE, MEENAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 027. F. No.: S.Misc.230/2018-EXP.(Air) Dated: 27.10.2018 PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 35/2018 Sub: Reg. Attention of Exporters / Customs Brokers / Steamer Agents / other Stakeholders and the Trading Public is invited to the Board Circular No 40/2018-Customs dated 24.10.2018, wherein error of the refund scroll has been Generated for a much lesser IGST amount than what has actually been paid against the exported goods is discussed. Board has issued Circular Nos. 05/2018-Customs dated 23.02.2018, 08/2018-Customs dated 23.03.2018, 15/2018-Customs dated 06.06.2018 and 22/2018-Customs dated 18.07.2018 respectively wherein an alternative mechanism with an officer interface to resolve invoice mismatches (SB005 error) was provided for the shipping bills

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e to the IGST paid amount erroneously declared as 'NA' are already being handled through officer interface as per Board's 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. 3. Board has been receiving representation where the refund scroll has been generated for a much lesser IGST amount than what has actually been paid against the exported goods. Broadly, this has happened due to: a. Error made by the exporter/CHA in declaring the IGST paid amount in SB or, b. Cases where Compensation Cess paid -amount was not entered by the exporter in the SB along with IGST paid amount or the same details were not transmitted by GSTN, and the scroll consequently got generated only for the IGST amount or, c. Typographical mistake by the Proper Officer while sanctioning the refund through officer interface. 4. In a bid to provide relief to exporters

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

unds), Air Cargo Complex, New Custom House, Chennai-VII Commissionerate. A scanned copy of the RRR may also be mailed to dedicated email address of Customs locations from where exports took place. The concerned AC/DC will then proceed to sanction the revised amount after due verification through the option provided in ICES. Once the revised amount is approved by the designated AC/DC in the system, a fresh scroll will be available for generation for the differential amount only. 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 taken by the exporter whiloe submitting the RRR as wel as the sanctioning officer while sanctioning the revised amount as no further provision will be available for revising the refund sanction again. 7. With this facility, it is hoped that the eligible exporters will come forwar

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Clarification on certain issues related to refund – Status of refund claim after issuance of deficiency memo and re-credit of electronic credit ledger – Allowing exporters who

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Clarifications of issues under GST related to casual taxable person and recovery of excess Input Tax Credit distributed by an Input Service distributor – Reg. – TMI Updates – Highlights

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Processing of Applications for Cancellation of Registration submitted in FORM GST REG-16 – CBIC issues details guidelines. – TMI Updates – Highlights

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Central Government notifies the persons whose registration under the CGST Act has been cancelled by the proper officer on or before the 30th September, 2018, as the class of p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Return of goods under GST – When to issue Credit note / Debit Note and situation where GST can be adjusted as per the provisions of law – though clarified in respect of return

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Time limit for making the declaration in FORM GST ITC-04 for the period period from July, 2017 to September, 2018 extended till the 31st day of December, 2018. – TMI Updates – Highlights

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – SUNDAR R – Dated:- 26-10-2018 Last Replied Date:- 27-10-2018 – WE ARE SENDING THE RAW MATERIALS TO JOB WORKER FOR THE PROCESSING FINISHING GOODS, AFTER PROCESSING WE ARE RECEIVED THE FINISHED GOODS. IN ITC 04 TABLE 04 WE ARE UPDATED RAW MATERIALS SENT TO JOBWORKER. HOW CAN WE UPDATE RAW MATERIALS RECEIVED FROM JOBWORKER IN TABLE 5 – Reply By SHIVKUMAR SHARMA – The Reply = If goods not received in the Same quarter.you can fill the Details in Table 5 of ITC

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Profiteering – restaurant service – failure to pass the benefit of reduced rate of GST – Respondent had increased the average base price by 12.14% to neutralize the denial of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Levy of GST – Liquidated damages – Supply or not – point of taxation – tolerate an act – though in the agreement they may be giving this consideration, other names such as dam

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – 58/2018 – Dated:- 26-10-2018 – MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) (CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS) NOTIFICATION No. 58/2018 – Central Tax New Delhi, the 26th October, 2018 G.S.R.1070(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereafter in this notification referred to as the said Act ), read with section 45 of the said Act and rule 81 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rul

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =