Author: admin_gst

In Re: M/s. IL&FS Education and Technology Services Limited
GST
2019 (2) TMI 1603 – APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ODISHA – 2019 (22) G. S. T. L. 515 (App. A. A. R. – GST)
APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ODISHA – AAAR
Dated:- 14-11-2018
ORDER No. 01/ODlSHA-AAAR/Appeal/2018
GST
SHRI RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA MEMBER AND SHRI SASWAT MISHRA, MEMBER
Present For the Appellant
1. Shri Kapil Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Partner, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys,
2. Smt. Saumya Dubey, Advocate, Associate, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys,
3. Shri Amitabh Dubey, CFO, IL&FS Education and
4. Shri Vineesh Khanna, Vice President, IL&FS Education.
1.1 M/s IL & FS Education and Technology Services Ltd. (hereinafter referred to the Applicant or the Appellant”), assigned with GSTIN 21AABCI2106H1ZC, having registered address at 51-KIIT, ITI Campus-14, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Khorda. Odisha-751024. had filed an application on 27 03.2018 under Section 100(1) of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

concerns, one such ICT project being implemented by the Appellant in the State of Odisha. The Odisha Madhyamik Shiksha Mission (hereinafter referred to as “OMSM”), Government of Odisha, has mandated the Odisha Knowledge Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “OKCL”) to implement ICT project in 4000 government and government aided higher secondary schools across the State of Odisha. Accordingly, OKCL floated a tender (Tender Code No.3) on e-tendering portal of Secured e-Tendering System (SeTs).
1 4 The said tender was for Supply, Installation, Maintenance and Commissioning of Projection system, Interactive White Board, Computer Hardware, Connected Accessories, Installation of Software and other allied accessories, site prepafation (i.e. vinyl flooring, furniture and fixtures, electrical fittings, power backup facilities, LAN, etc ), maintenance of equipment and provisions of computer training services for 5 years, in 4000 schools, divided in 6 zones on the BOOT Model basis.
1

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

School Project.
Entry No. 72 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax(Rate), dated 28.06.2017, which is relevant to this appeal, is reproduced below for ease of reference
SL.No.
Chapter, Section, Heading, Group or Service Code (Tariff)
Description of Services
Rate (per cent)
Condition
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
72
Heading 9992
Services provided to the Central Government, State Government, Union territory administration under any training programme for which total expenditure is borne by the Central Government, State Government, Union territory administration.
Nil
Nil
(Entry No.72 of Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate), is same as entry No.72 of Notification SRO No. 306/2017 dated 29.06.2017, issued by the Finance Department of Government of Odisha)
1.7. The AAR, Odisha, after examining the grounds filed in the Application filed by the Applicant, has observed that three pre-perquisites are to be satisfied for the supply of services to qualify for the notified exempti

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of goods and services which are not naturally bundled. Each of the components of the composite supply are distinctly identifiable both in terms of quantity and value. The service provided or to be provided is not exclusively in the nature of training programme.
(c) Though the source of funding for the service is the State Government and Central Government, yet, as per the contract, the payment responsibility is vested on OKCL.
Therefore, the activities of the applicant by way of supply of goods and services under the ICT project are not covered under Entry 72 of the notification no. 12/2017 dated 28.06.2017, to be entitled to the benefit of exemption from GST.”
1.9 While rendering the aforesaid Ruling, the AAR has also observed that as per para 1(c) of Schedule II of the OGST/CGST Act, any transfer of title in goods under an agreement which stipulates that property in goods shall pass at a future date upon payment of full consideration as agreed, is a supply of goods and not a servi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

t under the ICT Project.
1.11 The Appellant has also made a prayer for condonation of 5 days delay, under sub-section-2 of Section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. The grounds of appeal, as mentioned by the Appellant, in their Appeal, are summarised here-as-under;
2.1 First pre-requisite: The services are provided under the training programme:
The Appellant has contended that they are carrying out various activities viz. installation, commissioning, site maintenance, operation, etc. to implement the ICT Project in the government schools and government aided schools in the State of Odisha.
The Appellant relies on the following points with a view to establish that the provided by them are under training programme.
(i) All the activities undertaken under the ICT Project are naturally bundled, principal supply being that of provision of computer training;
(ii) The basic infrastructure is being developed to provide computer training to the students and teachers;
(iii) The ICT in School

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

od of contract, the equipment, infrastructure, etc. are to be repaired by the Appellant at its own cost.
(b) it is the responsibility of the Appellant to obtain necessary insurance for the equipment, infrastructure, etc. Thus, for the entire contract period, the risk remains with the Appellant.
(c) the Appellant is also claiming the depreciation of the IT equipment, infrastructure, etc. Thus, the IT equipment, infrastructure appears as assets in the books of accounts of the Appellant.
Therefore, the above referred terms of the agreement clearly establish that during the period of contract, the ownership of the equipment and infrastructure lies with the Appellant.
As the entire infrastructure is owned by the Appellant, the activities of maintenance or operation of the infrastructure, hardware, software, etc. carried out by the Appellant are with regard to self-owned equipment. Thus, it cannot be said that the Appellant is engaged in the supply of operation or maintenance services in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

re developed by it would be transferred after the expiry of the contract period (i.e. 5 years). This is also clearly provided in the agreement that the ownership of the entire hardware, software, other equipment, etc. will be transferred at zero value at the end of the contract period.
In view of the above, it can be concluded that during the entire period of contract, the Appellant is not engaged in the supply of goods inasmuch as supply of goods is taking place only after the expiry of contract period of 5 years.
It is to be noted that the Appellant is claiming depreciation of the IT equipment in its books of accounts and as per the accounting policy, the normal life span of IT equipment is 5 years. Thus, after 5 years, the net realizable value of IT equipment in the books of account of the Appellant reduces to zero. As the IT equipment does not have any realizable value in the books of accounts of the Appellant, the same are being transferred to SMED at zero value.
Without prejud

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

#39; used in the above referred Entry No. 72 has not been defined in the Notification No. 12/2017. Further, this term is also not defined in the CGST/OGST Act as well as in CGST/OGST Rules.
2.2 Further, the Appellant has rebutted to the findings of the Advance Ruling Authority, as mentioned herein below:
(a) that under the CGST Act, the concept of composite supply is applicable only when two or more identifiable and taxable supplies of goods or services or both, which are naturally bundled, are rendered in conjunction with each other. To understand the same, attention is invited to the definition of composite supply under the CGST Act.
(b) As per Section 2(30) of the CGST Act, “composite supply” means a supply made by a taxable person to a recipient consisting of two or more taxable supplies of goods or services or both, or any combination thereof, which are naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business, one of which is a principal

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

upply taking place at the end of the contract period, at zero value.
The Appellant would like to highlight here that as per the contract entered into between the Appellant and OKCL, title in the goods/infrastructure is transferred to SMED and not to OKCL. In such a case, even by applying Para l(c) of Schedule II, it cannot be said that the Appellant is supplying goods to OKCL.
(e) With respect to services provided to Government of State of Odisha, the Appellant submitted that OKCL is a corporation established under Companies Act, 1956, which has been mandated by OMSM, Government of Odisha to act as an implementing agency to implement the ICT Project, on its behalf.
Further, admittedly, the funds for implementation of this project are being provided by OMSM to OKCL, for further release to the Appellant, in accordance with the agreed terms. Moreover, in case, OKCL fails to discharge its obligations under the agreement entered into between OMSM and OKCL, OMSM would step into OKCL's

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

“total expenditure is borne by the Central Government. ..”) and not 'paid' by the government. There is no dispute as regards to the fact that it is the responsibility of OMSM (State Government) to ensure that appropriate funds are provided for implementation of the ICT Scheme. In fact, the said submission can be traced to Clause 5.2 of the agreement between OMSM and OKCL (Annexure-D). Therefore, even though the expenditure is 'paid' by OKCL under contract to the Appellant, the same is 'borne' by Centra! and State Government only (jointly).
3. A personal hearing in the matter was held on 26.10.2018. Shri Kapil Kumar Sharma, Advocate alongwith other representatives of the Appellant, appeared for P.H. on 26.10.2018 on behalf of the Appellant and reiterated the written submissions made in the Appeal. He also submitted additional written submissions and reiterated the submissions made therein.
4 1 we have carefully considered the submissions made by the Appellant i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

lared on 17.08.2018. Further, 18.08.2018 and 19.08.2018 were Saturday and Sunday. The Appellant also submitted that the Corporate Office of the Applicant is in Noida, U.P., and the appeal was drafted by the Applicant's Attorneys, whose office is situated in New Delhi. Hence, the entire appeal book was prepared in New Delhi and it was subsequently posted to another office of Applicant in Bhubaneswar, Odisha. The appeal book and filing documents were dispatched from Delhi on 17.08.2018 through Blue Dart Express courier. The courier was expected to reach within 2 days of dispatch, i.e., by 19.08.2018. However, due to delay in transit, the documents were received by Applicant's Odisha office on the evening of 20.08.2018. It is thus submitted that the delay in filing the appeal has been caused due to technical factors beyond the control of Applicant.
4.4 On records, it is found that the Appellant has received the copy of the Advance Ruling passed by AAR, Odisha, on 17.07.2018 and h

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ng, Group or Service Code (Tariff)
Description of Services
Rate (per cent)
Condition
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
72
Heading 9992
Services provided to the Central Government, State Government, Union territory administration under any training programme for which total expenditure is borne by the Central Government, State Government, Union territory administration.
Nil
Nil
* Entry No. 72 of Notification SRO No. 306/2017-Finance Department is identical to the Entry No. 72 of Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax(Rate).
4.6 On going through the aforesaid notification, it is noticed that the following three conditions are required to be satisfied in order for the supply to qualify for the notified exemption, under Entry No.72 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax(Rate).
(a) The supply has to be a supply of Service provided to the Central Government, State Government or Union territory Administration;
(b) Such service must be under any training programme;
(c) The total expenditure

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

viding services to Government.
4.9 On perusal of para 8 of the Agreement dated 12.09.2013 between OKCL and the Appellant it is noticed that the Appellant is required to supply and install the specified goods provide specified services in the ICT Labs of the Govt and Govt. Aided High Schools located in the specified zones. Therefore, it is evident that the Appelant has made supplies to OKCL. which is a body corporate and registered under the Companies Act 1956 as a Company.
4.10 We notice that the Authority for Advance Ruling. Odisha, in their findings (para 5 3 of the Order)has clearly observed that OKCL was promoted by the Higher Technical education department Govt of Odisha and was incorporated under the Compares Act 1956 as a public limited company to create new paradigm in education and development through universalization and integration of Information Technology in teaching learning and educational management processes in particular and socio economic transformative processes i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

a State Therefore OKCL is neither the Sate Government nor a part of the State Government of Odisha or the Central Government and therefore the supplies by the applicant to OKCL should not be held to be a supply to Government.
4.11 No counter argument has been put forth by the Appellant to substatniate their claim that the supplies were made by them to the Government. Therefor we fully agree with the finding arrived at the Advance Ruling given by the Advance Ruling (AAR), Odisha, on this point and hold so Even if some percentage of shares are owned by Government of Odisha in the OKCL. the company cannot be construed as Government. Therefore, we hold that the Appellant does not meet the primary requirement of the conditions as laid down under Entry No. 72 of Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax(Rate), dated 28.06.2017, so as to be eligible for the said exemption, as the services provided by the Appellant to OKCL cannot be construed as services provided to the Central Government, State G

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

. will be transferred at zero value at the end of the contract period Therefore, the stand taken by the Appellant is self-contradictory in as much as on one hand, they claim that the provision of service as operation or maintenance of self-owned equipment does not amount to supply of services to third party. But on the other hand, they claim that the ownership in the infrastructure developed by it would be transferred after the expiry of the contract period (i e 5 years). The said transfer of ownership is also unconditional Therefore we hold that the consideration received by the Appellant is in respect of provision of supplies, taxability of which has been discussed in the foregoing paragraphs.
Moreover, under Schedule-II (1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017/SGST it is clearly defined that any transfer of title in goods under an agreement which stipulates that property in goods shall pass at a future date upon payment of full consideration as agreed, is a supply of goods.
4.14 It is also ob

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

IGST refund on export of services
Query (Issue) Started By: – Archna Gupta Dated:- 13-11-2018 Last Reply Date:- 14-11-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 6 Replies
GST
Dear Sir
We are unable to file refund application of IGST on export of software services on payment of tax. The issue is that when we filed GSTR-3B for the month of July 2017 we showed turnover correctly in zero rated supply but IGST was not shown but we correctly filed our GSTR-1 (on payment of IGST).
This mistake in GSTR-3B, we rectified in September 2018. There we showed the IGST amount and also set off the same from TRAN-1 ITC.
Now on uploading the file on site, it is showing the error message that IGST amount as per GSTR-3B is less than the amount that

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

and we include the details of IGST for the month of July 2017 in September 2018 which are consolidated details. Then how the department will come to know that part of September 2018 details pertained to July 2017.
This refund application are verifying the IGST refund details with GSTR-3B.
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Mistake occurred in GSTR-3 B cannot be rectified unless it is reopened (de-freezed) ) by the Grievance Redressal cell) in Common Portal System. That is why mismatch between the two returns still stands. You know very well GSTR 3B is provisional and it is only a proof of payment of GST. So try to lodge your problem with Grievance Redressal Cell.
In one of my client's case, GSTR 3 B return was re-opened by Grievanc

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST REGISTRATION
Query (Issue) Started By: – saketh ch Dated:- 13-11-2018 Last Reply Date:- 14-11-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 2 Replies
GST
I have registered with GST and got GSTN number. But the GSTN wad cancelled within a month. Unfortunately, i have not noticed the same and continue the business without filing returns for span of 6 months.
Now, my GSTN was activated after filing all returns and payments for the said period. Now my query is the business during the period is valid under GST rules.
Pls clarify with relevant notifications/circulars
Thanks & Regards
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Your business remains valid during the said period of cancellation of GST registration number on the following groun

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

IGST REFUND-REG
Query (Issue) Started By: – Kusalava InternationalLimited Dated:- 13-11-2018 Last Reply Date:- 20-3-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 4 Replies
GST
Supplies made to SEZ shown in GSTR-1 6A instead of GSTR-1 6B.when we apply for refund it is showing error message that these invoices are not availble in SEZ invoice list.How to correct this.Please guide
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Return stands frozen but you will not suffer loss because of this lapse. Such

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Dealer's Registration Cancellation Overturned: No Evidence of Show Cause Notice Served, Violates Natural Justice Principles.
Case-Laws
GST
Principles of Natural Justice – non-service of SCN –

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

TCS on E-Commerce Operators
By: – Dinesh Kumar
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 13-11-2018

The Government has notified the effective date of implementation of TCS provisions in GST returns w.e.f. 1.10.2018 (unless extended). This requires E-commerce operators like Amazon, Flipkart, etc. to collect TCS on the Transaction made by the suppliers through their portals w.e.f. the same date. If any under reporting is found, the same would be penalized by adding to the account of the supplier. The learned authors looks at the related provisions to bring attention to them so as to avoid penal actions.
As many transactions nowadays are happening through e-commerce mode, their day to day use in life is increasing. But with the implementation of GST, selling and purchase through GST is not as easy as it was earlier. There are many boundaries and restriction while transacting through E-Commerce. We will discuss here the provisions of TCS on E-commerce Operators.
E-commerce is

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

gh E-Commerce operator and will be termed as E-Commerce Suppliers.
3. Liability to collect TCS
As per provision of section 52 of the CGST Act, every e-commerce operator, not being an agent is required to collect tax known as TCS on the net taxable value in case a supplier supplies some goods or services through its portal and the payment for that supply is collected by the e-commerce operator.
Tax is to be collected on net taxable value of goods or services supplied by other suppliers through e-commerce operator.
Tax is to be collected on net taxable value of goods or services supplied by other suppliers through e-commerce operator.
Explanation to section 52(1) clarifies that “net value of taxable suppliers” shall mean the aggregate value of taxable suppliers of goods or services or both made during any month by all registered persons through the e-commerce operator as reduced by the aggregate value of taxable supplies returned to the suppliers during the said month. Further, spec

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Commerce Operators
A Deputy Commissioner or a person above the rank of Deputy Commissioner can issue a notice to the E-Commerce Operator asking him to furnish details regarding the volume of Goods/Services supplied, rate and value, goods still lying in godown etc.
On receiving such notice the operator is required to furnish such details within 15 working days. In case the operator fails to furnish such information within 15 days, he would be liable for penal action and penalty upto ₹ 25000.
Further other relevant points can be noted out which are as follows:
* The seller is required to follow the process of filing other GSTR Returns as applicable from time to time
* The seller is required to disclose the sale made through GSTR-1 Return. The GST no. of the E-commerce portal is required to be disclosed in GSTR-1.
* The E-commerce portal would be specifically required to raise an invoice to the seller for the commission being charged by them for selling the product on the E

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Good Luck Educational & Welfare Society Versus Union of India and others
GST
2018 (11) TMI 709 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – TMI
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 13-11-2018
CWP No. 15024 of 2018 (O&M)
GST
Mr Rajesh Bindal And Mr Manoj Bajaj, JJ.
For The Petitioner : Mr. Jagmohan Bansal and Mr. Chetan Jain, Advocates
For The Respondent : Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate And Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
ORDER
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 18.4.2018 whereby the claim for refund of the amount of tax paid before introduction of Goods & Service Tax, was rejected. The primary ground on which the claim has been rejected i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Venkateshwara Power Projects Ltd., M/s. The Ugar Sugar Works Ltd., M/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd., M/s. Sri Srivsgar Sugar & Agro Products Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 913 – CESTAT BANGALORE – TMI
CESTAT BANGALORE – AT
Dated:- 13-11-2018
E/20986/2018; E/20988/2018; E/20453/2018 & E/20820/2018 – Final Order No: 21723 – 21726/2018
Central Excise
MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mr. V.B. Gaikwad, Advocate, Mr. M. A. Nyalkalkar, Advocate For the Appellants
Mr. K. B. Nanaiah, Asst. Commissioner (AR), Mr. K. Murali, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent
ORDER
Per: S.S GARG
These four appeals have been filed against the impugned order dated 22.12.2017 and 22.3.2018 wherein the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeals of the appellants. Since the issue involved in all the four appeals is identical, therefore, all the four appeals are being disposed of by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

due process, the Joint Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 28.2.2017 confirmed the demand for an amount of Rs. 55,65,810/- under Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,56,581/- under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules and has also ordered for recovery of interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal vide the impugned orders. Hence, the present appeals.
3. Heard both the parties and perused the records.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the statutory provision as well as contrary to the binding judicial precedents decided by the Tribunal and the High Court on this very issue. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) has relied upon the Explanatio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

y. But no justification, evidence or reasoning is provided in support of this bald allegation given in the show-cause notice itself. He further submitted that in the absence of any material evidence to show that the appellants have used common inputs or input services in the generation of electricity, then there is no question of application of provisions of Rule 6(2)/6(3) of CCR, 2004. He further submitted that even the amended provisions of Rule 6 will apply only when it is proved beyond doubt that the assessee has manufactured the dutiable as well as non-excisable / exempted goods by using common CEVAT credit availed on inputs and input services. Whereas in the present case, there is absolutely no evidence adduced to prove the use of common inputs or input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable goods and non-excisable electricity. Hence, the confirmation of demand for an amount of 6% of value of electricity is not tenable in law. He further submitted that thi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

appeals is not tenable in law. He further submitted that the amended Rule 6 which is effective from 1.3.2015 is not applicable to bagasse. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions:
* Simbhaoli Sugar Ltd. vs. CCE: 2018 (8) TMI 160
* Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. vs. CCE: 2018 (8) TMI 6
* Final Order No. A/89563-89568/17/SMB dt. 4.8.2017 passed by CESTAT, WZB, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Shivratna Udyog Ltd. & Ors.
* Final Order No. A/90456-90464/17/SMB dt. 27.10.2017 passed by CESTAT, WZB, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Athani Sugars Ltd. & Others.
4.2 Further, he relied upon the decision of Ganga Kishan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. vs. CCE: 2017 (346) ELT 450 wherein it has been held that in the absence of evidence about the common inputs/input services, the provision of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 are not applicable. He also submitted that when it is impossible to maintain common inputs/input services, then the Department cannot demand 6% amount under Rule 6(3

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he appellants are liable to reverse the credit, if any, taken on inputs/input services which have been used in the generation of electricity which have been sold to MSEB.
6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the issue involved in the present appeals is no more res integra and has been settled by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Gularia Chini Mills cited supra which has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. M/s. DSCL Sugar Ltd. cited supra. Further, the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jakarya Sugars Ltd. cited supra has also considered the same issue and after relying upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Gularia Chini Mills has held that in the generation of electricity from bagasse, no other input or input service is used and therefore, the electrical energy is neither excisable under Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 no

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, GST Delhi North Versus Pymen Cable (India)
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1146 – DELHI HIGH COURT – 2019 (365) E.L.T. 25 (Del.)
DELHI HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 13-11-2018
CEAC 13/2018, CM APPL. 15130/2018
Central Excise
MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. PRATEEK JALAN JJ.
Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Bansal, Adv.  
Respondent Through: Mr. Parth Mullick, Advocate  
O R D E R
CM APPL. 15130/2018
Issue notice.
Mr. Mr. Parth Mullick, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
CEAC 13/2018
We have heard counsel for the parties and are of the opinion

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Seeks to extend the due date for filing of FORM GSTR – 1 for taxpayers having aggregate turnover up to 1.5 crores
KA.NI.-2-1822/XI-9(42)/17 Dated:- 13-11-2018 Uttar Pradesh SGST
GST – States
Uttar Pradesh SGST
Uttar Pradesh SGST
Uttar Pradesh Shasan
Sansthagat Vitta, Kar Evam Nibandhan Anubhag-2
NOTIFICATION
NO. KA.NI.-2-1822/XI-9(42)/17-U.P.Act-01-2017-Order-(156)-2018
Lucknow : Dated : November 13, 2018
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (U.P. Act no. 1 of 2017), (hereafter in this notification referred to as the said Act), and in supersession of
(i) Notification No. KA.NI.-2-1790/XI-9(42)/17-U.P.Act-1-2017-Order-(83)-2017 Dated 24.11.2017; and
(ii

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

column (2) of the Table below till the time period as specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table, namely:-
Table
Sl. No.
Quarter for which details in FORM GSTR-1 are furnished
Time period for furnishing details in FORM GSTR-1
(1)
(2)
(3)
1.
July – September, 2017
31st October, 2018
2.
October – December, 2017
31st October, 2018
3.
January – March, 2018
31st October, 2018
4.
April June, 2018
31st October, 2018
5.
July – September, 2018
31st October, 2018
6.
October – December, 201 8
31st January, 2019
7.
January – March, 2019
30th April, 2019
Provided that the details of outward supply of goods or services or both in FORM GSTR-1 for the quarter from July, 2018 to September, 2018 by-
(i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

The Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (Twenty third Amendment) Rules, 2018.
KA.NI.-2-2004/XI-9(42)/17 Dated:- 13-11-2018 Uttar Pradesh SGST
GST – States
Uttar Pradesh SGST
Uttar Pradesh SGST
Uttar Pradesh Shasan
Sansthagat Vitta, Kar Evam Nibandhan Anubhag-2
NOTIFICATION
NO. KA.NI.-2-2004/XI-9(42)/17-U.P.GST Rules-2017-Order-(154)-2018
Lucknow : Dated : November 13, 2018
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (U.P. Act no. 1 of 2017) read with section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act no. 1 of 1904), the Governor is pleased to make the following rules with a view to amending the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

The Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (Twenty Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2018.
KA.NI.-2-2005/XI-9(42) Dated:- 13-11-2018 Uttar Pradesh SGST
GST – States
Uttar Pradesh SGST
Uttar Pradesh SGST
Uttar Pradesh Shasan
Sansthagat Vitta, Kar Evam Nibandhan Anubhag-2
NOTIFICATION
NO. KA.NI.-2-2005/XI-9(42)/17-U.P.GST Rules-2017-Order-(155)-2018
Lucknow : Dated : November 13, 2018
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (U.P. Act no. 1 of 2017) read with section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act no. 1 of 1904), the Governor is pleased to make the following rules with a view to amending the Uttar Pradesh Goods And Services Tax Rules, 2017, n

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nt of Uttar Pradesh, notification No. KA.NI.-2-1663/XI-9(15)/17-U.P. Act-1-2017-Order-(73)-2017 Dated 16 November, 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.”.
Amendment of rule 96
3. 3. In the said rules, in rule 96, for sub-rule (10), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely:-
“(10) The persons claiming refund of integrated tax paid on exports of goods or services should not have –
(a) received supplies on which the benefit of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, notification No. KA.NI.-2-1696/XI-9-(4

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re: M/s. Columbia Asia Hospitals Private Limited
GST
2018 (12) TMI 474 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 154 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA – AAR
Dated:- 13-11-2018
AAR No. KAR ADRG 26/2018
GST
SRI. HARISH DHARNIA, AND DR. RAVI PRASAD M.P. MEMBER
Represented by Sri Naveen Rajapurohit, Chartered Accountant
ORDER UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 98 OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX ACT, 2017 AND UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 98 OF KARNATAKA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
1. M/s. Columbia Asia Hospitals Private Limited, (called as the 'Applicant' hereinafter), having its registered office at The Icon, 2nd Floor, No.8, 80 feet Road, HAL Ill Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru 560075 has filed an application for Advance Ruling under Section 97 of CGST Act, 2017, KGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of CGST Rules 2017 & KGST Rules 2017, in form GST ARA-01 discharging the fee of Rs. 5,000-00 each under the CGS

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

vices related to both taxable supply and exempted supply?”
4. The applicant furnishes some facts relevant to the stated activity:
a. The applicant states that he is a private limited company and is an international healthcare group operating a chain of modern hospitals across Asia. The Company is currently operating across six different states having eleven hospitals out of which six units are in the state of Karnataka. The Hospitals owned by the applicant are engaged in providing secondary and tertiary Healthcare services which in turn categorises as In-patient (IP)) and Out-patient (OP) services.
b. In case of inpatient services, the patients get admitted in the hospital for an invasive or non-invasive procedure. During the course of such treatment, all the necessary medicines, medical and non-medical consumables, implants, etc. are supplied to the patients. At the time of discharge, the charges for all the goods and services supplied would be collected by raising a consolidated

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e applicant has taken support of the provisions of section 7(1), section 2(30), section 2(47) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act which define the “supply”, “composite supply” and “exempt supply” and states that as per entry no. 74 of the Notification No.12/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, healthcare services are exempted from GST. However, supply of medicines (pharmacy), consumables and supply of food are taxable at different rates under GST.
f. With these facts, the applicant has sought an advance ruling on the matters already enumerated above.
4.1 The applicant states that as per definition of “composite supply”, it can be inferred from the word “taxable supply” included in the definition of composite supply that it covers only such supplies which are subject to GST and not the exempt supplies. Therefore, in the instant case, though two or more supplies are naturally bundled, i.e. healthcare services, being exempt supply, the same cannot be treated as composite

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of his claim. The applicant stated that there are certain services used in common to provide both taxable and exempted services. As per section 17 (2) of CGST Act, 2017, the applicant is entitled to avail credit of input tax paid on procurement of such goods and/or services on proportionate basis to the extent attributable to outward taxable supplies of medicines and consumables.
6. The applicant states that under pre-GST regime, the applicant company was required to reverse the CENVAT credit availed on input material and input services consumed in the manufacture of the exempted products or provision of exempted services under rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However there was no requirement to reverse the amount of CENVAT credit availed in capital goods.
7. As per section 16(1) Of the CGST Act, “Every registered person shall, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed and in the manner specified in section 49, be entitled to take credit of input tax charge

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

red person not to avail the credit of CGST paid on procurement of inputs, input services and capital goods which are attributable to supply of exempted services.
9. Based on the facts above, the applicant requests this Authority to clarify if,-
1) the Healthcare services provided, which is an exempt service along with other taxable supplies to in-patients and out-patients, can be construed as Composite supply?
a. If yes, is supply of pharmacy goods, consumables and canteen services forms part of such composite supplies, not liable to tax?
b. Valuation of IP pharmacy, if the same is treated as part of composite supply?
2) the said supply cannot be construed as a composite supply, is it correct to discharge GST liability only on supply of medicine, consumables and food that are supplied in conjunction with healthcare services and simultaneously availing input tax credit on GST paid on inputs and input services procured for providing supply of medicines and consumables?
3) the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business;
(b) import of services for a consideration whether or not in the course or furtherance of business;
(c) the activities specified in Schedule I, made or agreed to be made without a consideration; and
(d) The activities to be treated as supply of goods or supply of services as referred to in Schedule II.”
The applicant company is providing healthcare services, services of providing food, supply of medicines, etc. to the patients, both in-patient and out-patients for a consideration in the course of or furtherance of its business and hence the supply amounts to “Supply” under section 7 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
11.2 Sub-section (30) of section 2 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 defines “Composite Supply” as under:
“(30) “composite

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

xempt supplies. But the definition of taxable supplies includes those supplies of goods which are leviable to tax and chosen to be exempted under section 11 and hence the exempt supplies also fall under the category of taxable supplies and hence the supply of goods and services supplied by the applicant company in conjunction with the healthcare services fall under the definition of “composite supply” as the services of supply of food and medicines to the patients are as advised by the doctor or nutritionists. But in case where the supply of food is not as advised by the doctor or nutritionists and is supplied to the patients, then such supply of food cannot be treated as “naturally bundled” supplies and supplies made in conjunction with each other and hence are separate supplies and needs to be treated not as composite supplies But as far as medicines supplied to the inpatients are concerned, they form part of the healthcare services supplied to the concerned patients and hence are pa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ed in case of food and drinks supplied to patients. But in case where the supply of medicines and food and drinks form part of the supply of healthcare services and there is no choice for the patients to choose them separately, then they would form a composite supply with healthcare services being the principal supply.
11.4 The applicant has raised a question on valuation of the items of medicines and food and drinks when they form a part of the composite supply, the same needs to be answered as under:
(a) In case where the medicines and articles of food and drinks form part of the single price including the supply of healthcare services, then there is no need for separate valuation of the same; and
(b) In case where the same do not form a part of the composite supply but still are supplied for a single price, then they would constitute a mixed supply and the entire price received would be liable to be taxed at the highest rate applicable to the goods or service supplied as per sec

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rson shall, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed and in the manner specified in section 49, be entitled to take credit of input tax charged on any supply of goods or services or both to him which are used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of his business and the said amount shall be credited to the electronic credit ledger of such person.”
Since the applicant is using the inputs and input services in the course or furtherance of his business, credit of such tax paid on such inward supplies can be claimed by him.
11.6 Sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Central Goods and Services Act 2017 reads as under:
“(2) Where the goods or services or both are used by the registered person partly for effecting taxable supplies including zero-rated supplies under this Act or under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act and partly for effecting exempt supplies under the said Acts, the amount of credit shall be restricted to so much of the input tax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

IGST Export Refund-extension in SB005 alternate mechanism revised processing in certain cases including disbursal of compensation cess
PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 22/2018 Dated:- 13-11-2018 Trade Notice
Customs
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, PANAMBUR, MANGALURU – 575 010
www.customsmangalore.gov.in Phone No: 0824-2408164
E-Mail ID: commr-cusmnglr@nic.in Fax No: 0824-2407100
C.No. S-11/56/2018 IGST
Date: 13.11.2018
PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 22/2018
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 committed, which have hampered smooth s

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

lled 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 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,
c. Typographical mistake by the customs officer while sanctioning the refund through officer interface.
5. In a bid to provide relief to export

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

g the RRR.
8. Difficulties, if any, should be brought to the notice of Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Drawback & IGST Refund), New Customs House, Panambur, Mangaluru, on 0824-2406084 or emailed to acnch.mglr-customs@gov.in.
(PARAG C BORKAR)
COMMISSIONER
=============
Document 1
SB Number:
GSTIN:
Annexure A1: Revised Refund Request (RRR)
SB Date:
IEC:
Sl. No
Amount
Sl No GST Invoice IGST
1
2
3
4
5
сл
10
7
Number/
Date
1
2
3
4
Port Code:
Exporter Name:
Corresponding IGST
Final
SB Invoice No. Amount as (corrected)
/Date
declared
IGST
per SB
Amount
per
exports*
as
actual
* after reducing amount pertaining to Short shipment etc.
IGST Refund already received (A):
Total Revised IGST Claim (B):
Differential IGST Refund (B-A):
I declare that all the details declared given above are true to my knowledge and all the
items contained in the above invoices have been exported out of India.
I further declare that all the GST invoices pertaining t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Mando India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 75 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 13-11-2018
Appeal No. E/369/2012 – Final Order No. 42813/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The appellants are engaged in manufacture of break assembly and shock assembly and are registered with the Central Excise Department. Based on intelligence that the appellants are clearing CENVAT availed inputs without reversing the credit, cleared goods without paying excise duty etc., investigation was conducted. After such investigation, show cause notice was issued inter alia alleging that:-
* The assessee have cleared certain CENVAT availed inputs under delivery challans without reversing the CENVAT credit to the t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

for M/s.Mahindran Renault and issued invoices but failed to pay appropriate excise duty to the tune of Rs. 7,13,683/- during the period from 1.4.2006 to 28.2.2010 as per Annexure A5 to the notice.
2. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed penalty. Aggrieved, the appellants are now before the Tribunal.
3.0 On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri Raghavan Ramabhadra made the following submissions:
3.1 Owing to space constraints, the appellants used a portion of Panelpina Warehouse for storing goods / inputs. This was done after obtaining permission from department. The inputs were brought from warehouse as per manufacturing requirements, under GDN and as per Goods Receipt Note (GRN) credit was availed. When the entire quantity brought was not consumed, the same was returned to factory on Returnable Delivery Challan. When required they were retransferred to factory under GDN. The credit was availed only when t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d order has rejected this submission on the ground that it was an afterthought and new facts could not be entertained at the stage of adjudication of the dispute. The above averment was made throughout the proceedings, and even in the reply to the show cause notice.
3.4 In any case, the storage outside the factory premises was done after obtaining necessary approval under Rule 6A of CCR, 2002/Rule 8 of CCR 2004. When the movement was authorised by the Department themselves, they cannot now turn around and seek reversal of credit.
3.5 In any case, the Appellant submits that the instant case is not one of Revenue Leakage. The present case is one where, had the Appellant reversed the credit under Rule 3(5), the same amount would have been available to them again at the time when the returned inputs are brought back from Panelpina Warehouse to the factory for use in manufacture. This credit would have been eligible and would have been utilised towards excise duty payments. To have follow

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

628 (Guj.)] and CCE v. Narayan Polyplast [2005 (179) E.L.T. 20 (S.C.)]. Therefore, the demand for reversal under Rule 3(5) is wholly baseless and merits to be set aside.
3.7 As regards the third issue, it is submitted that the liability to pay differential duty under Rule 16 of the Credit Rules, 2002 does not arise. In some cases, the finished goods are sent back to the Appellant for defects. The Appellant takes credit in terms of Rule 16 of the CER. Where the defects can be rectified, the Appellant repairs the goods, clears the same back to the customer and reverses credit availed, thereby complying with Rule 16. Where goods are not capable of repair, the Appellant disposes them as scrap without executing any process on such goods. In such cases, duty is paid on the value of scrap sold. The Appellant submits that differential duty is not liable to be paid, as duty has been accurately paid on the transaction value of the scrap.
3.8 The second limb of Rule 16(2) prescribes payment of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

testing is wholly mis-placed. The Appellant submits that the Appellant sends out finished goods to its customers for testing of quality parameters under RDC, as the customers usually seek the finished goods on Just-in-time basis. The finished goods are returned to the Appellant the very next day. The Appellant submits that the case of the Department herein is not that no excise duty was paid on the said final products. However, the finished goods are sent out so that the customer may test the said final products, and then place Purchase Orders on the Appellant on the basis of parameters as satisfied by the samples provided by the Appellant. As there is no allegation that the said finished goods were not received back by the Appellant, or that even a part of them escaped duty at the time of clearance for sale, the Appellant submits that the demand is wholly misplaced and must be set aside.
3.11 The demand for excise duty on repair work done for customers is not sustainable as the said

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nt sends out inputs to Job Workers such as M/S Premier for tool grinding, and other processing works. The Appellant submits that the instant case is squarely covered under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Credit Rules, which permit credit-availed inputs to be sent out to a job worker for further processing, testing, repair, re-conditioning, etc. The Department has contested this on the ground that valid excise invoice did not cover the transaction. The Appellant has shown the invoices under which inputs are cleared to the Job workers for carrying out job work, and the return documents under which the Job worker returns the jobbed inputs to the Appellant. Merely because the said documents are addressed as 'RDC' the transaction does not become a clearance liable to excise duty payment. The demand on this count merits to be set aside in entirety.
3.13 The demand for excise duty on goods cleared under RDC during system failure is not tenable. The Appellant submits that the demand for excise duty on go

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

one under the cover of appropriate documentation such as Rule 4(5)(a) challans, etc. All the necessary information was gathered by the Department upon verification of the internal records of the appellant which itself shows that due disclosures had been made. The impugned order has invoked extended period on the sole ground that the appellant has voluntarily paid the entire duty. The order does not bring out any case apart from this to prove suppression or mala fide intention on part of the appellant. It is settled law that for invocation of extended period, there ought to be positive act on the part of the appellant. In this regard, reliance is placed on Continental Foundation Jt. Venture v. CCE [2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.)]. In the present case, the department having failed to establish the same, extended period is not invokable. Therefore, if at all, the demand ought to be restricted to the normal period, i.e., from 01.02.2010 to 28.02.2010.
4. On behalf of Revenue, ld. AR Shri B.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

inputs are removed as such. Hence the extended period has been rightly invoked.
5. Heard both sides.
6.1 The first issue is with regard to the demand of credit to the tune of Rs. 92,64,820/-. As narrated from the facts and submissions stated above, it can be seen that the appellants were storing inputs in their warehouse at Panelpina. It is not disputed that they had obtained permission from the department for storing the goods in the said warehouse. As per the requirement in the factory, they had removed the inputs from the warehouse to the factory. However, the practice followed by the appellant was that the unused inputs were returned to the warehouse due to space constraints on Returnable Delivery Challan (RDC). Thereafter, whenever the inputs were again required, they are retransferred from the warehouse to the factory under Goods Delivery Note (GDN). Thus, all the retransfer / removal of goods were being done under documents. The only allegation of the department is that at ea

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

sent to the warehouse due to space constraints would only add more accounting work. Since there is no revenue loss from such acts of the appellants and is only a procedural infraction, we consider that the demand cannot sustain. The Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra), in a similar situation, held that when there is no revenue loss and the procedure would only add more scriptory work to the assesse, the demand would not sustain. For the discussions made above, we hold that the demand on this score to the tune of Rs. 92,64,820/- requires to be set aside, which we hereby do.
6.2 The differential duty of Rs. 11,90,475/- has been demanded under Rule 16. The appellant undertake repair of rejected goods which are returned by customers. They avail credit in terms of Rule 16 on such rejected goods. Whenever the rejected goods were repaired and sent to customers, such credit was reversed under Rule 16. Whenever the rejected goods were incapable of being repaired, they clea

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ned goods. Therefore, on the question of whether first part of sub-rule or the second part of sub-rule of Rule 16 is applicable, we find on the very same issue has been detail in detail by the Tribunal's coordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune – II (supra) allowed the appeal.
xxxx
xxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
We are in agreement with the above decisions and the same are applicable to the present case as the issues are identical and the duty paid goods are rejected and returned to the factory of the assessee and without doing any processes the said goods were sold by auction to third party 'as is where is basis' and cleared on payment of excise duty on the transaction value as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.
xxxx
xxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
In view of the foregoing discussions and by maintaining this Tribunal's decision in the case of Craftsman Automation (P) Ltd. case, which relied M/s. Apollo Tyres (P) Ltd. case, we hold that in the present case, the s

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

der RDC and are received at the appellant's factories that very day or the next day.
50,917/-
Goods returned to customers after repairs
Components supplied to customers are returned to appellant for repair work, under RDC as per Rule 4(5)(a) of the Credit Rules. Appellant carries out repair work and then supplies the repaired commodities to customers under its RDC
4,42,938/-
Goods sent out for job work
Appellant sends out inputs / capital goods for further processing or for tool grinding purposes to job workers and RDC
17,84,883/-
Invoices issued belatedly due to system failure
In some circumstances, there is a system failure while supplying components due to which invoice could not be raised at the time of clearance. In such situations, the appellant clears the goods under RDC and then subsequently raises excise invoice on payment of ED
18,06,561/-
 
Total
40,85,299/-
6.4 From the above Table, the first demand to the tune of Rs. 50,917/- is in respect of central exc

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

sed in the orders passed by authorities below does not throw much light as to the activity of repair/testing undertaken would amount to manufacture or not. Hence, in our view, this issue also requires reconsideration by adjudicating authority. Needless to say that if the activity of repair does not amount to manufacture, the demand would not sustain. This issue is therefore remanded.
6.6 An amount of Rs. 17,84,883/- is seen to be a demand of excise duty raised when the appellant has sent inputs / capital goods for further processing or for tool grinding purposes to job workers under RDC. It is submitted by ld. counsel that the said goods were sent under Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules and received within 180 days. The department also has admitted that such goods are cleared under the said provision of law. Interestingly, the demand of excise duty is not on job worked goods and instead the demand of excise duty is on inputs / capital goods which are sent for job work which, in our

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. M.M. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (Unit I & Unit II) Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Coimbatore
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 136 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 13-11-2018
Appeal Nos. E/856/2003 and E/1144/2004 – Final Order Nos. 42811-42812/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri R. Balagopal, Consultant for the Appellant
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
Both these appeals being connected, they were heard together and disposed by this common order.
2. Appellant in Appeal No. E/856/2003 is Unit – II whereas in Appeal No. E/1144/2004 is Unit -I of M/s. M.M. Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
3. Brief facts are that the appellants Unit – I are manufacturers of cranes and parts thereof. They were availing the SSI exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE and clearing goods without payment of duty. During October 1997, the officers visited the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rayed that the said option may be extended to the appellant in Unit – I.
4.2 In respect of Unit – II, the ld. consultant submitted that they do not contest the duty liability for 1994 – 95, 1995 – 96 and also for 1996 – 97. It is argued by him that the demand for the period 1997 – 98 is not sustainable for the reason that for the previous year that is 1996 – 97, the turnover is less than Rs. 300 lakhs. Therefore, the appellant has rightly availed the SSI exemption provided in Notification No. 38/1997. In respect of Unit – II, the show cause notice demanded duty of Rs. 2,68,455/-. In respect of the year 1997 – 98, in para 12.5.2 of the adjudication order, the adjudicating authority has excluded the value of Rs. 84,585/- from the total turnover alleged in the show cause notice which is Rs. 3,00,56,769/-. The corresponding duty liability then would be reduced to Rs. 12,687/-. Further, if this amount of Rs. 84,585/- is reduced from the turnover of Rs. 3,00,56,769/-, the actual turnover f

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

on 38/97 and the findings of the adjudicating authority that the appellant has already availed SSI exemption under 1/93 and was availing MODVAT credit and therefore is not eligible for the SSI exemption is incorrect. He therefore pleaded that the demand in the case of Unit – II for the period 1997 – 98 cannot sustain and the penalties imposed to the tune of Rs. 1,54,519/- also cannot sustain for the same reason.
5. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The appellant is not contesting the duty liability in respect of Unit – I and is requesting only the benefit of reduced penalty of 25% of the duty amount in Appeal No. E/1144/2004. The said request of the appellant is legal and proper for the reason that the adjudicating authority ought to have given the option to pay the reduced penalty of 25% under section 11AC. Thus, the impugned order in Appeal No. E/1144/2004 stands modified to the extent of granting the option to pay

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

te of duty at 60%/ 80%. The notification does not provide any bar for availing MODVAT credit. So also the notification in clause (iii) in para 2 states that when the manufacturer opts for benefit of this notification, the goods already cleared during the financial year prior to the SSI notification, the option shall be taken into account for computing the aggregate value of clearances. When the notification was introduced only in 27.6.1997, the appellants have availed the benefit of notification and paid reduced duty. The authorities below have wrongly denied this notification stating that since the appellant has availed MODVAT credit and also because they have availed notification 1/93, in the financial year, they are not eligible for benefit of 38/97. After perusing the facts, we hold that the appellant is eligible for the SSI benefit under Notification 38/97. It is also to be noted that the adjudicating authority for the period 1996 – 97 has excluded the value of Rs. 84,585/- and th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. RANE BRAKE LINING LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, NORTH COMMISSIONERATE, CHENNAI
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 253 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 13-11-2018
E/42015/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO. 42887/2018
Central Excise
Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Judicial Member
For the Appellant: Ms. S. Sridevi and Shri Nitin, Adv/s.
For the Respondent: Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR)
ORDER
Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of brake linings and are availing the facility of Cenvat Credit on inputs, capital goods and input services. During the course of audit, it was found that the appellants have availed service tax credit on Product Liability Insurance for

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nished products, namely, brake lining, clutch facings and railway brake blocks. In case, the appellants are not indemnified for defects of the finished products, they would incur huge financial losses for payment of compensation. Such insurance policies are directly related to the manufacture of the finished products. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sify Technologies Pvt. Ltd., vide Final Order No.42550/2018, dated 09.10.2018 as well as the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case reported in 2018 (7) TMI 611 – CESTAT CHENNAI.
4. The learned Authorised Representative Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order.
5. Heard both sides,
6. The issue is the eligibility of cre

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST a monumental reform, hit growth only for 2 qtrs: FM
GST
Dated:- 12-11-2018

Mumbai, Nov 11 (PTI) The GST implementation was a "monumental reform" which had disruptionist impact on growth only for two quarters, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said Sunday, hitting out at "critics and cynics" who blame it for hurting the GDP expansion.
The remarks come a day after former RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan blamed the indirect taxation reform for derailing the India's growth story. Jaitley did not name Rajan.
"You will always have critics and cynics who will come up and say it (GST) slowed down India's growth," Jaitley said, speaking at state-run Union Bank of India's 100th anniversary celebrat

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Corrigendum – Notification No. 60/2018-Central Tax, dated the 30th October, 2018
F. No. CBEC/20/06/17/2018-GST Dated:- 12-11-2018 Central GST (CGST)
GST
CGST
CGST
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Excise and Customs
Corrigendum
New Delhi, the 12th November, 2018
G.S.R. (E).:- In the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, No. 60/2018-Central Tax, dated the 30th October, 2018, pub

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Rane Brake Lining Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai North
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 735 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 12-11-2018
Appeal No. E/42007/2018 – Final Order No. 42790/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Ms. S. Sridevi and Shri Nitin, Advocates for the Appellant
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
The appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the disallowance of input tax credit on security services.
2. Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of asbestos brake linings and are availing the facility of CENVAT credit on inputs, input services etc. It was noticed that they had avail

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

y. She submitted that the appellants have to remove as well as store the hazardous waste as per the Hazardous Waste Rules and also the guidelines issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. Therefore, it is required by them to engage the security at the area where the hazardous waste is stored and the disallowance of credit is unjustified and prayed that the same may be allowed.
4. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the security services is in a place which is not within the premises of the factory and has no nexus with the manufacturing activity. That the disallowance of credit is legal and proper.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The ld. counsel has argued that as per the legal r

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax Versus M/s Spice Digital Limited
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 761 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – TMI
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 12-11-2018
STA No. 2 of 2018 (O&M)
Service Tax
Mr Rajesh Bindal And Mr Manoj Bajaj, JJ.
For The Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for Mr. Tajender Joshi, Advocate
For The Respondent : Mr. P. K. Sahu, Advocate And Mr. Manpreet Sawhney, Advocate
ORDER
Rajesh Bindal, J.
This is an appe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

TAYAB ZAINULABDIN Versus ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GST DEPT, KOLLAM
GST
2018 (11) TMI 800 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 12-11-2018
WP(C). No. 36685 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The PETITIONER : SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
For The RESPONDENT : DR THUSHARA JAMES GP
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, faced with Exts.P5 and P6 notices under Sections 129(3) and 129(1) of th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Kundan Singh Versus State & others
GST
2018 (11) TMI 889 – UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 387 (Uttarakhand)
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 12-11-2018
Writ Petition No. 116 of 2018 (PIL)
GST
RAJIV SHARMA, AND SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, JJ
Mr. M.C. Pant, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Per: Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.
Uttarakhand UPNL Savinda Karamchari Sangh through its General Secretary has filed Impleadment Application No.16484 of 2018 highlighting therein the exploitation of the workmen by the State Government as well as local bodies. It is stated in the application that though, the workmen are being paid the honorarium of Rs. 8,400/-, however, the GST @18% and 2.5% Service Tax are also deducted from their salary. It is also highlighted that the administrative, disciplinary and financial control on each and every employee is of the establishment, in which, they are working. They are disch

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

through UPNL vis-à-vis their regularly appointed counterparts in the government department.
v. The State Government is further directed to give the date of engagement of every employee/workman through UPNL in a tabular form.
vi. The State Government and UPNL are directed to ensure that no displeasure is shown to any person or employee in highlighting the difficulties faced by them.”
4. In sequel to the directions issued by this Court, the State Government has filed the comprehensive affidavit. According to the averments made in the affidavit, the employees have been engaged in the various Government Departments and other institutions/corporations/local bodies etc. through outsource. The Government of Uttarakhand issued G.O. dated 12.06.2013 by which after fixing the categories of the officers/personnel, the honorarium was also fixed for the employees engaged through outsourcing. The honorarium of the personnel sponsored through UPNL was revised on 10.05.2018. The honorarium

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

led, skilled, highly skilled and officers) have been engaged through UPNL.
9. The Cabinet in its meeting held on 20.09.2018 has discussed the matter and decided that the matter is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of “State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi.” Thus, the persons engaged through UPNL cannot be regularized.
10. It would be apt at this stage to take into consideration the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited (as amended vide extraordinary General Meeting held on 01.09.2015). The main objects of the company are to provide employment/self employment to Ex-servicemen and their dependants and in case suitable Ex-servicemen/their dependants are not available, employment can be provided to others to meet the requirements of Principal Employer.
11. Thus, it is evident that it is only when suitable Ex-servicemen/their dependants are not available, then the employment could be provided to others to meet

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ntract Labour.
15. “Establishment” means any office or department of the Government of a local authority or any place where any industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried out.
16. “Principal employer” means in relation to any office or department of the Government or a local authority, the head of that office or department or such other officer as the Government or the local authority, as the case may be, may specify in that behalf.  
17. It is evident from the Memorandum and Articles of Association of UPNL, the UPNL was required to provide employment/self-employment to Ex-servicemen and their dependants and in case suitable Ex-servicemen/their dependants are not available employment can be provided to others to meet the requirements of Principal Employer.
18. The State Government in its own wisdom vide letter dated 09.06.2016 had directed that in future UPNL will sponsor ex-servicemen only and thereafter, vide letter dated 05.07.2016 UPNL has been allowed

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rs. 8,400/-. The persons appointed in the corresponding posts are getting regular pay-scale. The dearness allowance is also not being paid to them.
23. The State must act like a Modal employer. Something which cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. The agreement entered into between the UPNL and its employees is unconstitutional. Thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The employees working through agency of UPNL, deployed by the State Government and local bodies are entitled to at least minimum of pay-scale, which is being paid to their counterparts on the principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work.” The employees sponsored through UPNL are working without being regularized for decades together. It amounts to begaar.
24. The State Government while filing the affidavit has overlooked Section 2(i)(iv) and 2(z) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
25. In AIR 1964 SC 355, in the case of “M/s Basti Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Ram Ujagar & ot

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

n the sub-clause are clearly sufficient to achieve this purpose.
7. It is true, as pointed out by Mr Pathak, that the definition of the word “workmen” did not contain any words to show that the contract labour was included. That however does not affect the position. The words of the definition of workmen in Section 2(z) to mean “any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied” are by themselves sufficiently wide to bring in persons doing work in an industry whether the employment was by the management or by the contractor of the management. Unless however the definition of the word “employer” included the management of the industry even when the employment was by the contractor the workmen employed by the contractor could not get the benefit of the Act since a dispute between them and the management would not be an indu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

through UPNL is a sham. The Principal Employer is State Government.
27. In 1985 (3) SCC 545, in the case of “Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corp.”, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held as under:-
“40. Just as a mala fide act has no existence in the eye of law, even so, unreasonableness vitiates law and procedure alike. It is therefore essential that the procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his fundamental right, in this case the right to life, must conform to the norms of justice and fair play. Procedure, which is unjust or unfair in the circumstances of a case, attracts the vice of unreasonableness, thereby vitiating the law which prescribes that procedure and consequently, the action taken under it. Any action taken by a public authority which is invested with statutory powers has, therefore, to be tested by the application of two standards: the action must be within the scope of the authority conferred by law and secondly, it must be reasonabl

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

not made them applicable qua persons sponsored by UPNL. In Uma Devi case, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have directed that the Courts cannot issue directions for framing of scheme but State Governments of their own could frame the scheme for regularization.
29. The action of the State Government of not regularizing the employees sponsored through agency of UPNL and to deny them minimum of pay-scale including dearness allowance is arbitrary and unreasonable.
30. The employees have a legitimate, statutory and fundament rights to be regularized. The workmen are being paid meager honorarium and out of the same, GST and Service Tax are also deducted. Every workman is entitled to living and fair wage to make both ends meet. The UPNL has not obtained the license as Contractor nor has registered under the Act qua most of the departments and local bodies.
31. Salary is the property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. No GST or Service Tax can be d

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Saji S., Proprietor, Adithya and Ambadi Traders, Ranjith R., Proprietor, Ranjith Roadlines Versus The Commissioner, State GST, The Assistant State Tax Officer
GST
2018 (11) TMI 954 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 385 (Ker.) , [2019] 63 G S.T.R. 70 (Ker)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 12-11-2018
WP(C). No. 35868 of 2018
GST
MR. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU J.
PETITIONERS: BY ADVS. SRI. S. SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.ANJANA. S. SANTHOSH SMT. P. LISSY JOSE.
RESPONDENTS: DR THUSHARA JAMES, GP.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a registered dealer, purchased certain goods from Chennai. He had them transported to Kerala. When the goods were in transit, the Assistant State Tax Officer (ASTO), for the reasons not germane here, detained the goods and issued the Ext.P3 notice, dated 30.09.2018.
2. Based on the demand in the Ext.P3 notice, the consignor paid the tax and penalty, as is evident from Ext.P4 payment receipt. But the remittance was made under the head 'SGST'.
3. The petit

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ll take more than a couple of months.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the Government Pleader.
7. I reckon the facts are not in dispute. The petitioner, as a consignee and transporter, purchased goods from the consignor in Chennai. While those goods were in transit, they were detained. Further not in dispute is the fact that the consignor paid the tax and penalty. Either on the ASTO's advice or on its own, it remitted the amount under the head 'SGST', instead of 'IGST'. In this context, we may refer to Section 77 of the GST Act. And it reads:
Section 77: Tax wrongfully collected and paid to Central Government or State Government:  
(1) A registered person who has paid the Central tax and State tax or, as the case may be, the central tax and the Union territory tax on a transaction considered by him to be an intra-State supply, but which is subsequently held to be an inter-State supply, shall be refunded the amount of taxes so paid in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

any existing law and the balance amount refundable:
PROVIDED that in cases where the amount of refund is completely adjusted against any outstanding demand under the Act or under any existing law, an order giving details of the adjustment shall be issued in Part A of FORM GST RFD-07.”
(italics supplied)
9. As seen, Section 77 provides for the refund of the tax paid mistakenly under one head instead of another. But Rule 4 speaks of adjustment. Where the amount of refund is completely adjusted against any outstanding demand under the Act, an order giving details of the adjustment is to be issued in Part A of FORM GST RFD-07. The petitioner's counsel lays stress on this process of adjustment and asserts that the amount remitted under one head can be adjusted under another head, for the demand can be any amount under the Act.
10. Under these circumstances, I find no difficulty for the respondent officials to allow the petitioner's request and get the amount transferred from the hea

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Corrigendum to Circular No. 57/31/2018-GST dated 4th September, 2018 issued vide F. No. CBEC/20/16/4/2018-GST corresponding to Circular No. 18/2018-GST (State)
F.1-11(8)-TAX/GST/2018/10393-99 Dated:- 12-11-2018 Tripura SGST
GST – States
NO.F.1-11(8)-TAX/GST/2018/10393-99
GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX
PANDIT NEHRU COMPLEX, GURKHABASTI
AGARTALA, TRIPURA WEST, PIN-799006.
Dated, Agartala, the 12th November, 2018.
Corrigendum to Circular No. 18/2018 – GST (State)
To
The Additional Commissioner of State Tax /
Superintendent of State Tax (All) /
Inspector of State Tax (All)
Subject: Reg.
The Department of Revenue, GST Policy Wing vide Corrigendum to Circular No. 57/31/2018-GST dated 4th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

gesh Kumar B, IAS)
Chief Commissioner of State Tax
Government of Tripura
Corrigendum to Circular No. 57/31/2018-GST
CBEC/20/16/04/2018-GST
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
GST Policy Wing
New Delhi, Dated the 5th November, 2018
To,
The Principal Chief Commissioners/ Chief Commissioners/ Principal Commissioners/
Commissioners of Central Tax (All)
The Principal Directors General/ Directors General (All)
Madam/Sir,
Subject: Corrigendum to Circular No. 57/31/2018-GST dated 4th September, 2018 issued vide F. No. CBEC/20/16/4/2018-GST – Reg.
In para 9 of the Circular No. 57/31/2018-GST dated 4th September, 2018,
for
“However, in cases where the supply of a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of an agriculturist. Further, as per provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the CGST Act an agriculturist who supplies produce out of cultivation of land is not liable for registration and therefore does not fall within the ambit of the term “taxable person”. Thus a commission agent who is making supplies on behalf of such an agriculturist, who is not a taxable person, is not liable for compulsory registration under clause (vii) of section 24 of the CGST Act. However, where a commission agent is liable to pay tax under reverse charge, such an agent will be required to get registered compulsorily under section 24 (iii) of the CGST Act.”
2. It is requested that suitable trade notices may be issued to publicize the conte

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =