Government Entity Ineligible for 12% Concessional GST on Work Contract Services for Supply and Erection Projects.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of GST – Work contract services received from vendors for
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
E-way Bill: Minor Vehicle Number Errors Not Grounds for Proceedings Under Act.
Case-Laws
GST
E-way bill – in case of minor discrepancies in the details mentioned in the E-way bill, specially
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST Revenue collections for the month of October 2018 crosses Rupees One Lac Crore
GST
Dated:- 1-11-2018
The total gross GST revenue collected in the month of October, 2018 is ₹ 100,710 crore of which CGST is ₹ 16,464 crore, SGST is ₹ 22,826 crore, IGST is ₹ 53,419 crore (including ₹ 26,908 crore collected on imports) and Cess is ₹ 8,000 crore(including ₹ 955 crore collected on imports).
The total number of GSTR 3B Returns filed for the mo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
notifies the registration under the said Act has been cancelled by the proper officer furnish FORM GSTR-10 of the 31st December, 2018.
38/1/2017-Fin(R&C)(79) Dated:- 1-11-2018 Goa SGST
GST – States
Goa SGST
Goa SGST
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Revenue & Control Division
–
Notification
38/1/2017-Fin(R&C)(79)
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Goa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Goa Act 4 of 2017) (hereafter in this notification referred to as the 'said Act'), re
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s. Elcomponics Sales Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 160 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 1-11-2018
Appeal No. E/41886/2018 – Final Order No. 42749/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Shri G. Thangaraj, Consultant for the Appellant
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Brief facts are that on verification of accounts of the appellant, it was noticed that in the balance sheet of the year 2014 – 15, the appellant had made provisions for write off of old inputs but had not reversed the credit in respect of such inputs. On being pointed out, the appellant reversed the credit. However, show cau
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
n in the case of Strategic Engineering P. Ltd. – 2014 (310) ELT 509 (Mad.) and Tata Business Support Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax – 2017 (52) STR 346.
3. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order.
4. After hearing both sides, it is seen that the appellant has reversed the credit even before issuance of the show cause notice. It is also not the case of the department that they have utilized the credit. Following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Strategic Engineering P. Ltd. (supra) as well as the decision of the Tribunal in Tata Business Support Services Ltd. (supra), I am of the view that the demand of interest and penalty cannot sustain. The same is set asid
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s. Brakes India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 161 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 1-11-2018
Appeal No. E/41904/2018 – Final Order No. 42751/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Shri M. Kannan, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of brakes, servo brakes etc. They were availing the facility of CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services. During the disputed period, which is from July 2014 to March 2016, the appellants had two units which are EOU and DTA units. They were availing the in
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
g penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed equal penalty. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal.
2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri M. Kannan submitted that the EOU was continuously availing the credit for both the units prior to July 2014 and by bonafide mistake even after the amendment, continued to do the same. In fact, the whole situation is a revenue neutral one since both the units are of the same assessee. At the time of issuance of show cause notice, both the units had merged into one which is also noted in the show cause notice. So even if there is a demand confirmed, the same would be paid to the same assessee and there is no
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
that the situation is a revenue neutral one and the EOU and DTA units being of the same assessee, even if the service tax as paid is confirmed, the other DTA would be eligible for the credit. As seen from the show cause notice, later both the units have merged to one unit, pursuant to debonding of the EOU. Taking note of these facts, it is very much clear that the situation is a revenue neutral one, even if the demand is confirmed, both the units which has been now merged into one unit of the same assessee, shall be availing the credit.
6. From the above discussions, I am of the view that the demand requires to be set aside, which I hereby do. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s Medisray Laboratories P. Ltd. Versus CCGST, Kolhapur
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 230 – CESTAT MUMBAI – 2019 (369) E.L.T. 717 (Tri. – Mumbai)
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 1-11-2018
APPEAL NO. E/85429/2018 – A/87803/2018
Service Tax
DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate for Appellant
Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent (AR) for Respondent
ORDER
None payment of duty @ 6%/7% of the trading value for non-maintenance of separate dutiable and exempted accounts to avail CENVAT credit is the subject matter of this appeal.
2. Briefly stated, the appellant's case is that it is engaged in the manufacturing of dutiable goods namely “PP Medicines” and during the Audit it is also observed that it has carried out sale of raw materials by selling the same to M/s Cipla Ltd., Mumbai, on whose behalf it also undertakes manufacturing process on job work basis. As per Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, if separate account for manufacturing on su
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
buying and selling of raw-material in relation to manufacture of excisable goods is not tantamount to trading and appellant is a manufacturer who is not engaged in any activity that can be treated as trader, but, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) had disregarded the judicial ruling prevalent on the point. It has also challenged invocation of extended period of limitation on the ground that the said act of appellant was well within the knowledge of the Department before whom appellant had submitted annual report and credit availed by them. It was under the bona fide belief that credit was admissible besides the fact that proportionate reversal of input credit was done to establish sufficient compliance of provision contained in Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Further Learned Counsel for the appellant contented that the imposition of penalty is not in conformity to the law and procedure prevailing during the disputed period which should never had extended the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
its raw-material which is fully exempted product, duty liability including interest and penalty on the appellant was not in conformity to the Indirect Tax Rule and therefore, interference by the Tribunal is uncalled for.
5. Heard at length from both sides and perused the case records and provisions of law including definition of trade and the purpose of Audit.
5.1 Dispute relating to taxability on sale and levy of duty by the excise authority is not new in its origin and on many scores, matter had reached the apex court level that necessitated passing of the Constitution (Forty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1982 and going by its Statement of Objects and Reasons, it can be ascertained that in conformity to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Ganon Dunkerley's case (AIR) 1958 SC 560 whereby the sale of goods as used in entry of the 7th schedule to the constitution was treated to have carried the same meaning as in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, coupled with subsequent decisions
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
atory in nature since definition of service as contained in 65B(44) and exempted service in 66D are to be read conjointly and not in exclusion of each other. This being the statutory definition, sale of goods-be it made in the high sea or within the territorial boundary of India in which Finance Act, 1994 has its force, cannot be called a service to impose tax liability or deny the credit under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules.
7. Now coming to the statutory audit procedure, the purpose of audit, as available in the Manual published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in respect of EA audit and CERA audit under Chapter 17 is that the idea behind such conduct of verification is to reasonably ensure that no amount, which under the central excise law is chargeable as duty, escapes taxation and the process of verification is always carried out in the presence of assessee and in the process, the auditor is required to discuss the matter with the assessee and advice him to follo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
The Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2018.
S.O. No. 78-53/2018-State Tax Dated:- 1-11-2018 Jharkhand SGST
GST – States
Jharkhand SGST
Jharkhand SGST
COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT
Notification
1st November, 2018
Notification No. 53/2018-State Tax
S.O. No.78- Dated- 1st November, 2018 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Government of Jharkhand hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2018.
(2) They shall be deemed to have come into force with effect
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the 7th November, 2017 or notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated the 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 the 23rd October, 2017 or notification No. 78/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1272(E), dated the 13th October, 2017 or notification No. 79/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1299 (E) dated the 13th October, 2017.”.
[File.No Va Kar / GST / 04/ 2018]
By the order of the Governor of Jharkhand
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
The Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2018.
S.O. No. 79-54/2018-State Tax Dated:- 1-11-2018 Jharkhand SGST
GST – States
Jharkhand SGST
Jharkhand SGST
COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT
Notification
1st November, 2018
Notification No. 54/2018 – State Tax
S.O. No.79- Dated- 2nd November, 2018 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017),the Government of Jharkhand hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2018.
(2) This notification shall be deemed to be effective from 9t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1321(E), dated the 23rd October, 2017; or
(b) availed the benefit of notification No. 78/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1272(E), dated the 13th October, 2017 or notification No. 79/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1299(E), dated the 13th October, 2017, the refund of input tax credit, availed in respect of inputs received under the said notifications for export of goods and the input tax credit availed in respect of other inputs or i
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
O. No. 120, dated the 7th November, 2017 or notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated the 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 the 23rd October, 2017 has been availed; or
(b) availed the benefit under notification No. 78/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1272(E), dated the 13th October, 2017 or notification No. 79/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i),vide number G.S.R 1299 (E), dated the 13th October, 2017 except so far
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
In Re: Merit Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd.
GST
2018 (11) TMI 335 – APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING MAHARASHTRA – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 820 (App. A. A. R. – GST), [2019] 61 G S.T.R. 47 (AAR)
APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING MAHARASHTRA – AAAR
Dated:- 1-11-2018
MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/12/2018-19
GST
SMT. SUNGITA SHARMA, AND SHRI RAJIV JALOTA, MEMBER
PROCEEDINGS
(under Section 101 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017)
At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the MGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provisions under the MGST Act.
The present appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [herei
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
The food is prepared at their own kitchen and it is distributed to various companies at different locations. There are four different situations mentioned below on the basis of which the company is carrying on the above mentioned business. These situations are based on the terms of the contract entered by Merit Hospitality with various corporate clients.
Case (l) The Appellant has entered into a contract for supply of food to the employees of the company, say 'A' Ltd. The contract is signed between Merit Hospitality and 'A' Ltd. for supply of food. As per the terms of contract, Merit Hospitality has to supply the food at 'A' Ltd. 's premises. The distribution of the foods is directly done by the staff of 'A' Ltd. The menu and the material specifications are mentioned in the contract and also the rate of various items are pre-determined between Merit Hospitality and the company. The billing is done by the Merit Hospitality, directly to the company on the monthly basis and payment is re
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
food of Merit Hospitality is now with the “Employees Co-op society” and not with A Ltd.
Question: Under such circumstances, can it still be claimed that Merit Hospitality is running a canteen and the applicable rate of 5% be charged on our bills?
Case (IV) : The Merit Hospitality has entered into a contract with a company called say “B” Ltd. and B Ltd. is having its unit in SEZ area (Special Export Zone). The supply of food is done by Merit Hospitality to the employees of “B” Ltd. and the payment for the same is made by the employees of “B” Ltd. , directly to Merit Hospitality.
Question:
(a) Can Merit Hospitality claim that since the food is supplied directly to the SEZ area, hence no GST is applicable?'; or
(b) Can Merit Hospitality claim that it is running a canteen in SEZ area, hence no GST is applicable? Or
(c) Can Merit Hospitality claim that it is running a restaurant in SEZ area and hence applicable rate is 5% only?
B. The appellant filed an application for advance rulin
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
earned Advance Ruling Authority (ARA) erred in not answering the specific questions under the circumstances mentioned in case IV of the application namely:
Q.(a) Merit Hospitality claim that since the food is supplied directly to the SEZ area, hence no GST is applicable?'; or
Q.(b) Can Merit Hospitality claim that it is running a canteen in SEZ area, hence no GST is applicable? Or
Q.(c) Can Merit Hospitality claim that it is running a restaurant in SEZ area and hence applicable rate is 5% only?
2. The Ld. Advance Ruling Authority erred in not deciding the issues of applicability of GST rate for supplies for supplies made to unit situated in Special Economic Zone (SEZ) as raised in the case IV of the application stating that all the facts required for decision in respect of the specific case were not put before the authority when factually all documents as listed and demanded by the Authority were promptly submitted by the Appellant during the course of proceeding as evidenced by va
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
th to a SEZ unit or a developer of SEZ are treated as 'zero' rated supplies. Further, Section 16(3) of the IGST Act allows a registered person to made a “zero rated supplies” without payment of Integrated tax subject to conditions, safeguards and procedure as laid out under rule 96A. As per Rule 96A(1), various requirements have been laid out for exports which under Rule 96A(3) mutatis mutandis apply to services given to SEZ units.
The Appellants craves leave to add, alter, delete any ground of appeal during the course of appeal.
PRAYER
In view of the foregoing, the prayer made by the Appellant was as under:-
a. To set aside the order on Case IV in the Original Advance Ruling Application;
b. Grant an opportunity for a personal hearing and make further submission of documents if any;
c. Pass any such further or other order as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Personal Hearing
6. Personal hearing in the matter was conducted on 03.10.2018, wh
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ecial Economic Zone is covered under the zero rated supply or otherwise.
8. First, we will discuss the “zero rated supply”, as provided under Section 16(1) of the IGST Act, 2017, which is reproduced herein below:
Section 16(1) “Zero rated supply” means any of the following supplies of goods or services or both, namely:-
(a) export of goods or services or both; or
(b) supply of goods or services or both to a Special Economic Zone developer or a Special Economic Zone unit.
9. Thus from the above provision, it is crystal clear that the supply made by the appellant to the employees of the unit located in SEZ cannot be construed as zero rated supply by any stretch of imagination, as the employees can neither be treated as SEZ developer nor as SEZ unit. Accordingly, GST will be applicable as per the classification of the services determined in terms of the scheme of the classification of services as provided under Annexure A to the Notification 11/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as am
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he appellant on 01.10.2018, wherein they have categorically submitted that they are registered as “Outdoor Caterers” and are basically engaged in providing the corporate catering services to their offices /units as per the terms and conditions of the contracts entered with them. They further submitted that they prepare the food in their own kitchen and then distribute it to various companies at different locations.
11. From the foregoing, it is apparent that the food is being cooked at one place and being distributed to the various different locations of the companies with whom they have entered into contract. Thus, this event is not covered under the definition of the “Restaurant services” as discussed above. Thus, the appellant claim in the case IV that it is running Restaurant Services in the SEZ area is not tenable and hence the GST rate of 5% as envisaged by the appellant is not correct.
In view of the above discussion and findings, we pass the following order :-
Order
The ser
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s. Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 350 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 1-11-2018
Appeal No. E/41903/2018 – Final Order No. 42750/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Shri Rajaram, Consultant for the Appellant
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of Nissan and Renault brand of cars. During the course of investigations conducted by DGCEI, it was found that there was difference in the assessable value adopted by the appellant when cars were cleared from its factory premises and the final sale price adopted by Renault India Pvt. Ltd. to the dealer. The appellants were in the practice of paying excise duty on the price adopted by RIPL to dealers. Thereafter, the appellant took an exercise of finding out the highest dealer price cleared from their factory to
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
at this is the highest price. In fact, on intimation by the department, the appellant itself had undertaken the exercise of verifying the difference in the price for clearances made to the different dealers. On such verification, it was found that there was an excess payment of Rs. 10,06,683/- and shortage of Rs. 20,94,086/-. The appellant in their letter dated 29.3.2016 issued to the Assistant Director of DGCEI had given the details of such difference of value adopted for discharging the central excise duty. In the order in original, the adjudicating authority has noted the reply filed by the appellant with regard to the excess payment also. It is thus argued by him that the appellant had no intention to evade payment of duty by suppression of facts. The shortage of payment was only due to the error in calculating the assessable value. The same has been rectified immediately on being pointed out by the department. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chennai Petr
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the excise of reconciling the actual excise duty payment. During the reconciliation for the period FY 2010-11 and 2011-12, the following two scenarios have emerged:-
Scenario 1: Where the assessable value is higher than the RIPL Net Dealer Price i.e. Basic Price after excluding excise duty and sales tax and net discounts (i.e.. Total discount passed on to the dealer after excluding excise component included in such discounts). This results in higher / excess excise duty payment by NMIPL which is not actually due to Government.
Scenario 2: Where assessable value adopted by NMIPL is lesser than RIPL Net Dealer Price. This results in lower excise duty payment by NMIPL.
On our analysis, the major reason for the above variation (i.e. both scenarios 1 and 2) is on account of the following:-
RIPL has maintained Delhi Dealer Price as the basis for calculating excise duty as the same was highest, whereas some of the cases, it was lower and hence resulted in lower excise duty payment by NMIP
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
und claim for this amount since the same was hit by limitation. Whenever they had paid excess duty for the previous period, they have filed refund claim and this is known to the department also. Taking into consideration the fact that the appellants have discharged excess duty during the impugned period and also the fact that the department has quantified the figure on the basis of the exercise undertaken by the appellant themselves for confirming the demand, I am of the view that the ingredients necessary for imposing penalty under section 11AC is not attracted in the present case. There is nothing to establish that the appellants have suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The scenario that short-payment of duty had occurred was only because the appellants were arriving the assessable value on the basis of the cars cleared to their Delhi dealers. Taking note of these facts and also relying upon the decisions cited by ld. consultant, I am of the view that the equal pen
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
NORTHERN COALFIELDS LIMITED Versus CGST C.C & C. E-JABALPUR
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 356 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 1-11-2018
Appeal No. E/51317/2017- (DB) – Final Order No. 53237/2018
Central Excise
MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Shri Rajeev Aggarwal, Adv. for the appellant
Shri R.K. Mishra, DR for the respondent
ORDER
Per: Mrs. Archana Wadhwa
1. After hearing both the sides represented by Shri Rajeev Aggarwal Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri R.K Mishra Ld. DR for Revenue, we find that the appellant is 100 per cent subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. With effect from dated March, 2011, excise duty was levied on their final product i.e. Coal. During the period April, 2011 to 21/06/2012, the appellant availed the Cenvat Credit of duty paid on various inputs which were subsequently cleared “as such” to their sister unit located at Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. In as much as
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
eir final product, which was leviable to duty of excise. As such he submits that duty required to be paid by them was available as Credit to their sister units and the entire exercise was Revenue neutral. In such a scenario no malafide can be attributed to them so as to justifiably invoke the longer period of limitation. He also submits that the appellant is a public sector undertaking, being 100 per cent subsidiary of Coal India Pvt. Ltd., and as per the settled law no malafide can be attributed to them as not single person is benefited by such an action of the assessee. In this scenario also, invokation of extended period cannot be upheld.
3. Countering the arguments, Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue submits that admitted the appellant was required to reverse the credit in terms of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. They have availed the excess credit on their unit, without utilising the inputs, which is a clear violation of the provisions of law. As such he supports the impugne
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
lity. As the Tribunal had set aside the demand in that case but imposed penalty on technical contraventions, Hon'ble High Court held that even penalties were not imposable. To the same effect is the decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Sanvijay Rolling & Engineering Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.EX., Nagpur- 2018(11) G.S.T.L. 344 Bom) and Gujrat High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of C.EX. & CUS., Vadodara-II vs. Indeos ABS Ltd. 2010 (254) ELT 628 (Guj) and Tribunal decisions in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai vs. Special Steel Ltd. 2015 (329) ELT 449( Tri.-Mumbai) & Sarover Hotel Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Serive Tax, Mumbai, 2018(10) GSTL 72(Tri-Mum)
6. In as much as and admittedly Revenue neutral situation is involved in the present appeal and the appellant is a PSU, we are of the view that extended period is not invokable. Impugned orders are accordingly set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
(Dictated and pronounced
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s. Ascendas IT SEZ, Chennai Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai South
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 420 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 1-11-2018
ST/Misc. /40816/2017 & ST/40277 And 40278/2014 – Final Order Nos. 42759-42760/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Shri Harish Bindumadhavan, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
In both these appeals, the appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of refund claim filed by them under Notification No.9/2009.
2. The ld. counsel for appellants Shri Harish Bindumadhavan submitted that in Appeal No. ST/40277/2014, the issue is that the refund claim filed by the appellant in respect of an amount of Rs. 14,65,106/- was rejected for the reason that the category / classification of services noted by the service provider in the invoice was not an approved service by the Unit Approval Committee. He submitted that there is
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ant. Therefore, the rejection of refund claim stating that the services are not approved cannot sustain. He relied upon the decision in the cases of Mast Global Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore North – 2018-TIOL-3115-CESTAT-BANG and Petronet LNG Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi – 2017 (7) GSTL 54 (Tri. Del.).
3. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order. He argued that since the Real Estate Agent Service are not approved service for the appellant, the refund has been rightly rejected.
4. Heard both sides.
5. On perusal of the records, I find that as per the agreement the service provider is appointed as property manager for the appellant. In clause 4, the fees for the property manager is fixed. The said activities of the property manager include marketing of immovable property also. In certain cases, the property manager has undertaken marketing on immovable property of the appellant and has issued
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
x months of payment of service tax. The notification also stipulates in para 2 clause (f) that the time can be extended by the Assistant / Deputy Commissioner, if necessary. The period for condonation of delay or extension has not been fixed in the notification. It is submitted by him that the refund claims have been filed within one year of the payment of service tax and would be well within the time prescribed under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He relied upon the decision in the case of TATA Consultancy Services Ltd. – 2013 (29) STR 393 (Tri.) to support his argument.
7. The ld. AR supported the findings in the impugned order and he specifically adverted to page 7 of the impugned order. The appellants have not furnished satisfying reasons for the delay caused and therefore the authorities below have rightly rejected the refund claim.
8. Heard both sides.
9. After hearing submissions made by both sides and perusal of Notification 9/2009, I find that though the time-
= = = = = = = =
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-reg.
144/2018 Dated:- 1-11-2018 Trade Notice
Customs
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (NS- II),
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU CUSTOM HOUSE, NHAVA SHEVA,
TAL-URAN, DISTRICT – RAIGAD, MAHARASHTRA -400 707.
F.No. S/12-Gen-Misc.-984/2018-19/DBK
Public Notice No. 144/2018
Date: 01-11-2018
Sub: IGST Export Refund-extension in SB005 alternate mechanism revised processing in certain cases including disbursal of compensation cess-reg.
Attention to all exporters, their authorised representatives and all other stakeholders is invited to CBEC Circular No. 40/2018-Customs dated 24.10.2018 on the subject mentioned
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
8. It has now been decided by the Board to extend the rectification facility to shipping bills filed up to 15.11.2018. However, it is reiterated that the exporters shall have to take care to ensure that the details of invoice, such as invoice number, IGST paid etc. under GSTR 1 and shipping bill match with each other since the same transaction is being reported under GST laws and Customs Act.
4. It may be noted that SBs which have not been scrolled due to the IGST paid amount being erroneously declared as 'NA' are already being handled through officer interface as per Circular 08/2018-Customs, dated 23.03.2018. However, no such provision was hitherto available in respect of those SBs which were successfully scrolled, albeit with a lesser t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
lity has now been provided for the processing and sanctioning of the eligible differential IGST refund. This facility would be available only for cases where shipping bills have been filed till 15.11.2018. Exporters need to be cautious while filing details in shipping bill as a similar facility may not be available in future for the same mistake.
5. In order to claim the differential amount, the exporter is required to submit a duly filled and signed Revised Refund Request (RRR) annexed to this Public Notice to Shri Siddharth Jaiswal, Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Drawback & IGST Refund). A scanned copy of the signed RRR can also be mailed to igstrefundjnch@gmail.com.
6. It may be noted that only those SBs, which have already been scrol
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCGST, Belapur
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 731 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 1-11-2018
APPEAL NO: E/86260-86261/2018 – A/87820-87821/2018
Central Excise
Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial)
Appellant: Shri Vipin Kumar Jain, Advocate with Shilpa Balani, Advocate
Respondent: Shri Deepak S. Chavon, Superintendent (AR)
ORDER
The instant appeal has been filed from the order-in-appeal no. MKK/302-303/RGD APP/2017 dated 07.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), Raigarh.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of medicine and vide remission order dated 29.09.2015, they were granted permission for remission of Central Excise duty on the finished goods unfit for consumption with the condition to reverse applicable Cenvat credit taken on the input and input services used in the manufacture of the finished goods with interest ther
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ision of this Tribunal in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. CCE & Custom, Ahmadabad; reported in 2003(154) ELT 543(Tri-Mumbai) but the same was overruled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries vs. CCE, Indore; 2007(208) ELT 336(Tri-LB). According to the Appellant, the Circular thus becomes non-est and it cannot have a binding value. Another ground raised by the Appellant is that the newly inserted Rule 3(5C) of Cenvat Credit Rules is effective from 07.09.2007 and the explanation 2 inserted in this rule from 08.01.2014 provides that recovery under Rule 14 is applicable only when the amount is not paid with the time stipulated therein and since they had already reversed the Cenvat amount immediately, therefore there is no question of payment of any interest.
3. The Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 07.12.2017 rejected the appeal on the ground that the appellant had not challenged the order of remission by which the condi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
had been cited in the said circular since the basis for the said circular, had been expressly overruled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra) and the said decision of the Larger Bench was further approved by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the matter of CCE, Chennai-III vs. Joy Foam Pvt. Ltd. 2015(322) ELT 209 (Mad). But the learned Commissioner (Appeals) without giving any finding on the said contention, rejected the appeals filed by the appellant on a totally new ground that the Appellant had not challenged the order of remission by which the condition for payment of interest had been imposed. The Learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order and prayed for rejection of the appeals filed by the appellant.
5. It is settled legal principle that no authority is allowed to travel beyond the show cause notice. In the present matter, the show cause notice proposes
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s. SREE LEKSHMI CASHEW COMPANY Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), KOLLAM
GST
2018 (11) TMI 1187 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 1-11-2018
WP (C). No. 35704 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The PETITIONER : ADV. SRI. SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS
For The RESPONDENT : GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Sergi Joseph Thomas, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Dr. Thushara James, the learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner, an assessee, wanted to revise its monthly returns for WPC No. 35704 of 2018 2 the assessment years 2015-2016-from April
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
DAILY EXPRESS Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SURVEILLANCE SQUAD NO. 8, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM, COMMISSIONER OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAUPURAM AND STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
GST
2018 (11) TMI 1263 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 1-11-2018
WP(C). No. 35665 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : ADV. SMT. S. SUJINI
For The Respondent : GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a partnership firm, seeks the following reliefs:
1) issue a writ of mandamus, thereby directing the first respondent to drop the proceedings against the petitioner.
2) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction to the Ist resp
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Creation of GST Helpdesks for MSME sector by CBIC to support MSMEs
34 /2018 Dated:- 1-11-2018 Trade Notice
Customs
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM(CHENNAI IV)
CUSTOM HOUSE, 60, RAJAJI SALAI, CHE AI-600 001.
Telephone: 044-25231217 – Fax: 044-25221861
Email.:commrchivc gmail.com
(IS 15700:2005 (Sevottam ( Certified)
F.No. S. Misc. 07/2018-Refunds-Ch-IV
DATED: 01.11.2018
PUBLIC NOTICE No. 34 /2018
Sub: Creation of GST Helpdesks for MSME sector by CBIC to support MSMEs Reg.
Exporters/importers / Customs Brokers / Steamer Agents / Other Stakeholders and the Trading Public are hereby informed that Government of India is launching a program to support MSMEs a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
E-way Bill etc. nodal officers for MSME outreach in these 80 districts are appointed. The details of the same are available on the CBIC's website. It is also informed that the following activities would be carried out by the CBIC field formations in coordination with the 'Prabhari Officers' in relevant districts.
a. GST Help-desk for MSME sector with special emphasis on helping them in GST Registration / Return filing and refund claims;
b. Publicity of activities / awareness campaign carried out by CBIC. in relation to GST;
c. Publicity of the CBIC GST apps;
d. Distribution of updated of Act, Rules, FAQs, flyers and other educational material.
3. To bolster the efforts of GST field formations, it has been decided to create
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s. Anbu Motors, M/s. Anbu Automobile Versus The Principal Chief Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax Act, Union of India, The Chairman, Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTIN), Government of Tamil Nadu, The State Tax Officer And The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1406 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 1-11-2018
W. P. (MD)Nos. 22010 & 22011 of 2018
GST
Mrs. Justice J. Nisha Banu
For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Karunakar (In both WPs)
For the Respondents : Mr.R.Aravindan, Standing Counsel, Mr.K.Ashokkumar Ram, Mr.D.Muruganantham, Additional Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
There writ petitions are filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to re-open and reinstate the facility of online submission of TRAN-1, so as to enable the petitioners to file GST TRAN-1.
2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 & 3, learned Counsel appearin
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
39/13/2018-GST, to facilitate, among other things, TRAN-1 submission. This circular contemplates appointment of Nodal Officers to facilitate the filing by the struggling TRAN 1 filers. But, the grievance of the petitioners is that so far, no such Nodal Officer is appointed, which is not refuted by the learned Standing Counsel.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of this Court made in W.P.(MD)No.18532 of 2018, dated 10.09.2018 (in the case of Tara Exports, Rep. by its Partner, Narayan Bharathan v. Union of India, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and others), wherein, this Court, after discussing various issues and various decisions rendered by various Courts across the Country, has passed the following order:
“7. The Circular issued by the Union Government has also recognized that the grievances of the tax paying public are genuine in character and therefore, evolved a structural mechanism to address the grievances of general a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
atform being new, it may not be justifiable to expect the users to back up digital evidences. Even under the old taxation laws, it is a settled legal position that substantive input credits cannot be denied or altered on account of procedural grounds.
9. In view of the foregoing discussions and also considering the special circumstances of the case that the petitioner has made genuine efforts for filing returns not only through online but also manually, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be granted the relief as prayed for.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents either to open the portal, so as to enable the petitioner to file the TRAN 1 electronically for claiming the transitional credit or accept the manually filed TRAN 1, dated 31.01.2018, and allow the input credits, after processing the same, if it is otherwise eligible in law. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court has passed the above o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
IGST refund- Officer Interface for errors other than SB005
PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 30/2018 Dated:- 1-11-2018 Trade Notice
Customs
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS (PREV.), JAMNAGAR
SARDA HOUSE', BEDI BUNDER ROAD, OPP.PANCHAVATI, JAMNAGAR – 361008
PHONE NO.: 0288 2757509/10, FAX NO. : 0288 2757538/39
E-Mail: custechjmr@gmail.com
F.No.VIII/48-251/Cus-T/2018
Date: 01.11.2018
PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 30/2018
Subject: regarding.
Attention of Exporters, Customs Brokers, Shipping Lines, Field Officers & of other concern stakeholders is invited to the above captioned subject.
2. In pursuance to the Government of India's initiative program to support MSME. a special IGST Helpdesk for liquidating pending IGST refunds is famed of district
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
“Militry Malai Mithai” Classified as Sweetmeat Under Chapter Heading 2106 90, 5% GST Rate Applied.
Case-Laws
GST
Rate of GST – The product ‘Militry Malai Mithai’ as described in the Appli
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Adjudicating Authority Must Resolve Invoice Mismatches for Timely Tax Refunds on Exported Goods Under IGST Act Section 16.
Case-Laws
GST
Interest on delayed refund – tax paid in respect of ex
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Restaurant Cleared of Profiteering Accusation; No Evidence Found for Tax Reduction Misconduct from 18% to 5.
Case-Laws
GST
Profiteering – restaurant service – benefit of reduction of tax from
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Court Finds Insufficient Evidence Against Amway Business Owners in GST Profiteering Case.
Case-Laws
GST
Profiteering – benefit of reduction in the GST rates not passed to customers – Amway Bu
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST MSME FLYER
GST
Dated:- 31-10-2018
PDF DOWNLOAD
=============
Document 1
GST
NATION
TAX
MARKET
सतà¥à¤¯à¤®à¥‡à¤µ जयते
å–
VE
Q=
@CBIC_India
å»
(HD)
Follow us on:
f
cbicindia
GST
MSME
अपà¥à¤°à¤¤à¥à¤¯à¤•à¥à¤· कर à¤à¤µà¤‚ सीमा शà¥à¤²à¥à¤•
CT TAXES AND CUSTO
à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¤ सरकार
GOVERN INDIA
| देशसेवारà¥à¤¥
करसंचय
Directorate General of Taxpayer Services
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
www.cbic.gov.in
Follow us on:
@CBIC_India
f
cbicindia
वैशसेवारà¥à¤¥
करसंचय
received the assent of the hon'ble President of India
and were enacted on 30.08.2018.These amendments
will be made effectiv
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
overnment's commitment
to strengthen MSMEs on all fronts including GST,
it is expected that the current challenges would
be stabilized and the industry will gradually take a
positive turnto fulfill the nation's visions.
GST for MSME Sector
Introduction: What is MSME? In accordance with the
provision of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
Development (MSMED) Act, 2006 the Micro, Small
and Medium Enterprises (MSME) are classified in two
classes:
(1) Manufacturing Enterprises: The enterprises
engaged in the manufacture or production of
goods pertaining to any industry specified in the
first schedule to the Industries Development and
RegulationAct19510r employing plant and machinery
in the process of value addition to the final product
having a distinct name or character or use. The
Manufacturing Enterprises are defined in terms of
investment in Plant and Machinery.As notified vide
S.O. 1642(E) dated 29th September 2006 issued by the
Ministry of MSME, Government of Ind
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
r of MSMEs is more than 30 million providing
16
Follow us on:
@CBIC_India
fcbicindia
वैशसेवारà¥à¤¥
करसंचय
employment toaround 100 million people. Out of this,
micro enterprises are around 90%, small enterprises
are around 9% while the number of medium enterprises
is less than 1%. Inspite of having the potential and
inherent capabilities to grow, MSMEs in India have
been facing a number of problems like sub-optimal
scale of operations, technological obsolescence,
supply chain inefficiencies, increasing domestic
and global competition, fund shortages, change in
manufacturing strategies and turbulent and uncertain
market scenario. To survive in such a scenario and
compete with large and global enterprises, MSMEs
need to be supported and assisted to ensure sustained
growth and development in the existing competitive
arena. It is understood that the cost of compliance
in terms of statutory
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
mit i.e. Rs. 20 lakhs (Rs. 10 lakhs
in case of the special category states of Nagaland,
Manipur, Mizoram and Tripura).
2
(h) registered persons would be allowed to issue
consolidated credit/debit notes in respect of multiple
invoices issued in a Financial Year
(i) amount of pre-deposit payable for filing of appeal
under the CGST Act, 2017 before the Appellate
Authority and the Appellate Tribunal to be capped at
Rs. 25 crores and Rs. 50 crores, respectively.
(j) Commissioner to be empowered to extend the time
limit for return of inputs and capital sent on job work,
upto a period of one year and two years, respectively.
(k) supply of services to qualify as exports, even
if payment is received in Indian Rupees, where
permitted by the RBI
(1) place of supply in case of job work of any treatment
or process done on goods temporarily imported into
India and then exported without putting them to any
other use in India, to be outside India.
(m) scope of input tax credit is
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
lass of persons who would be liable to pay
tax under reverse charge with respect to specified
categories of goods or services or both. As of now,
the said provisions have been suspended for the CGST
Act, IGST Act and the UTGST Act till 30.09.2019 vide
notification No. 22/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated
06.08.2018, 23/2018-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated
06.08.2018 and 22/2018-Union Territory Tax (Rate)
dated 06.08.2018 respectively.
(c) option for quarterly filing of returns under GST
would be introduced for taxpayers having annual
turnover upto Rs 5 crores in the previous financial
year. Further, provisions in law would be amended to
introduce a new and simple return filing system. The
new formats have been put in the public domain for
stakeholder consultation. The proposed new return
filing system also envisages SMS based filing of a nil
return and a single page return per tax period for
certain taxpayers.
(d) threshold exemption limit for registration in
the States of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
year does not exceed the threshold limit
Composition levy scheme:Composition levy scheme in
GST is an alternative method of levy of tax designed
for micro, small and medium taxpayers whose
turnover is upto the prescribed limit. It is very simple,
hassle free compliance scheme for small taxpayers. It
is a voluntary and optional scheme. A person opting
to pay tax under composition levy scheme can neither
take input tax credit nor it can collect any tax from
the recipient. The salient features of composition levy
scheme are:
(i) A registered taxable person, whose aggregate
turnover does not exceed Rs. One Crore (Rs. 75
lakh for special category States except J & K and
Uttarakhand) in the preceding financial year may opt
for this scheme.
(ii) Composition levy scheme is available for registered
taxable person making supplies (aggregate turnover)
upto Rs. One Crore (Rs. 75 lakh for special category
States except J & K and Uttrakhand) during current
financial year.
(iii)
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rn in FORM GSTR-04.
(vii) A taxable person opting for the scheme has to
issue bill of supply as he is not eligible to issue taxable
invoice under GST. He has to mention the words
“composition taxable person, not eligible to collect
tax on supplies” at the top of every bill of supply
issued by him
As per the recent amendment in the CGST Act vide the CGST
(Amendment) Act, 2018 following changes have come in
respect of composition scheme, however, the notification
for date of implementation of the amendment Act is yet
to be issued.
(i) Government empowered to enhance upper limit for
composition scheme to Rs.1.5 crore by notification
(i) A person who opts to pay tax under composition
scheme may supply services, of value not exceeding ten
per cent of turnover in a State or Union territory in the
preceding financial year or five lakh rupees, whichever is
higher.
the consideration is represented by way of interest
or discount, would not become ineligible for the
compositi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
mmended certain amendments
to be carried out in the CGST Act, 2017 and the IGST
Act, 2017, which are trade friendly measures slated
to benefit the MSME sector. The details of major
amendments which are beneficial to the MSME sector
are as below:
(a) the upper limit of turnover for opting for
composition scheme would be increased from Rs. 1
crore to Rs. 1.5 crore. Further, composition dealers
would be allowed to supply services, for upto a
value not exceeding 10% of turnover in the preceding
financial year or Rs. 5 lakhs, whichever is higher.
(b) provisions of reverse charge mechanism under
sub-section (4) of section 9 of the CGST Act, 2017
and sub-section (4) of section 5 of the IGST Act, 2017
4
Follow us on:
@CBIC_India
fcbicindia
13
वैशसेवारà¥à¤¥
करसंचय
(ix) Registered persons making supply of goods are
required to make payment of tax at the time of the
issuance of invoice and not
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
or delayed
filing of return in FORM GSTR-3B by other taxpayers
has been reduced to Rs. 50/- per day (Rs. 25/- per day
each under CGST & SGST Acts) subject to maximum
Rs.5000/- each under Act from October, 2017.
(xii) The uniform rate of tax @1% (0.5% under the CGST
Act and 0.5% under the respective SGST Act) is payable
under the composition scheme for manufacturers
and traders with effect from 01st January, 2018.
This has been implemented vide issuance of
notification No.1/2018- Central Tax dated 1st January,
2018. For restaurant services, the rate continues to be
5 per cent.
(xiii) A person eligible for composition scheme also
supplying exempt services including services by way
of extending deposits, loans or advances in so far as
Input tax credit: In the GST regime, a registered person
is 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,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
er and duplicate for supplier).
Special invoice provisions for MSME Sector:
The HSN code required to be mentioned in tax invoice
has been done away for taxpayers upto annual
turnover of upto Rs. 1.5 crores. Further, taxpayers
having annual turnover between Rs. 1.5 Crore to Rs.
5 crores may mention first two digits of HSN code in
their invoices and taxpayers having annual turnover
12
@CBIC_India
Follow us on:
fcbicindia
वैशसेवारà¥à¤¥
करसंचय
above Rs. 5 crores need to mention full 4 digit HSN
code in their invoices.
Exemption from compulsory audit by CA for MSME
Sector:
predpe
In GST regime, every registered person whose turnover
during a financial year exceeds the prescribed limit is
required to get his accounts audited by a chartered
accountant or a cost accountant. As a trade facilitation
measure, government has notified that registered
persons having annual turnover upto Rs. two cr
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
th
day of succeeding month.
turnover in the preceding financial year, or Rs. 5 lakhs,
whichever is higher. This will make a large number of
MSMEs eligible for the composition scheme.
(iv) Levy of GST on reverse charge mechanism on
receipt of supplies from unregistered suppliers,
to be applicable to only specified goods in case of
certain notified classes of registered persons, on the
recommendations of the GST Council
(v) Filing of NIL returns to be simplified with one step
process.
(vi) Service providers making inter-State supplies
whose aggregate annual turnover does not exceed Rs.
20 lakhs have been exempted from the requirement
of registration under GST vide notification No.08/2017-
Integrated Tax, dated 14.09.2017
(vii) Extending the Advance Authorization (AA) /
Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) / 100% Export
Oriented Units (EOU) schemes to sourcing inputs etc.
from abroad as well as domestically. Holders of AA /
EPCG and EOUS are not required to pay IGST,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
be rejected by recipient within 72
hours or the time of delivery of the goods, whichever
is earlier. If recipient does not reject EWB within 72
hours, it would be treated as deemed accepted by
him.
(9) EWB can be generated online on https://www.
ewaybillgst.gov.in. In addition to web, EWB can be
generated by SMS, Android App, APIs, bulk utility, etc.
Measures taken for the MSME sector under GST:
Various decisions have been taken by the GST Council
in its various meetings for the benefit of the MSME
sector. The details of such major decisions are as
below:
(i) Goods predominantly manufactured and/or used
in the unorganised MSME sector have been kept at
lower rates or are exempted. For instance, electrical
switches and wires, pipeline, plastic products, etc. are
largely produced by MSMEs and they earlier did not
pay Central Excise duty and therefore tax rate on these
have been brought down from 28% to 18%. Similarly,
rates of GST on jute and coir like hand bags, rope
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
FORMGSTR-1 (i.e.the details
of outward supplies of goods or services or both
effected during the quarter)
Proposed system of simplified GST return filing
process:
GST Council has recently approved the new return
formats and associated changes in law. The major
change is the option of filing quarterly return with
monthly payment of tax in a simplified return format
by the small tax payers. The salient features of
proposed GST return filing process are given below:
(1) Monthly Return and due-date: All taxpayers
excluding a few exceptions like small taxpayers,
composition dealer, Input Service Distributor (ISD),
Non-resident registered person, persons liable to
deduct tax at source under section 51 of CGST Act,
2017, persons liable to collect tax at source under
section 52 of CGST Act, 2017, shall file one monthly
return. Return filing dates shall be staggered based
on the turnover of the taxpayer. The due date for
filing of return by a large taxpayer shall be 20thof t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
s / Union Territories have made EWB applicable
for for Intra-State movement of goods.
The salient features of GST E-Way Bill System are:
(1) EWB is a document required for movement of
goods from one place to another. The movement may
be either (i) from supplier to recipientand vice versa;
or (ii) from manufacturer to job worker and vice versa;
or (iii) between two premises of same businessman;
or (iv) for any other purpose.
(2) EWB is to be generated by every registered
person causing movement of goods of consignment
value (inclusive of GST) exceeding Rs. 50,000/-.
For consignments even below Rs. 50,000/-, EWB is
mandatory in case of inter- state movement of (i)
goods being sent for job work; and (ii) handicraft
goods..
(3) There can be four situations for movement of
goods:
(i) Registered supplier to registered recipient: EWB
may be generated by either of them depending on
terms of delivery i.e. the person causing movement of
goods is responsible for EWB generatio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
