Author: admin_gst

M/s. MALABAR STEEL INDUSTRIES Versus THE ASST. STATE TAX OFFICER STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KARUKUTTY
GST
2018 (10) TMI 1137 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 11-10-2018
WP(C). No. 33178 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM AND SMT.S.K.DEVI
For The Respondent : GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a dealer under the CSGST Act, sold goods as seen from Ext.P1 invoice. The vehicle and the goods were detained because the validity of the Ext.P2 e-way bill expired and the invoice number was allegedly manipulated. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought the following reliefs:
“(i) To is

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

KITEX GARMENTS LTD Versus ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER STATE GOODS AND SEVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, KOCHI, COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, TAX TOWER, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
GST
2018 (10) TMI 1190 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 326 (Ker.) , [2019] 62 G S.T.R. 276 (Ker)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 11-10-2018
WP (C). No. 32692 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : SRI. K. N. SREEKUMARAN, SRI.N. SANTHOSHKUMAR AND SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR (A-1768)
For The Respondent : GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner, a dealer under the new GST regime, claims to 'manufacture and export readymade garments'. It also asserts that it pays no tax, for its supplies fall under the Section16 of the IGST Act. Recently, it imported some raw material from Switzerland and had it cleared on 1.10.2018 by the customs authorities.
2. On 1.10.2018, the petitioner generated the e-way bill at 5.52 pm. After generating

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

navoidable circumstances. But the respondent's attitude is hypertechnical. He further draws my attention to Ext.P9 explanation, dt.4.10.2018, the petitioner submitted to the Assistant Sales Tax Officer. According to him, the petitioner issued the e-way bill as per the request from its customs broker, who must have cleared the consignment from the port and delivered it to the petitioner's factory as originally planned-on time. But the customs broker could remove the vehicle from the port only on 03.10.2018. The delay was because, first, the e-way bill was generated on 1st October late in the eveint ; then the next day was a holiday.
5. In the end, the learned counsel has submitted that if the authorities detained and confiscated the goods even for minor lapses, the commerce in the State would come to a standstill. According to him, if the lapse pointed out does not aim at evading the tax or does not amount to subtantial statutory infraction, the authorities ought to take a prag

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rom the Ext.P9, the petitioner may have faced a genuine difficulty. If this Court intervenes at this stage, it may become a precedent, throwing the departmental actions out of gear. Instead, she suggests an alternative: this Court may set aside the Ext.P2 and remand the matter to the Assistant State Tax Officer, who will consider the issue afresh, especially, keeping in view the petitioner's Ext.P9 explanation. She further assures the Court that the ASTO will pass orders within 24 hours, once the petitioner approaches him.
9. For this proposal, the petitioner's counsel agrees.
10. So without adverting to the merits, I dispose of the writ petition settting aside the Ext.P10. I further clarify that the petitioner can approach the ASTO tomorrow. On the petitioners' approach, the authority will reexamine the issue, keeping in view the petitioner's Ext.P9 explanation and the other materials, and pass orders on the same day.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
Case l

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

INDUSIND MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS LTD., GRANT INVESTRADE LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA, GST COUNCIL AND OTHERS
GST
2018 (10) TMI 1616 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 10 (Kar.)
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 11-10-2018
WRIT PETITION Nos. 28653/2018 & 29276/2018 (T-RES)
GST
Dr. VINEET KOTHARI J.
Mr. Monish Panda, Adv. for Mr. Harish Bindumadavan, Adv. for Petitioners
Mr. Vikram A. Huilgol, Sr. CGSC for R1 to R5
Mr. Vikram A. Huilgol, HCGP for R6 & R7
ORDER
1. The grievance raised by the petitioners – company in the present case is that certain practical and technical difficulties had arisen to the petitionerassessee and others when the change of Tax Regime from VAT/Service Tax Regime to GST Regime took

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ctional Officer, he has not been decided such representation after giving a proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-assessee.  
4. The learned counsel for the Respondent- Commercial Tax Department Mr. Vikram Huilgol however submits that a separate Nodal Officers at the level of Commissioner have been appointed by the Central Government in all the States and they can definitely look into the grievances of the petitioners regarding technical and administrative difficulties faced by the assessee and can pass appropriate orders in the matter. However, the assessee should comply with the condition of filing the requisite returns and declarations in this regard.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions made at the bar

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

h the directions of said authority and filing requisite returns and declarations as per the relevant applicable Rules, Circulars and Notifications etc.
6. The petitioners-company should appear before the concerned authority in the first instance on 05.11.2018 at 11 AM and a period of two months is allowed to the said Nodal Authority to pass appropriate orders. Against the impugned assessment orders, the assessee should avail the regular remedy by way of appeal u/S.107 of the KGST Act. The said appeal if so filed within a period of four weeks from today, it will be entertained without raising the objection of limitation.
7. It is made clear that if any prejudicial order is passed against the petitioners-company by the said Nodal Officer be

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Cases where IGST refunds have not been granted due to claiming higher rate of drawback OR where higher rate and lower rate were identical –reg.
138/2018 Dated:- 11-10-2018 Trade Notice
Customs
OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NS-II
JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU CUSTOM HOUSE, NHAVA SHEVA
TAL: URAN, DIST. RAIGAD, MAHARASHTRA-400707
F.No.S/12-Gen- Misc-07/2018-19 AM(X)
PUBLIC NOTICE NO.138/2018
Date: 11-10-2018
Sub: : Cases where IGST refunds have not been granted due to claiming higher rate of drawback OR where higher rate and lower rate were identical -reg.
Attention of all the importers, exporters, customs brokers, and all other stake holders is invited to the Board Circular No. 37/2018-Customs, dated 09.10.2018 on the subject mentio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

dule shall not be applicable to export of a commodity or product if such commodity or product is –
….
(d) exported claiming refund of the integrated goods and services tax paid on such exports.
2.2 Notes and Condition (12A) of Notfn.No.131/2016-Cus(NT), dated 31.10.2016 (as amended by Notfn.No.59/2017-Cus(NT), dated 29.06.2017 and 73/2017-Cus(NT), dated 26.07.2017) prescribed that 'The rates and caps of drawback specified in columns (4) and (5) of the said schedule shall be applicable to export of a commodity or product if the exporter satisfies the following conditions, namely:-
… … …
(ii) If the goods are exported on payment of integrated goods and services tax, the exporter shall declare that no refund of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

hanges made on 26.07.2017 were made applicable for exports made from 01.07.2017 onwards.
2.5 By declaring drawback serial number suffixed with A or C and by making above stated declarations, the exporters consciously relinquished their IGST / IT claims.
3. It has been noted that exporters had availed the option to take drawback at higher rate in place of IGST refund out of their own volition.
Considering the fact that exporters have made aforesaid declaration while claiming the higher rate of drawback, it has been decided that it would not be justified allowing exporters to avail IGST refund after initially claiming the benefit of higher drawback. There is no justification for re-opening the issue at this stage.
4. Action to be taken in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Futuristics Metal Trading Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India and others
GST
2018 (11) TMI 799 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – TMI
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 11-10-2018
CWP-26302-2018(O&M)
GST
MR RAJESH BINDAL AND MR MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, JJ.
For The Petitioner : Mr. Lakhinder Bir Singh, Advocate
For The Respondent : Mr. Saurabh Goel, Advocate And Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Addl. AG, Punjab
ORDER
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petiti

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Yash International Versus CCT, Medchal – GST
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 821 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 11-10-2018
E/30604/2018 – A/31313/2018
Central Excise
Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Shri Lalit Mohan Chandra, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Dass Thavanam, Superintendent/AR for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS-MDAP2-250-17-18 dated 19.02.2018.
2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellants are manufacturers of electrical fans; during the year 2007, officers of DGCEI registered an offence case on appellant on the charge of irregular availment of CENVAT credit without receiving the inputs. During the investigation proceedings, appellants were directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs which they have did so. Show cause notice dated 08.09.2008 was issued and was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority and by Order-in-Original No. 34/2009-A

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

n amount of Rs. 43,96,019/- paid by them during the proceedings as also after the adjudication order was passed. The lower authorities after issuing show cause notice, restricted the refund claim to an extent of Rs. 18,96,019/- and rejected refund claim of Rs. 25 lakhs. Aggrieved by such adjudication order, an appeal was preferred before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority in the impugned order has deprecated the findings of the adjudicating authority for two grounds raised for rejection as being technical in nature and held legally unsustainable, however, he agreed with the views of the adjudication authority that the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs for which credit was raised in PLA, was not debited during 2007 and was subsequently debited in 2017, hence refund claim filed on 23.02.2017 is premature, coming to such conclusion he rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.
3. Learned counsel after taking the bench through the relevant papers submits that the first app

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ounts deposited during the investigation has to be refunded merely on submission of a letter. It is his further submission that this proposal is well settled and reliance upon recent decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Parle Agro Pvt Ltd [2018 (360) ELT 1005 (Tri-All)], Tycon Automation Pvt Ltd [2017 (358) ELT 1058 (Tri-All)] and Usha International [2017 (357) ELT 532 (Tri-Mumbai)].
4. Learned departmental representative submits that current account/PLA which is maintained by the appellant was credited by an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs when they deposited the amount during the investigation of the records but they never debited the amount in order to show the receipt of the amount in the Government Treasury. It is his submission that till the refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority i.e., on April, 2017, appellant had not debited the PLA by the amount. It is his submission that on the contrary, appellant had been misguiding the higher judicial forum that they have depos

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

amount stands accrued to the national exchequer only when the same is debited in PLA; therefore when the amount is available as credit in their PLA without being debited, the question of refund of the same does not arise. It is also mentioned that it would be a traversy, if the refund is granted for full amount of Rs. 43,96,019/- ignoring the availability of Rs. 25,00,000/- at their disposal as it would fetch double benefit to the appellants as they can utilize the balance of Rs. 25,00,000/- lying in their PLA post sanction of refund. In response to this, in the grounds of appeal the appellants have mentioned that they made a debit entry in the PLA, hence they are entitled for refund of the amount is cash. They enclosed a copy of a folio of PLA for the month of April, 2017 showing debit of Rs. 25,00,000/-”
7. It can be seen from the above reproduced Para, the only reason for rejecting the refund claim is that the appellant has not debited the PLA with the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs an deb

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Luk Plastcon Ltd. Versus CCGST & CE, Nagpur
Central Excise
2018 (12) TMI 337 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 11-10-2018
Application No. E/COD/86245/2018 in Appeal No. E/88107/2018 – M/86182/2018
Central Excise
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical)
Shri Hemant Suchak, Asstt. Manager (Comm) for the appellant
Shri D.S. Chauhan, Supdt. (AR) for the respondent
ORDER
Per: Archana Wadhwa
The delay in filing the present appeal is 215 days which stands attributed by the appellant to the concerned person having left the job without intimating the receipt of the Order-in-Appeal to the management. The appellants have submitted that they came to know about passing of the impugned order only when the revenue approached them for recovery of the dues in December 2017. Thereafter they approached the revenue for obtaining a copy of the order-in-original from the Range office and filed the appeal subsequent

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

to benefit by resorting to delay and in fact he runs a serious risk.
Similarly, in the case of Namnath Sao Alias Ramnath Sahu & Ors. Reported in (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 195, the court observed that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides is imputable to a party. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that one thing is clear that the Courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over-jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception.
Further, in the case of Ummer reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 199, it was observed that “one cannot now dispute the legal proposition that the earlier view of this Court that the appellant was required to explain the delay of each day till the date of filing the appeal has since be

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ng of job by the concerned person, subsequent procurement of the copy from the Range office but keeping in view that the filing of appeal involves the right of the assessee to challenge the impugned order before the higher appellate forum and appreciating the fact the amount involved is only of Rs. 2.50 lakhs approx, as also by appreciating the prima facie merits of the case, and keeping in view the various Supreme Court decisions referred supra laying down that such refusal to condone the delay affects the assessee's right to appeal and as such a liberal approach should be adopted unless there are evidence to show that such delay was intentional, we are of the view that the delay should be condoned subject to the appellant paying some cost.
4. We also note that there is no evidence produced by the Revenue to establish the dispatch of the impugned order under registered AD or to establish the date of receipt of order by the appellant. In view of the foregoing and as the amount inv

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d in support of the contentions raised in the application for Condonation of Delay.
7. The appeal is a right but circumscribed certain condition. It is not an absolute right for the assessee. Appeal has to be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. In case of delay, appellant has to explain and thereafter only a Condonation of Delay can be allowed. In absence of plausible and just cause of delay, supported by necessary affidavits and document COD application should be dismissed and consequently the appeal.
In view of the difference between the two Members, the file is placed before the Hon'ble President for reference to Third Member for resolving the Difference of Opinion.
(Dictated in Court)
(Sanjiv Srivastava)
Member (Technical)
Difference of Opinion
Whether the delay has to be condoned subject to imposition of cost of Rs. 2000/- as held by the Member (Judicial) or the Condonation of Delay has to be rejected as the appellant has not given plausible and just explana

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 1105 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 11-10-2018
ST/87083/2018 – A/88123/2018
Service Tax
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
For the Appellant : Shri Chirag Shetty, Advocate
For the Respondent : Shri O.M. Shivdikar, Asst. Commr (AR)
ORDER
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
Heard both sides and perused the records.
2. The short question involved in this appeal for consideration by the Tribunal is, whether Central Excise duty paid on furniture can be considered as capital goods / inputs for the purpose of availment of Cenvat benefit. In this case, the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit on furniture, considering the same as capital

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

se, the furniture purchased by the appellant for its business purpose, though is not confirming to the definition of capital goods, but the same should be considered as input, in absence of any restrictions provided in the statute. I find that in identical situation, this Tribunal in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Commr. Of S.T – 2016 (42) STR 938 (Tri. – Mum) has allowed Cenvat benefit on furniture items, considering the fact that the said goods are required for the purpose of rendering the taxable service.
4. In view of above, I do not find any merits in the impugned order. Accordingly, after setting aside the same, I allow the appeal in favour of appellant.
(Order dictated in Court)
Case laws, Decisions, Ju

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rule 96(10) CGST Rules 2017: Streamlined Refund Process for Integrated Tax on Exported Goods and Services.
Act-Rules
GST
Refund of integrated tax paid on goods or services exported out of Ind

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rule 89(4B) CGST Rules: Claim Refunds on Unutilized Input Tax Credit for Zero-Rated Supplies Without Tax Payment.
Act-Rules
GST
Refund of unutilised input tax credit on account of zero rated

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Examination for Confirmation of Enrollment of GST Practitioners; Last date of registration now extended up to 15th October 2018
GST
Dated:- 10-10-2018

The National Academy of Customs, Indirect Taxes and Narcotics (NACIN) is conducting an examination for confirmation of enrollment of Goods and Services Tax Practitioners (GSTPs) enrolled on the GST Network under sub-rule (2) of Rule 83 and covered by clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 83 of Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Vehicle Dealers Can Claim Input Tax Credit on Demo Cars as Capital Goods Under GST Rules.
Case-Laws
GST
Input tax paid by a vehicle dealer on the purchase of motor car used for demonstration

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Computers and Laptops Not Eligible as Inputs for Transitional ITC u/s 140(3) of KSGST Act.
Case-Laws
GST
Input tax credit – migration to GST regime – transitional provisions – Whether compute

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Hospital Pharmacy: In-Patient Medicine Supply Not Taxable Under GST, Out-Patient Supply Subject to Taxation.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of GST – The supply of medicines and allied items provided by the hospital through the pharmacy to the in-patients is part of composite supply of health care treatment and hence not separately taxable – The supply of medicines and allied items provided by the hospital through the pharmacy to the out-patients is taxable.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Company Faces Charges for Overcharging Customers on Maggi, Violating Section 122(1)(i) of CGST Act 2017.
Case-Laws
GST
Profiteering – Benefit of reduction in the rate of tax – Maggi – realized more price from them than he was entitled to collect and had also compelled them to pay more GST than that they were required to pay by issuing incorrect tax invoices and hence he has committed offence under section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marqu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Key fact of GST
Query (Issue) Started By: – Miruthula Jane Dated:- 10-10-2018 Last Reply Date:- 10-10-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 2 Replies
GST
GST Council has fixed four rates under GST act. The slab tax is 5,12,18 and 28%. If there is increased upto 40% provide has been made in the GST bill. But present situation the maximum GST rate is 28%. Costumers less tax will get the benefit of this. After applying the GST product cost decreased. If any company or factory manufactu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goa Goods and Services Tax (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2018
38/1/2017-Fin(R&C)(75) Dated:- 10-10-2018 Goa SGST
GST – States
Goa SGST
Goa SGST
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Finance
Revenue & Control Division
Notification No. 38/1/2017-Fin(R&C)(75)
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Goa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Goa Act 4 of 2017), the Government of Goa hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Goa Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Goa Goods and Services Tax (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2018.
(2) They shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from the 23rd October, 2017.
2. In the Goa Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goa Goods and Services Tax (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2018
38/1/2017-Fin(R&C)(76) Dated:- 10-10-2018 Goa SGST
GST – States
Goa SGST
Goa SGST
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Finance
Revenue & Control Division
Notification No. 38/1/2017-Fin(R&C) (76)
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Goa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Goa Act 4 of 2017), the Government of Goa hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Goa Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Goa Goods and Services Tax (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2018.
(2) They shall come into force with effect from the 9th day of October, 2018.
2. In the Goa Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ed 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. 79/2017Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Subsection (i), vide number G.S.R 1299 (E), dated the 13th October, 2017 except so far it relates to receipt of capital goods by such person against Export Promotion Capital Goods Sch

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rajesh Sharma Versus State of U.P. And Another
GST
2018 (10) TMI 679 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. J218 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 10-10-2018
WRIT TAX No. – 1353 of 2018
GST
Bharati Sapru And Salil Kumar Rai JJ.
For the Petitioner : Rahul Kumar Tyagi
For the Respondent : C.S.C.
ORDER
Heard Shri Rahul Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nimai Dass, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
The petitioner is aggrieve

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Hind Timber Merchant Versus State of U.P. And 3 Others
GST
2018 (10) TMI 680 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 427 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 10-10-2018
Writ – C No. – 34345 of 2018
GST
Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice And Yashwant Varma,J.
For the Petitioner : Praveen Kumar
For the Respondent : C.S.C.,Archit Mandhyan
ORDER
Heard Mr. P. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Narayan, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
This petition is against the order dated 1.8.2018 issued by respondent no.4-Deputy Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax (Sales Tax), wherein it is stated that the petitioners have not paid GST, as per the provisions of the Central Goods and Servic

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tripura State Goods and Services Tax (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2018
F.1-11(91)-TAX/GST/2018(Part-II) Dated:- 10-10-2018 Tripura SGST
GST – States
Tripura SGST
Tripura SGST
GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
(TAXES & EXCISE)
NO.F.1-11(91)-TAX/GST/2018(Part-II)
Dated, Agartala, the 10th October, 2018
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Tripura Act No. 9 of 2017), the State Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2018.
(2) They shall be deemed to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nd November, 2017, published in the Tripura Gazette, Extraordinary Issue, vide number 439, dated the 22nd 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 13t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tripura State Goods and Services Tax (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2018
F.1-11(91)-TAX/GST/2018(Part-II) Dated:- 10-10-2018 Tripura SGST
GST – States
Tripura SGST
Tripura SGST
GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
(TAXES & EXCISE)
NO.F.1-11(91)-TAX/GST/2018(Part-II)
Dated, Agartala, the 10th October, 2018
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Tripura Act No. 9 of 2017), the State Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2018.
(2) They shall come into forc

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

er, 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
(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 av

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

17-State Tax (Rate), dated the 22nd November, 2017, published in the Tripura Gazette, Extraordinary Issue, vide number 439, dated the 22nd 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, Extraordin

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. CHEYYAR CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 827 – ITAT CHENNAI – TMI
ITAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 10-10-2018
E/41378, 41381 & 41382/2018, E/41379 & 41380/2018 – 42585-42589/2018
Central Excise
Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Judicial Member
For the Appellant : Shri Derrick Sam, Adv.
For the Respondent : Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR)
ORDER
The brief facts are that the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of Sugar and Molasses, were issued five show-cause notices alleging wrongly availed credit for the reasons that they have not maintained separate accounts for common inputs/input services, used for manufacture of exempted products and dutiable products. It was also alleged that credit is not eligible on certain services. After due process of law, the original authority in respect of allegation of non-maintaining of separate accounts dropped the demand for the period prior to 01.03.201

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

awn by the appellants.
3. In respect of the other three appeals, he submitted that the major part of the demand is in respect of the allegation that the appellants have not maintained separate accounts as required under Rule 6(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 . It is the case of the department that the appellants are manufacturing exempted goods [Bagasse, Press Mud and Electrticity] as well as dutiable products [sugar]. The appellants have not availed any credit on inputs/input services for production of such goods. The show-cause notice is totally silent as to what are the inputs or input services that appellants have used in the manufacture of such exempted goods. The appellants have availed credit on any „inputs‟ or „input services‟ for production of Bagasse, Press Mud and Electricity. He explained the process stating that the inputs such as, sugarcane are crushed and the juice is extracted for manufacture of sugar. The remains from the crushing of sugarcane

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

s to the tune of Rs. 2,794/-. He submitted that the appellants had availed credit of inputs of vehicles as well as insurance for money- in-transit. He submitted that the period involved is prior to 01.04.2011 and in any case, the credit is eligible.
5. The learned Authorised Representative Shri R. Subramaniyan supported the findings in the impugned order.
6. Heard both sides.
7. I have perused the show-cause notice as well as the orders passed by the authorities below. It is indeed correct to say that the show-cause notice is silent as to what are the inputs and input services on which the appellants have availed credit for production of Bagasse, Press Mud and Electricity. It is vaguely stated that the appellants have availed credit on inputs and input services for production of Bagasse, Press Mud and Electricity. In the annexure to the show-cause notice also, there is no specific figure shown regarding credit availed separately on inputs and input services. The appellants have repl

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

puts which were used for the production of bagasse at the first stage of manufacture i.e. crushing of sugar cane to extract juice. We have gone through show cause notice wherein it is vaguely mentioned at Page 2 that the appellant has used Cenvatable inputs i.e. lubricant, etc. without giving details. Use of the words “used lubricant, etc.” in the show cause notice gives an impression that the authority issuing show cause notice was not clear about Cenvatable inputs used in the production of bagasse. Further, on perusal of the order-in-original, it transpires that although the adjudicating authority has observed that the appellant has used Cenvatable inputs “lubricant, etc.”, in the manufacture of bagasse (liable to nil rate of excise duty), the adjudicating authority has not referred to any evidence which formed basis of this conclusion. Thus in our view the findings of the Authority is not supported by evidence and is based on unwarranted assumption. Thus in our view the department h

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

01.03.2015, the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand. I find that since there is no credit availed on inputs or input services for products of Bagasse, Press Mud or Electricity even after 01.03.2015, the demand cannot sustain.
8. The learned counsel also argued with regard to the credit disallowed on input services relating to insurance on motor vehicles as well as insurance for transit-in-money. The period involved being prior to 04.04.2011, I am of the view the credit is eligible as these services fall within the category of activities relating to business of manufacture.
9. From the discussions made above, it is clear that appellants have not availed any credit on inputs/input services upto the stage of production of Bagasse, Press Mud and Electricity. Appreciating the facts of the case and the decisions discussed above, I am of the view that the demand cannot sustain. The impugned orders are set aside.
Appeals E/41378, 41381 & 41382/2018 are allowed with consequential

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s R.R. Enterprises, Ludhiana Versus State of Punjab and others
GST
2018 (10) TMI 875 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 429 (P & H)
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 10-10-2018
CWP No. 23203 of 2018
GST
MR RAJESH BINDAL AND MR MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, JJ.
For The Petitioner : Mr. J. S. Bedi , Advocate
For The Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Addl. A. G. Punjab.
ORDER
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents to release the goods detained, claiming that the petitioner had paid due amount of tax thereon. The goods in the present case were detained on 24.8.2018. The allegation is that the same were not accompanied by proper documents.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

. However, in case the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of tax and penalty levied under Section 129 of the Act, the department be given liberty to invoke Section 130 of the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not have any objection to the aforesaid procedure being adopted.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is disposed of permitting the State to withdraw the order passed under Section 130 of the Act, confiscating the goods. The petitioner shall appear before the Proper Officer on October 12, 2018 at 11.00 A.M. in his office at Sector 69, Mohali.
In case the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of tax and penalty, if levied in terms of provisions of Section 129 of the Act, needless to add

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Import Express India P Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai Central
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 900 – CESTAT MUMBAI – 2020 (38) G. S. T. L. 40 (Tri. – Mumbai)
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 10-10-2018
ST/86872/2018 – A/87580/2018
Service Tax
Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial)
For the Appellant : Shri Rajiv Luthia, Chartered Accountant
For the Respondent : Shri O M Shivdikar, Assistant Commissioner (AR)
ORDER
Per: Ajay Sharma
The instant appeal has been filed from the Order-in-Appeal No. CD/TR(Appeal)/MC/43/2017-18 dated 20th February 2018.
2. The appellant herein is 100% subsidiary of SHOP YOUR WORLD PTE LTD, SINGAPORE (hereinafter referred as “Parent Company”). The Parent Company sells their products to their customers in India. A Service Agreement dated 18th August 2010 was entered into between the Appellant and its Parent Company. The Appellants are providing various services categorised under “Business Auxiliary Services” to their Parent Company, such

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ers made online payment to the Parent Company for the products purchased by them but many times they made payment for the Parent Company's products to the Appellant in India and the appellant in turn after deducting their service charge/commission in term of Clause 4 of the Service Agreement, transfer the remaining amount to the Parent Company at Singapore through banking channel. In other words, the Appellant remits the net charge to the Parent Company after deducting its service charges/commission. For the period from July, 2011 to September, 2011 the Appellant had filed refund claim of Rs.5,09,803/- under the Export of Service Rules, 2005 for rebate of Service Tax paid on export of services. The same was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 19th January 2016. On appeal, the Learned Commissioner GST & Central Excise, Thane (Rural), Mumbai vide the impugned order dated 20th February 2018, also dismissed the same.
4. I have heard Learned Chartered Accoun

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the decision of the Tribunal (Principal Bench, Delhi) in the matter of National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur (2008) TIOL 939 wherein this Tribunal has held that receipt of consideration received in Indian Rupees in lieu of foreign exchange is eligible for benefit of exemption under Export of Service Rules, 2005. The above mentioned decision has also been followed by this Tribunal in the matter of Pam Pharma & Allied Machinery Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Mumbai – (2015) (7) TMI 755 in which this Tribunal while holding that the Appellant has complied with conditions of Export of Services Rules, 2005, granted refund to the appellant. He also relied upon the decision of Chennai Bench of this Tribunal of in the matter of Arafaath Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Chennai reported in 2017 (7) GSTL 437 (Tri.-Chennai) in which it has been held that procedure of retaining the serviced charge/commission amount and only remitting the remaining portion of the proceeds will have to be necessaril

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

– TIOL-2578-SC-IT while interpreting convertible foreign exchange under the provisions of Income Tax Act has laid down that brokerage income retained by the assessee acting as agent of foreign reinsurer, out of the premium collected from the ceding insurance company in India and remitting the balance to the foreign insurer in foreign exchange, can be said to be the income in convertible foreign exchange and hence qualify for deduction under section 80-O of the Income Tax Act.
7. Rule 3[2] of Export of Service Rule, 2005 for the non-compliance of which, the Appellant's claim has been rejected by the authorities below is stated as under:-
“Rule 3(2) of “Export of Services” Rule, 2005
“(2) the provision of any taxable service specified in sub-rule (1) shall be treated as export of service when the following conditions are satisfied namely:-
(a) (****)
(b) Payment for such service is received by the service provider in convertible foreign exchange.”
8. Although Rule 3(2) requires

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =