Author: admin_gst

In Re: Sanghamitra Constructions
GST
2018 (11) TMI 406 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ANDHRA PRADESH – TMI
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ANDHRA PRADESH – AAR
Dated:- 9-10-2018
AAR/AP/07(GST)/2018 in Application No. AAR/27(GST)/2018
GST
SRI. J.V.M SARMA AND SRI. AMARESH KUMAR, MEMBER
Present for the Applicant: Sri. V.M. Madhukar Reddy
Present for the Jurisdictional Officer: Remarks Received
Note: Under Section 100 of the APGST Act'2017, an appeal against this ruling lies before the appellate authority for advance ruling constituted under section 99 of APGST Act'2017, within a period of 30 days from the date of service of this order.
M/s. Sanghamitra Constructions, (hereinafter also referred as applicant), having GS

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

13.10.2017?
2. Whether works contract agreements awarded by APSPDCL in respect of DDUGY for which grants/ subsidies from GOI/ GoAP are embedded in expenditure plan/ budget are entitled to fit in the nature of 'non-commercial' under the said Notification with retrospective effect 13.10.2017?
3. In which case, what is the procedure laid down under the GST law to claim the tax paid in excess of 12% (18%-12%) for the period from date of Notification till the date of circular in order to pass on the same to APSPDCL as per their circular dated 04.06.2018?
4. If the applicable rate of GST is 12%, in view of the above what is the rate applicable for the work done by sub- contractor?
In this connection, the authority for advance ruling requeste

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

The Meghalaya Goods and Services Tax (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2018.
ERTS(T) 65/2017/Pt. II/12-54/2018-State Tax Dated:- 9-10-2018 Meghalaya SGST
GST – States
Meghalaya SGST
Meghalaya SGST
GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA
EXCISE, REGISTRATION, TAXATION & STAMPS DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
No. 54/2018-State Tax
Dared Shillong, the 09th October, 2018.
No. ERTS(T) 65/2017/Pt. II/12.- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Meghalaya Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Act 10 of 2017), the Government of Meghalaya hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Meghalaya Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Meghalaya Goods and Services Tax (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2018

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely:-
“(10) The persons claiming refund of integrated tax paid on exports of goods or services should not have –
(a) received supplies on which the benefit of the Government of Meghalaya, ERTS Department Notification No. ERTS (T) 65/2017/Pt I/38 dated the 31st October, 2017, published in the Gazette of Meghalaya, Extraordinary, Part II A, vide number 87, dated the 31st January, 2018 except so far it relates to receipt of capital goods

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

The Meghalaya Goods and Services Tax (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2018.
ERTS(T) 65/2017/Pt. II/11-53/2018-State Tax Dated:- 9-10-2018 Meghalaya SGST
GST – States
Meghalaya SGST
Meghalaya SGST
GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA
EXCISE, REGISTRATION, TAXATION & STAMPS DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
No. 53/2018-State Tax
Dared Shillong, the 09th October, 2018.
No. ERTS(T) 65/2017/Pt. II/11.- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Meghalaya Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Act 10 of 2017), the Government of Meghalaya hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Meghalaya Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Meghalaya Goods and Services Tax (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 20

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re: M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders
GST
2018 (11) TMI 447 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ANDHRA PRADESH – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 849 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ANDHRA PRADESH – AAR
Dated:- 9-10-2018
AAR/AP/16(GST)/2018 in Application No. AAR/24(GST)/2018
GST
SRI. J.V.M SARMA AND SRI. AMARESH KUMAR, MEMBER
Present for the Applicant: Sri. B. Srinivasa Rao (Advocate)
Present for the Jurisdictional Officer: Remarks Received
Note: Under Section 100 of the APGST Act' 2017, an appeal against this ruling lies before the appellate authority for advance ruling constituted under section 99 of APGST Act' 2017, within a period of 30 days from the date of service of this order.
M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders, (hereinafter also referred as applicant), having GSTIN: 37ADOPM5537H1Z4 are engaged in the activity of supply of debarked cut sizes of wood of Eucalyptus/Subabul. It is supplied to various paper mills for manufacture of pulp. Here the applic

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

eedings pending relating to the applicant, and no proceedings were passed on the issue, for which the advance ruling sought by the applicant.
A personal hearing is called for on 14th September 2018, to hear from the applicant. The authorized representative Sri. Murali Krishna Mandava along with his legal representatives had attended on behalf of the applicant and submitted the facts of the case. The applicant has appraised the fact that they are in supply of Eucalyptus De-barked pulp wood, and exclusively used to obtain pulp, which an important raw material in paper manufacturing. The Eucalyptus / Subabil and causurina pulp wood usually purchased in logs form, then chipped and cooked to manufactured pulp. It was also submitted that the state owned forest department corporation in both the states, i.e State of Telengana and the State of Andhra Pradesh have been charging 5% on the supply of pulp wood logs under chapter 4401, as enumerated in S.No. 198 in Schedule I of Notification 01/20

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

r mills have also been purchasing the pulp wood from the forest department, Andhra Pradesh, namely Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation Limited, and stated that, the said Forest Department is supplying Eucalyptus pulp wood at the rate of 5%. In para VIII of the submissions of the applicant, the de-barked Eucalyptus wood is cut in to sizes for the convenience of transportation as well as cooking for obtaining pulp, which is the main raw material for production of paper. He submitted that, Eucalyptus, Subabul wood and Casuarina pulp wood is usually purchase in the form of logs, then chipped and boiled to manufacture pulp. He drawn the attention of this authority to the advance ruling pronounced by the authority for advance ruling of Utter Pradesh, where in, the authority of advance ruling ruled that, the tax applicable under GST would be 5%, on supply of Eucalyptus / De-barked subabul wood, Useful for preparation of pulp wood.
On verification of invoices submitted by the applic

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re: M/s. Maruti Ispat and Energy Private Limited
GST
2018 (11) TMI 448 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ANDHRA PRADESH – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 847 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ANDHRA PRADESH – AAR
Dated:- 9-10-2018
AAR/AP/14(GST)/2018 in Application No. AAR/22/(GST)/2018
GST
SRI. J.V.M SARMA AND SRI. AMARESH KUMAR, MEMBER
Present for the Applicant: Sri. Mahesh Soni (Authorized Representative)
Present for the Jurisdictional Officer: Remarks not Received
Note: Under Section 100 of the APGST Act'2017, an appeal against this ruling lies Before the appellate authority for advance ruling constituted under section 99 of APGST Act'2017, within a period of 30 days from the date of service of this order.
M/s. Maruti Ispat & Energy Private Limited, (hereinafter also referred as applicant), having GSTIN: 37AAFCM7368H1Z1 are involved in manufacturing of Steel, and production of Power.
2. The applicant had filed an application in Form ARA-01, for seekin

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ion lists of tax payers between the Centre and State in the prescribed manner) accordingly, the application has been forwarded to the jurisdictional officers and also a copy marked to the Central Tax authorities to offer their remarks as per the Sec. 98(1) of CGST / APGST Act'2017, and requested for the information.
In response to this communication, the concerned jurisdictional officer, not offered any remarks. As the limitation period for disposal of the application is closure, the authority proceeded further.
Accordingly, a personal hearing is called for on 14th September 2018, to hear from the applicant. Sri. Mahesh Soni (authorized representative) had attended on behalf of the applicant and submitted the facts of case.
The authorized representative submitted that the nature of industry, and for the production of the final product, required buying machinery and other required material to set up the industry. The machinery and other relevant material so purchased have to be insta

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the explanation to the said provisions. They submitted the digging process is done with regard to creation of foundation for specific installation of plant & machinery and is completely suitable only for the specific plant & machinery. They highlighted the word 'support' used in explanation not only means support from base, but also support from all the ways, creating sheds is to protect the plant & machinery. Further, they submitted the list of goods and services, which are to be used for their plant and machinery as input.
This authority requested the applicant, to submit the photographic evidences, in support of his claim. The same is received through mail by this authority
Statutory Provisions:
17, (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 16 and sub-section (1) of section 18, input tax credit shall not be available in respect of the following, namely:-
(c) works contract services when supplied for construction of an immovable property (other than pl

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

pipelines laid outside the factory premises.
On being perusal of photographic evidences and submissions made by the applicant, we are of the opinion that the argument of the applicant to treat civil structures as structural support for plant and machinery is not tenable. The civil structures under consideration is squarely falls other civil structures which is excluded as per the explanation to the proviso as stated above. Hence, this authority is of the opinion the claim of the applicant is not justifiable. Accordingly, the ruling is as follows….
RULING
1) Whether we are eligible to take GST input on Goods which are used for installation (Foundation) of plant and machinery?
2) Whether we are eligible to take GST input services which are used for installation (Foundation) of plant and machinery?
3) Whether we are eligible to take GST input on goods which are used for protection (by creating sheds) for plant and machinery?
4) Whether we are eligible to take GST inputs on servic

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re: M/s. Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd (TCIL)
GST
2018 (11) TMI 712 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ODISHA – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 362 (A. A. R. – GST), [2019] 63 G S.T.R. 318 (AAR)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ODISHA – AAR
Dated:- 9-10-2018
AAR No. 03/Odisha/AAR/18-19
GST
SRI ANAND SATPATHY AND SRI NILANJAN PAN, MEMBER
Present for the Applicant : Sandeep Chilana, Advocate
Subject: GST Act, 2017-Advance Ruling U/s 98 – Applicability of Entry No. 72 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax read with Entry No. 72 of Notification SRO No. 306/2017-Finance Department, to the services provided by the applicant under the ICT @ School Project.
1.0 M/s Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the 'Applicant') assigned with GSTIN 21AAACT0061H1Z0 having registered address at TCIL Bhawan, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi-110048, have filed an application on 21.08.2018 under Section 97 of CGST Act, 2017 & OGST Act, 2017 read with

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ng programme for which total expenditure is borne by the Central Government, State Government, Union territory administration.
NIL
NIL
Entry No. 72 of Notification SRO No. 306/2017-Finance Department is identical to the Entry No. 72 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax Notification bearing SRO No. 306/2017- of Finance Department, Government of Odisha and Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax of Government of India have been issued u/s 11 of the OGST Act and CGST Act respectively exempting the notified services from levy of GST. Entry SI No. 72 of the said two Notifications exempts services provided to the Central Government or any State Government or any Union Territory Administration under any training program for which the total expenditure is borne by the Central Government or State Government or Union Territory Administration. By seeking an advance ruling on the applicability of Entry 72 to the business transactions of the applicant, they implicitly seek a ruling on exemption

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

f 99924 99925
– cultural education services, cf. 999291
– education services provided by instructors, coaches, etc., as part of sporting activities, cf. 999292
Thus education and training services are also included under the head 9992
2.0 The applicant, while filing the Application seeking the Advance Ruling, explained the facts and circumstances under which the supply order was received and how, as per their understanding, Entry 72 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax is applicable to their case. It was submitted that Odisha Madhyamik Shiksha Mission (OMSM), Government of Odisha, had mandated the Odisha Knowledge Corporation Limited (OKCL) to implement ICT project in 4000 government and government aided higher secondary schools across the State of Odisha, Accordingly, OKCL floated a tender notice on e-tendering portal of Secured e Tendering system (SeTs). The said tender was for Supply, Installation, Maintenance and Commissioning of Projection system, Interactive White Board,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

re ready. the Applicant shall operate the same for imparting computer training. For this, they are required to provide one teacher having specified qualifications and experience, to each school. The teachers so appointed would utilize the available ICT infrastructure (i.e. the ITC lab so created by the Applicant) for imparting computer training to the students in accordance with the curriculum developed in this regard by the Board of Secondary Education. After the expiry of the contract period (i.e. 5 years), the entire infrastructure (supplied and installed) will be transferred to the School and Mass Education Department (SMED), Government of Odisha at zero transfer value.
3.0 The Applicant, in their application raised the following question to be determined by the Authority for Advance Ruling:-
“Whether the services provided by the Applicant to the Government and government aided higher secondary schools under the ICT Project, are covered under the scope of Entry No. 72 of Notific

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ter training are to be performed by such private parties. It is a matter of fact that competitors of Applicant are also providing similar bundle of services to other State Governments under ICT in school scheme. Under such contracts all activities are to be undertaken by a single vendor and there is no possibility of performance of different activities by different vendors. This practice is being followed     [Some text are missing in original PDF]     industry since the introduction of ICT Projects. The perspective of     [Some text are missing in original PDF]     here i.e. the Government of Odisha or other state governments in      [Some text are missing in original PDF]     receive everything together as a bundle in all the cases. In other words     [Some text are missing in original PDF]     the state governments want

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

remains with the Applicant. In fact, the repair and maintenance of the equipment and infrastructure is performed by the Applicant, so that it may continue to provide computer training during the contract period in a smooth manner without any obstruction.
3.4 The activities undertaken are under BOOT model basis and therefore, the ownership in the infrastructure developed by it would be transferred after the expiry of the contract period (i.e. 5 years). They stated that the details in this regard are provided in the agreement that the ownership of the entire hardware, software, other equipment etc. will be transferred at zero value at the end of the contract period and therefore, they are not engaged in the supply of goods in as much as supply of goods is taking place after the expiry of 5 years. As regards supply of goods, they submitted that even if some value is to be attributed towards supply of goods (equipment / infrastructure), the supply of goods here is ancillary to the princi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tion and the written submission of the Applicant). The Applicant appeared through its Advocate and the Jurisdictional Officer of State GST & the Jurisdictional Officer of Central GST appeared in person. During personal hearing, the applicant re-iterated the earlier submissions made in the application and he once again added that the ultimate service receiver is Government of Odisha (not M/s OKCL).
5.0 We have considered the submissions made by the applicant in their application for advance ruling as well as the submissions made by the representatives during personal hearing. We also considered the question & issues on which advance ruling is sought for by the applicant, relevant facts having bearing on the question / issue raised, the Applicant's understanding/interpretation of law in respect of the issue. The Jurisdictional Officer of State GST, i.e. DCCT, Bhubaneswar III Circle stated that the facts of the present case are identical to the case already decided vide Order No.1/Od

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

on.
* The supply has to be a supply of Service provided to the Central Government. State Government of Union Territory      [Some text are missing in original PDF]    
* Such Service must be 'under any training program'
* The total expenditure of such Service is borne by the Central Government State Government or Union territory administration
5.3 Before taking a final view on whether Supply has been provided by the Applicant to the State Government, we examined the relevant documents and found that work order has been issued by the Odisha Knowledge Corporation Limited (OKCL) in their own capacity and the Applicant has signed agreement with OKCL on 07 10 2013 for implementation of the ICT @ school project in Government and Government aided higher secondary schools across the State of Odisha. When the contract is made between OKCL and M/s IL & FS, it is also necessary for us to see the legal status of OKCL. From the contract/ag

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

pre-requisite of the entry whether the service provided by the applicant merits 'under any training programme'.
We see that the applicant has entered into a contract with Odisha Knowledge Corporation Ltd. (OKCL) for implementation of the ICT @ school project in Government and Government aided higher secondary schools across the State of Odisha .The project aims to create digital literacy among students and teachers of government and government aided schools by setting ICT (Information & Communication Technology) Labs and providing manpower services to manage them for a period of five years. We also refer to Clause-8 of the agreemeni dt.07 10.2013 between the applicant and OKCL     [Some text are missing in original PDF]     Application which     [Some text are missing in original PDF]     applicant As enumerated therein, the Applicant, in fulfillment of its contractual obligations, has to prepare the s

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

mplementation of ICT project to help teachers in using smart boards and e-contents and promote e-literacy among students. Further, as forthcoming from the terms of the Contract, the intended Supplies are not just supply of Service but rather a composite supply of Goods i.e. hardware and network equipments, power equipments, maintenance of the computer hardware and network equipments and also imparting training on use of such equipments as per the syllabus prescribed by the Board of Secondary Education of Odisha. Thus, it will be incorrect to dub the entire project as a training programme. It is rather a composite supply of goods and services, not naturally but artificially bundled having distinctly separate components with distinct value attributable to each of the components.
5.6 We have carefully examined the submissions and documents provided by the applicant. We see that the contract is for supply, installation, maintenance and commissioning of projection system, interactive white

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

network equipments, up keeping of the ICT lab. telephone and internet charges, electricity charges and fuel for generator No doubt. the applicant has provided computer training service as part of the contract, but the said service is not pre-dominant or principal supply. In fact the contracted supply has three distinct supply components out of which training is a small component.
5.7 It has also been contended that during the period of contract, the infrastructure built by the Applicant remains property of the Applicant and in no case, the ownership of the infrastructure is transferred to the school or OMSM during the period of the contract. Even after the expiry of contract period, ownership of the entire infrastructure (supplied and installed) will be transferred to the School and Mass Education Department (SMED) but at zero transfer value. In the absence of consideration such transfer will not be a taxable supply. Thus, there was no supply of goods either during or after the contra

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

payment for the work done is to be made by OKCL and not the state government, though the source of funding the expenditure is by the State Government. It may be profitable to refer the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd. (1965) 55 ITR, 741, where it is held by the Hon'ble Court that:
“In a taxing statute, one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing to be implied. One can only look at the language used. ”
Thus, it may be affirmed that when the language of a taxing statute is clear, if the conditions of supply falls within the four corners of statute allowing exemption, it is to be exempted. If not, tax is to be levied. No exemption can be granted by inference or analogy. No supply can be taxed or excluded from tax on the basis of intention or scheme of the Act.
In view of the foregoing di

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

The Arunachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2018.
42/2018-State Tax Dated:- 9-10-2018 Arunachal Pradesh SGST
GST – States
Arunachal Pradesh SGST
Arunachal Pradesh SGST
GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEPARTMENT OF TAX & EXCISE
ITANAGAR
Notification No. 42/2018-State Tax
The 9th October, 2018
No. GST/23/2017/Vol-I. – In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Arunachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (7 of 2017),the State Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Arunachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Arunachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2018.
(2) They sha

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ated 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
(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 o

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

apital goods by such person against Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme or notification No. 40/2017-State Tax (Rate), dated the 13th November, 2017, published in the Gazette of Arunachal Pradesh, Extraordinary, No. 536, Vol. XXIV, Naharlagun, Friday 17, 2017 Vide file No. GST/24/2017 dated the 13th 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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Arunachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2018.
41/2018-State Tax Dated:- 9-10-2018 Arunachal Pradesh SGST
GST – States
Arunachal Pradesh SGST
Arunachal Pradesh SGST
GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEPARTMENT OF TAX & EXCISE
ITANAGAR
Notification No. 41/2018-State Tax
The 9th October, 2018
No. GST/23/2017/Vol-I. – In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Arunachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (7 of 2017),the State Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Arunachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Arunachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2018.
(2) They shall

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the 13th November, 2017 or notification No. 40/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated the 13th November, 2017, published in the Gazette of Arunachal Pradesh, Extraordinary, No. 536, Vol. XXIV, Naharlagun, Friday, November 17, 2017, Vide file No. GST/24/2017 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,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Path Breaking Projects Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Nagpur
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 943 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 9-10-2018
Application No. ST/COD/86039/2018 in Appeal No. ST/87767/2018 – Order No. M/85993/2018
Service Tax
Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)
For the Appellant : Shri Abhishek Dutta, Advocate
For the Respondent : Shri M. Suresh, Dy. Commissioner (AR)
ORDER
PER: DR. D.M.

= = = = = = = =

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
PUBLIC NOTICE No. 42/2018-Cus Dated:- 9-10-2018 Trade Notice
Customs
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTNIVE)
55-17-3, C-14, 2nd Floor, Road No.2, Industrial Estate, Autonagar, Vijayawada – 520007
Phone: 0866-2551261 Fax: 0866-2551156
C. No. VIII/09/01/2017-Cus.TFC
Date: 09.10.2018
PUBLIC NOTICE No. 42/2018-Cus
Sub: Reg.
Attention of all the Importers, Exporters, Customs Brokers, Steamer Agents, Custodians/ Customs Cargo Service Providers, Trade Associations / Chamber of Commerce, Members of the RAC/ PGC and the Public is invited to the Board's Circular No. 37/2018 dated 09.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

es and Condition (12A) of Notfn.No.131/2016-Cus(NT) dated 31.10.2016 (as amended by Notfn.No.59/2017-Cus(NT) dated 29.6.2017 and 73/2017-Cus(NT) dated 26.7.2017) 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 integrated goods and services tax paid on export product shall be claimed;
2.3 In terms of Rules 12 and 13 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995, the shipping bill itself is treated as claim for drawba

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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 terms of decision taken in this Public Notice should be considered as Standing Order for the purpose of officers and staff of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Vijayawada.
(SUDHA KOKA)
COMMISSIONER
Circular, Trade Notice, Public Notice, Instruction

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. I.M. Gears Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST And Central Excise, Chennai Outer
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 1641 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 9-10-2018
Appeal Nos. E/41033/2018 And E/COD/41523/2018 and E/41729/2018 – Final Order Nos. 42541-42542 / 2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
For The Appellant : Ms. Sridevi, Advocate
For The Respondent : Shri R. Subramaniam, AC (AR)
ORDER
Appellant has filed miscellaneous application to condone the delay of two days involved in the filing of Appeal No. ST/41729/2018.
2. After hearing both sides, I find that the reason given by the appellant is satisfactory. The delay being nominal is condoned and the miscellaneous appl

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Sikkim Goods and Services Tax (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2018
54/2018 – State Tax Dated:- 9-10-2018 Sikkim SGST
GST – States
Sikkim SGST
Sikkim SGST
GOVERNMENT OF SIKKIM
FINANCE, REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT
COMMERCIAL TAXES DIVISION
GANGTOK
No. 54/2018 – State Tax
Dated: 9th October, 2018
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Sikkim Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (9 of 2017),the State Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Sikkim Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Sikkim Goods and Services Tax (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2018.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Offi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

), 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 input services to the extent used in making such export

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he 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 it relates to receipt of capital goods by such person against Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Sikkim Goods and Services Tax (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2018
53/2018 – State Tax Dated:- 9-10-2018 Sikkim SGST
GST – States
Sikkim SGST
Sikkim SGST
GOVERNMENT OF SIKKIM
FINANCE, REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT
COMMERCIAL TAXES DIVISION
GANGTOK
No. 53/2018 – State Tax
Dated: 9th October, 2018
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Sikkim Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (9 of 2017), the State Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Sikkim Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Sikkim Goods and Services Tax (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2018.
(2) They shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from the 2

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rate of GST on RO Booster Pumps
Query (Issue) Started By: – DEEPAK SHARMA Dated:- 8-10-2018 Last Reply Date:- 9-10-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 2 Replies
GST
Please advice us HSN code and rate of duty of
Reverse Osmosis (RO) Booster Pumps
Reply By SHIVKUMAR SHARMA:
The Reply:
HSN Code is 84139190 & Rate of GST is 18% on R O Booster Pump.
Reply By DEEPAK SHARMA:
The Reply:
Sir, 84139190 belong to hand pumps and applicable GST on the same is @ 5%, if i am not wrong.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rajasthan's Family Assistance Scheme Offers Support for Accidental Deaths of Registered Dealers and Traders Under VAT/GST.
Circulars
GST – States
Family assistance scheme (in case of Accident

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

“Abhivahan Shulk” Not Toll Tax; Classified Under Service Code 9997 with 18% GST Applicable.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of GST – “Abhivahan Shulk” is different from toll tax and is covered under Servi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Long-term lease services with upfront charges may be GST-exempt if all notification conditions are satisfied.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of GST – services by way of granting Long Term Lease – upfront

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ANTI-PROFITEERING ESTABLISHED ON SALE OF FLATS
By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 8-10-2018

[IN RE. PYRAMID INFRATECH PVT. LTD.(2018) 9 TMI 1107 (NAA);], the National Anti-Profiteering Authority vide its order dated 18.09.2018 has confirmed Anti-profiteering charges on sale of flats and also imposed penalty.
In the instant case, 36 applications were filed alleging that the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) had not been passed on to the Applicants in respect of the construction service supplied by the Respondent.
They had booked flats with the Respondent under the Haryana Affordable Housing Policy 2013, notified by the State of Haryana vide Notification No. PF-27/48921 dated 19.08.2013. They had alleged that before coming in to force of the CGST Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.07.2017, Excise Duty and Value Added Tax (VAT) were being collected from them as Service Tax was exempted, however, after the implementation of the above Act, 12% Goods & Service

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nd it was decided to forward these applications to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering for further necessary action. The Standing Committee in its meeting held on 07.11.2017 after confirming that prima facie there was evidence of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 171, had forwarded these applications to the Director General of safeguards (DGSG), now Director General of Anti-profiteering(DGAP) for detailed investigation.
On the other hand, the Respondent had claimed that the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 were not applicable in as much as there was no reduction in the rate of tax as earlier the “Affordable Housing Schemes” (AHS) executed under the 'Affordable Housing Policy 2013' (Policy) notified by the State of Haryana vide its Notification No. PF-27/48921 dated 19.08.2013 were exempt from the payment of Service Tax and only VAT was leviable @ 5.25%, however after 1.07.2017 an enhanced tax @12% had been imposed in the GST regime. The Respondent had

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ring the pre-GST period, the amount spent on construction during this period was only 25% of the total cost and hence he would receive 37.50% of total payment due during the post-GST period when he would have to spend 75% of the total cost on construction. The initial consideration paid by the Applicants was towards the cost incurred/ to be incurred by it against the cost of land, licenses, approvals, administrative and financial expenses which amounted to 40-45% of the total revenue from the Applicants. He has also submitted that while calculating the ITC against the taxable value during the pre-GST period, the taxable value should be accordingly adjusted by giving effect to the above issues during the pre-GST and post-GST period and percentage of ITC should be accordingly recalculated.
It also demanded that:
a). The taxable value should be readjusted and ratio of ITC to taxable value should be recalculated during the pre-GST and post-GST period.
b). The cost of construction has in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

with the interest @ 18% per annum to be calculated from the date of the receipt of the excess amount from each buyer, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.
The Respondent had denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by it under the Policy in contravention of the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus realized more price from them than he was entitled to collect and has also compelled them to pay more GST than that they were required to pay by issuing incorrect tax invoices and hence he has committed an offence under section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice be issued to him directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under Section 122 of the above Act read with rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him.
Further, the Authority, as per Rule 136 of the CGST Rules 2017 directed the Com

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Central Government notifies the Constitution of the Authority for Advance Ruling in the Union territories
14/2018 Dated:- 8-10-2018 Union Territory GST (UTGST)
GST
UTGST
UTGST
MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

NOTIFICATION No. 14/2018-Union territory Tax

New Delhi, the 8th October, 2018

G.S.R. 1004(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 15 of the Union territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (14 of 2017) and section 96 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) and rule 103 of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the Central Government, hereby, notifies the Constitution of the Authority for Advance Ruling in the Union territories as mentioned in column (2) of the Table below with the Members as specified in column (3) of the said Table, namely:-

TABLE

Sl. No.

Name of Union territory of the Authority for Advance Ruling

Name and designation of the Member

(1)

(2)

(3)

1.

Andaman and Nicobar Isla

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Commissioner of Central Tax, Thiruvananthapuran  Zone;

(ii) Sh. Ankit Kumar Agarwal, Director(Planning, Statistics and Taxation) (Union territory Goods and Services Tax), Union territory of Lakshadweep.

2. This notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the official Gazette.

[F. No. S-31011/21/2016-ST-I-DoR- Pt.1]

RAJENDRA KUMAR, Under Secy.

 

 

*************

NOTES:-

1.

Substituted vide Notification No. 03/2019-Union Territory Tax dated 16-05-2019 before it was read as,

“(ii) Sh. Subhankar Ghosh, Joint Commissioner, Goods and Services Tax, Union territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.”

2.

Substituted vide Notiication No. 03/2019-Union Territory Tax dated 16-05-2019 before it was read as,

“(ii) Sh. Rajat Saxena, Deputy Commissioner, (Union territory Goods and Services Tax), Union territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli”

3.

Substituted vide Notification No. 05/2019-Union territory Tax dated

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

dditional Commissioner, Excise and Taxation Department, Union territory of Chandigarh.”

8.

Substituted vide Notification No. 02/2023 – Union territory Tax dated 25-05-2023 before it was read as,

“3.

Daman and Diu

^4[(i) Shri Vishnu V Pandit, Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise, Vadodara Zone;]

(ii) Smt. Charmie Parekh, Deputy Commissioner (Union territory Goods and Services Tax), Union territory of Daman and Diu.

4.

Dadar and Nagar Haveli

^4A[(i) Shri Vishnu V Pandit, Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise, Vadodara Zone;]

^2[(ii) Shri Nilesh Nishikant Gurav, Deputy Commissioner (Union territory Goods and Services Tax), Union territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli.]”

9.

Substituted vide Notification No. 01/2026 – Union territory Tax dated 06-03-2026 before it was read as, 

“(i) Shri Yudhast Kumar, Joint Commissioner, CGST Daman”

 

=============

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Central Government notifies the Constitution of the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling in the Union territories
15/2018 Dated:- 8-10-2018 Union Territory GST (UTGST)
GST
UTGST
UTGST
Superseded vide NOTIFICATION No. 04/2019-Union Territory Tax dated 16-05-2019
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
NOTIFICATION No. 15/2018-Union territory Tax
New Delhi, the 8th October, 2018
G.S.R 1005 (E) – In exercise of the powers conferred by section 16 of the Union territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (14 of 2017) and section 99 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Central Government, hereby, notifies the Constitution of the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling in the Union territories as men

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Sh. Sandeep Kumar Singh, Commissioner (Union territory Goods and Services Tax), Union territory of Daman and Diu.
4.
Dadar and Nagar Haveli
(i) Sh. Ajay Jain, Chief Commissioner of Central Tax, Vadodara Zone;
(ii) Sh. Kannan Gopinathan, Commissioner, (Union territory Goods and Services Tax), Union territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli
5.
Lakshadweep
(i) Sh. Pullela Nageswara Rao, Chief Commissioner of Central Tax, Thiruvananthapuran Zone;
(ii) Sh. Vijendra Singh Rawat, Secretary (Planning, Statistics and Taxation) (Union territory Goods and Services Tax), Union territory of Lakshadweep.
2. This notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the official Gazette.
[F. No. S-31011/21/2016-ST-I-DoR- Pt.1]
RAJENDRA

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Shri Ankur Jain, Director General Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, Versus M/s. Kunj Lub Marketing Pvt. Ltd.,
GST
2018 (10) TMI 510 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 84 (N. A. P. A.)
NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – NAPA
Dated:- 8-10-2018
10/2018
GST
SH. B. N. SHARMA, CHAIRMAN, SH. J. C. CHAUHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER, SH. AMAND SHAH, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Present:-
None for the Applicant No. 1.
Sh. Bhupender Goyal, Assistant Director (Costs) for the Applicant No.2.
None for the Respondent.
ORDER  
1. An application through email dated 29.11.2017 was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 by the Applicant No. 1 stating that he had purchased Maggi Noodle packs, each weighing 35 Gms., having Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of Rs. 5/- (here-in-after referred to as “the product”) from the Respondent on 06.11.2017 vide

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the Director General of Safeguards (DGSG), now re-designated as Director General Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) in order to initiate an investigation and collect evidence necessary to determine whether the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax on the above product had been passed on by the Respondent to the Applicant or not?
2. On receipt of the reference from the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering, the Respondent was called upon by the DGAP to submit his reply as to whether he admitted that the benefit of reduction in the GST rate had not been passed on to the above Applicant by way of commensurate reduction in the price. The Respondent was also asked to suo-moto determine the quantum of benefit not passed on and indicate the same in his reply to the Notice. Certain documents viz. Balance Sheet, GST Returns (1 & 3B), details of outward taxable supplies etc. were also sought from the Respondent by the DGAP. Incidentally the date of invoice No. N1611 was found to be 05.11.2017 instea

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

hom the Respondent had been selling Nestle's products. The Respondent had also submitted that he had passed on the benefit of GST rate reduction in respect of the product bearing MRP of Rs. 5/- through other packs of Maggi Noodles having different grammage. The Respondent had further submitted that in the case of the product the price reduction would have been around 21 paise to the retailer and around 25 paise to the ultimate consumer which would have been inconvenient to both the retailer and the consumer whereas on Maggi Noodles pack of 70 Gms. bearing MRP of Rs. 12/- per pack, the benefit on account of GST rate reduction for the retailer would have been approximately 56 paise against which the respondent had reduced the price by 92 paise with reduced MRP of Rs. 11/- and thus, the benefit in respect of Rs. 5/- MRP pack had been passed on by reducing the price of other packs of Maggi Noodles by more than what was required. Therefore, the Respondent had claimed that the benefit of GST

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

on 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 or not?. He has stated in his report that the Central Government, on the recommendation of the GST Council, had reduced the GST rate on the product from 18% to 12%, vide Notification No. 41/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017, w.e.f. 15.11.2017 which had not been disputed by the Respondent. The DGAP has also stated that the Respondent has not contested the allegation of not passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST from 18% to 12% on the product w.e.f. 15.11.2017 but instead the Respondent has contended that in the case of the product the MRP of which was Rs. 5/-, the benefit of GST rate reduction to the Applicant No. 1 as retailer and to the ultimate consumer would have been 21 paise and 25 paise respectively, which would have been inconvenient to both due to legal tender issues. The DGAP has further stated that the Respondent has contended that he has passed on the benefit of GST rate reduction in respect of 70 Gm. pack of Maggi Noodles

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e benefit available to the buyer on one item could not be denied by offering more than the required benefit to the buyer of the other item. The DGAP has also contended that such a proposition would work against the recipients of the product and the law did not provide for such adjustments. Therefore, the DGAP has concluded that the Respondent has not passed on the benefit of GST rate reduction to the recipients of the product including the Applicant No. 1. Accordingly, the DGAP has calculated the profiteered amount of Rs. 90,778/- including the profiteered amount of Rs. 2,253/- charged by the Respondent from the Applicant No.1 as has been shown below:-
(Amount in Rs.)
Sr.No.
Product
MRP
1st Nov. to 14th Nov. 2017
15th Nov. 2017 to 28th Feb. 2018
Commensurate Price per unit
Profiteering Per unit
Total Profiteering
Amount Charged
Base Price
GST Rate
Qty. Sold
Amount Charged
Base Price
GST Rate
Qty. Sold
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L=112% of E
M=[H-L]
N=[K*M]
1

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018. The Respondent through his e-mail dated 23rd July, 2017, requested for adjournment of hearing due to his personal difficulties and the Authority had acceded to the request and adjourned the hearing to 9th Aug, 2018. The Respondent again requested for adjournment of the hearing through his e-mail dated 8th August, 2018 and another date of hearing was fixed on 23rd August, 2018, however, the Respondent again did not appear. A letter dated 31.08.2018 was received on 05th Sept, 2018 from the Respondent stating that he had submitted his final reply vide his email/letter dated 21st Aug, 2018 which should be taken in to account while passing order in the present proceedings. In the interest of justice, the Authority had accorded last opportunity of hearing to the Respodent on 10th Sep, 2018 but the Respondent did not attended therefore, there was no other alternative except to proceed against the Respondent exparte.
7. Perusal of the letter dated 21.08.2018 written by the Respondent sh

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ot?
2) Whether there was any violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 in this case?
3) If yes then what was the quantum of profiteering?
9. Perusal of Section 171 of the CGST Act shows that it provides as under:-
(1). “Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices.”
(2). The Central Government may, on recommendations of the Council, by notification, constitute an Authority, or empower an existing Authority constituted under any law for the time being in force, to examine whether input tax credits availed by any registered person or the reduction in the tax rate have actually resulted in a commensurate reduction in the price of the goods or services or both supplied by him.
(3). The Authority referred to in sub-section (2) shall exercise such powers and discharge such functions as may be prescribed. 171. (1)
10. It is appar

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ired of him was that he should have only reduced the MRP of the product by taking in to accout the effect of the reduction in the rate of tax. The Respondent was further required to fix the MRP keeping in view the provisions of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 which prescribe the methodology of fixining the MRP keeping in view the rounding off the price. The Respondent had no mandate to deny the benefit of reduction of the tax rate due to the problem of legal tenders as he had no legal authority to fix MRP arbitrarily. It was for the customers to furnish the required legal tenders and therefore, the Respondent can not be allowed to resort to profiteering. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs has alredy issued detailed instructions vide it's Notification dated 16.11.2017 for notifying the reduced MRP which have not been followed by the above Respondent.
12. It is further apparent from the record that the Respondent has contended that he had passed on the benefit in re

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the Respondent is directed to reduce the price of the product commensurate to the reduction in the rate of tax. He is also directed to refund an amount of Rs. 2,253/- to the Applicant No. 1 alongwith interest @ 18% P. A. from the date form which the above amount was collected by the Respondent from him. Since the other customers of the product are not identifiable, the Respondent is hereby directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 88,525/- along with the interest at 18% P.A. till the date of deposit in the respective Central or State Consumer Welfare Fund within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.
14. It is evident from the above that the Respondent had denied benefit of the reduction in GST rate to the consumers in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus 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 inco

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

SRI JAYALAKSHMI AUTOMOTIVES (P) Ltd. Versus CCT – Hyderabad GST
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 562 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 8-10-2018
ST/31199/2017 – A/31291/2018
Service Tax
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
For the Appellant : Shri Sudhakr R. Challa, Advocate
For the Respondent : Shri P.S. Reddy, Asst. Commissioner /AR
ORDER
PER: MR. M.V. RAVINDRAN
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-SVTAXHYC- APP-004/17-18(APP-I) dated 31.08.2017.
2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration, after filtering out unnecessary details are that the appellants are dealers of M/s Hyundai Motors India Limited and are registered with service tax department for providing taxable services under the category of 'servicing of motor vehicles' and business auxiliary service. Basing on the allegation that the appellants have been receiving consideration under extended warranty from the new vehicle buyers and they are not offering

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

mmissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant was liable to pay service tax on the amounts retained by them and hence held that lower authority was justified in confirming the demand of service tax as proposed. The case for irregular availment of input service tax credit was remanded to the original authority to consider the submissions made by the appellant which had not been considered during the adjudication proceedings. The appellants reworked out the service tax liability for the disputed period on their own on extended warranty and paid an amount of Rs. 1,68,538/- alongwith interest of Rs. 2,14,706/- and the penalty of Rs. 42,135/-. As the appellant was under the impression that they had discharged the service tax liability on amount collected but retained, they applied for refund of the pre-deposit of Rs. 9,90,794/- paid in accordance with the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The original authority after due process of law rejected the refund claim.
3. Aggrieved

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

that service tax liability is to be discharged on the amount retained by the appellant for the extended warranty extended by the appellant to various customers. He would draw my attention to various documents filed today, more specifically the ledger accounts of the appellants in respect of the extended warranty account and submits that appellant had transferred most of the amount to Hyundai Motor India Limited and only retained few amounts on which the service tax liability is Rs. 1,68,538/- and the interest is Rs. 2,14,706/- and penalty of Rs. 42,135/-. He would submit that this particular aspect is not being considered by the first appellate authority and the adjudicating authority and have wrongly rejected the refund claim as the appellant had deposited the entire amount during the proceedings itself on which the service tax liability as indicated herein above is to be only adjusted. It is his further submission that the entire show cause notice went on a presumption that the amou

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ained as is the conclusion of the first appellate authority in the Order-in-Appeal dated 29.07.2013. On perusal of the O-I-A dated 29.07.2013, I find that the first appellate authority in para 8 had categorically stated that service tax liability arises towards sale of extended warranty policies and entire sale proceeds were transferred to Hyundai Motors India Limited but he noticed that some amount is retained by the appellant. In the said para, the first appellate authority has categorically recorded that the retained amount being attributable to extended warranty policies, the amount retained by the appellant is taxable under authorised service station services and appellant is liable to pay service tax on the amounts retained with applicable interest.
This Order-in-Appeal dated 29.07.2013 was not contested by Revenue or appellant before the higher judicial forum. The plain wordings of the said O-I-A which was not contested by both sides, would mean that appellant herein is require

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

A. Ganesan Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai North Commissionerate
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 635 – ITAT CHENNAI – TMI
ITAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 8-10-2018
E/239/2009 – 42528/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
For the Appellant : Shri S. Jaikumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Shri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR)
ORDER
PER BENCH
Brief facts are that the appellant is the Proprietor of M/s.Lakshmi Scaff situated at Ambattur, Chennai and M/s. Vel Scaff situated at Balaji Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai. These firms were not registered with the Central Excise Department. Based on the information received, the Preventive Unit of Central Excise visited the factory premises of both M/s. Lakshmi Scaff and M/s. Vel Scaff on 8.12.2006. During the course of visit, the officers noticed that in addition to sale of scaffoldings / propping equipments, these firms had also undertaken m

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

re the Tribunal.
2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri S. Jaikumar appeared and argued the matter. His submissions can be broadly summarized as under:-
2.1 That the manufacturing of scaffolding/shuttering etc., was carried out through independent job workers after procuring purchase orders for such items from the customers.
2.2 The appellant concern being proprietary concern does not have any machinery and facility to manufacture any of the items in question. There is no allegation in the entire notice that the appellant possesses required machineries for manufacture of the above items;
2.3 No panchanama was drawn evidencing machineries available at appellant's premises for manufacture for goods such as drilling machine, shuttering machine, welding machine, cutting machine etc., and further the adjudicating authority has recorded in the impugned order that there was lacuna in the investigation as establishing the presence of machinery in appellant's premises.
2.4 In para

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

partment also cross examined these persons but proved nothing contrary to the above.
2.6 Appellant submitted letters obtained from land owners where the appellants' office are situated, who confirmed that the premises was let out for godown purpose and no machineries were erected therein. Also submitted a certificate from Jurisdictional Village administrative officer of M/s.Lakshmi Scaff and M/s. Vel Scaff, who certified that there were no machineries installed in the said premises.
2.7 Entire demand is arrived based on the sale value mentioned in the file captioned “Lakshmi 04-05 sales bills” maintained by the appellant at the premises of M/s. Lakshmi Scaff without any other corroborative evidence.
2.8 The show cause notice has failed to record the fact as to whether the appellant had sufficient manpower/ purchase and consumption of raw materials/ basic infrastructure/machineries to manufacture such goods;
2.9 The affidavits submitted by the job workers would also support the cont

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

t. The department has vaguely alleged that the appellant suppressed the fact of the manufacture and had intention to evade payment of excise duty.
2.13 The appellant submits that demands of duty cannot be confirmed based on assumption and presumption and it requires cogent evidence to establish manufacture.
2.14 The department had miserably failed to produce even a single evidence to prove that the appellant had actually engaged in manufacture of the said goods at their premises.
2.15 It is a settled principle of law that suppliers of raw materials cannot be held as manufacturers to levy excise duty on the goods manufactured by Job workers.
3. The ld. AR Shri A. Cletus appeared and argued on behalf of the department. He submitted that the contention of the appellant that there were no machineries at the time of inspection by the officers and therefore the allegation that the appellant has not manufactured scaffoldings / propping equipments is without any basis. He submitted that th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rnover of the goods supplied which exceeds more than one crore in a year is manufactured by the appellant. The contention of the appellant that they have engaged job workers to manufacture the goods is only an afterthought after issue of the show cause notice. He relied upon the statement of Shri A. Ganesan and argued that in the statement dated 8.12.2006, he has admitted that they were manufacturing and supplying scaffoldings / propping equipments on job work basis. In fact, the construction companies had given order to the appellant for manufacturing the goods which is very much clear from the statements recorded at the time of inspection. The contention of the appellant that they have supplied the raw materials to job workers who had in fact manufactured the finished goods has been proved to be false by the very fact that many of the job workers given in the list provided by the appellant did not exist at all. On investigation conducted by the investigative team, as per the directio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

s are manufactured by the job workers. On perusal of records, we find that there is no mahazar drawn up to show that there were any machinery at the premises at the time of inspection. It is also not noted anywhere whether there were raw materials or finished products in the said premises of M/s. Lakshmi Scaff and Vel Scaff on the date of inspection i.e. 8.12.2006. If the department had conducted inspection in the premises, they should have drawn up a mahazar showing the stock of raw materials and finished products lying in the premises. So also the activities carried out in the premises should reflect in the documents prepared at the time of inspection. There is nothing before us to show that there were machines in the premises or raw materials and finished products. The appellants contend that they were only suppliers to the construction companies and the premises were used as godown only. The appellant has furnished a certificate of the concerned Village Officer in which it is state

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

t these activities / operations. Though the operations may be less complicated but it is essential for a manufacturer to have certain machines to carry out these operations. Mere fact that there were no machines in the premises at the time of inspection would lead to the strong inference that the appellant has not carried out any manufacturing activity in both the premises.
5.1 The argument of the ld. AR is that since the appellant has sold such goods to various construction companies, the only inference that can be made is that the appellant has manufactured such goods. We are not able to agree with this argument. The appellant has given list of 16persons who had done the manufacturing activity as job workers. The adjudicating authority formed an investigation team to carry out inquiry with regard to these 16 persons. Statements were recorded from some of these persons. Six out of them admitted to have done the job work and supplied goods to appellant but denied to have issued / sign

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ot indicate anything clearly to show that the appellant has himself manufactured the goods. In para 12 of the impugned order, the adjudicating authority notes that no panchanama was drawn on the date of inspection to reflect the activities if any carried out in the premises. The said para is reproduced as under:-
“Although as per records, the premises was visited by the Departmental Officer on8.12.2006, yet it does not appear whether any pnachanama etc. of the activities carried on in these premises was drawn by the officers. There is no further investigation by the department on this count.”
5.3 So also in para 16, it is seen noted that the investigation team had traced many of the job workers out of the 16 job workers given by the appellant. The relevant portion reads as under:-
“The investigation team reported that out of 16 job workers six job workers (Category A) were traced in their location given in the affidavit who accepted to having done job work for the noticee and gave

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e clear details as to whether he engaged in manufacture of impugned goods. From such statement, not supported by any document, the adjudicating authority has vaguely presumed that Shri A. Ganesan has manufactured the impugned goods. In our view, the statement given by Shri A. Ganesan does not put forth any evidence that he has manufactured such goods. In para 22, the adjudicating authority has noted as under:-
“No doubt there are certain lacuna in the investigation as to the establishment of presence of machinery, manufacturing activities etc. in the premises of the noticee. It is settled law that defence case cannot be advanced by pin pointing loop holes / deficiencies in the investigation. Moreover, the inculpatory statements of the noticee in the very beginning of the investigation perhaps stalled further investigation in this direction. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I hold that Shri A. Ganesan, the noticee has failed to prove that he has not manufactured the impugned good

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Shri Trilok Singh Khanduja Versus CGST, CE & ST, Bhopal
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 174 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 8-10-2018
Service Tax Appeal No. 53994 of 2014 – FINAL ORDER No. 53198/2018
Service Tax
Mr. C L Mahar, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial)
Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri G R Singh, AR for the Respondent
ORDER
Per C L Mahar:
The appellants are engaged in providing taxable services under the category of “Goods Transport Agency Services” to M/s. Western Coal Field Ltd. during the period January 2009 to March 2011. Show Cause Notice dated 27.09.2010 for the period April 2009 to March 2010 was issued on the ground that the appellants were doing loading, transport and unloading of coal from mining under the category of “Cargo Handling Services”.
2. The basic issue before us for adjudication is that whether the department is correct in holding that the service provided by the ab

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ed terms of the contract that rates which have been provided to the appellant is based on the distance for which transportation of the coal is to be undertaken by the service provider i.e. the appellant in these cases. The relevant prices as mentioned above is also subject to escalation of the transportation rates as per changes in the fuel price for the relevant period. This basically signifies that the rates are pre-dominantly for transportation of cargo rather than for handing of cargo. However, before proceeding further the relevant section 65 A of Finance Act, 1994 need to be looked into in detail for classification of the service rendered by the appellant. The provisions of section 65A provides as follows:-
SECTION 65A. Classification of taxable services – (1) For the purposes of this Chapter, classification of taxable services shall be determined according to the terms of the sub-clause (105) of Section 65;
(2) When for any reason, a taxable service, is prima facie, classifia

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

above contract that the essential character of the service for which contract has been entered by the service provider is that the service received are for transportation of coal for mining area to the railway siding and the activity of loading/ unloading mechanically or otherwise is in our view, is only incidental to the activity of transportation of the cargo in these cases.
5. In view of the above, we hold that the service provided by the appellants have rightly been classified in the Goods Transportation Agency service.
6. We also feel that this issue has already been examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their decision in the case of CCE & ST Raipur Vs Singh Transporters [(2017 (4) GSTL 3 (SC)] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that activity undertaken by the assessee of transporting of coal from the pithead of the mines to railway siding is more appropriately classifiable under service head of Transport of Goods by road services. The relevant extract of the above ju

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Kei Rsos Maritime Limited Versus CCT, Visakhapatnam GST
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 836 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 8-10-2018
ST/ROM/30591/2017, ST/447/2007, ST/448/2007 – M/30485/2018
Service Tax
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P.V. Subba Rao, Member (Technical)
None for the Appellant.
Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent/AR for the Respondent.
ORDER
Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran
1. This application is filed by Revenue for rectification of mistake in the Final Order No. A/30852-30853/2017, dated 21.06.2017.
2. It is the case of Revenue that the appeal numbers mentioned in the final order should be “ST/257/2007 and ST/258/2007” instead of ST/447 & 448/2007.
3. We find that these t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

transferred to Bangalore Bench. When these appeals were received at Bangalore Bench, they were re-numbered, as is the procedure. The re-numbered are “ST/447, 448 of 2007”, which have been listed and disposed of.
4. In view of the foregoing, we hold that there is no error in mentioning the appeal numbers in the final order dated 21.06.2017 of the Tribunal.
5. Yet, another error brought to the notice of the Bench is that in the Final Order No. A/30852-30853/2017, dated 21.06.2017 of the Tribunal, it did not mention the Order-in-Original No. 12/2007(ST), dated 24.08.2007 passed by CCE, Trichy. We do find that this is a typographical error and accordingly, the above said Order-in-Original is to be included on the first page of the Final Order

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =