admin_gst – Page 427 – Goods and Services Tax

Amendment in Notification No. 76/GST-2, dated 10th August, 2018

Amendment in Notification No. 76/GST-2, dated 10th August, 2018
77/GST-2 Dated:- 24-8-2018 Haryana SGST
GST – States
Haryana SGST
Haryana SGST
HARYANA GOVERNMENT
EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT
Notification
The 24th August, 2018
No.77/GST-2.- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 168 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (19 of 2017 read with sub-rule (5) of rule 61 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the Commissioner of State Tax, on the recom

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Extend the furnishing return in FORM GSTR-3B of the said rules for each of the months from July, 2018 to March, 2019.

Extend the furnishing return in FORM GSTR-3B of the said rules for each of the months from July, 2018 to March, 2019.
34/2018-State Tax Dated:- 24-8-2018 Mizoram SGST
GST – States
Mizoram SGST
Mizoram SGST
No.J.21011/2(i)/2018-TAX
GOVERNMENT OF MIZORAM
TAXATION DEPARTMENT
….
NOTIFICATION
No.34/2018-State Tax
Dated Aizawl the 24th August, 2018
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 168 of the Mizoram Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (6 of 2017) (hereafter in this notification referred to as the said Act) read with sub-rule (5) of rule 61 of the Mizoram Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereafter in this notification referred to as the said rules), the Commissioner, on the recommendations of the Council,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Seeks to prescribe the due dates for quarterly furnishing of FORM GSTR-1 for those taxpayers with aggregate turnover of upto 1.5 crores for the period from July, 2018 to March, 2019.

Seeks to prescribe the due dates for quarterly furnishing of FORM GSTR-1 for those taxpayers with aggregate turnover of upto 1.5 crores for the period from July, 2018 to March, 2019.
33/2018-State Tax Dated:- 24-8-2018 Mizoram SGST
GST – States
Mizoram SGST
Mizoram SGST
No.J.21011/2/2018-TAX
GOVERNMENT OF MIZORAM
TAXATION DEPARTMENT
….
NOTIFICATION
No. 33/2018-State Tax
Dated Aizawl the 24th August, 2018
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Mizoram Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (6 of 2017) (hereafter in this notification referred to as the said Act), the Governor of Mizoram, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby notifies the registered persons having aggregate turnover of up to 1.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Commissioner of CGST & C. Ex. Navi Mumbai Versus M/s Godrej Consumer Product Ltd.

Commissioner of CGST & C. Ex. Navi Mumbai Versus M/s Godrej Consumer Product Ltd.
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 314 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 24-8-2018
Appeal No. ST/86956/2018 – A/87165/2018
Service Tax
SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Shri Onil Shivdikar, AC (AR) for Appellant
Shri Shreyas Shrivastava, Manager for Respondent
ORDER
Per: Raju
This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order of Commissioner (Appeals) waiving penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Learned AR argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly waived the penalty under Section 76 and 78 by invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. He argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) has appropriate

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Owners' Association – 2009 (14) STR 289 (Bom), the matter had become very clear that the respondent is required to pay Service Tax. In these circumstances, the respondent's failure to pay Service Tax till January, 2012, when Audit pointed out, is clearly sufficient to invoke Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the situation was revenue neutral and therefore, no suppression or mis-declaration can be made to invoke against them. He pointed out that whatsoever tax was paid by them they have availed the CENVAT Credit of the same and in these circumstances Section 78 cannot be invoked. He further argued that the appellant had paid the entire Service Tax along with interest as soon as t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bharat Bhushan Gupta & Co. Versus Commissioner of GST, Panchkula

Bharat Bhushan Gupta & Co. Versus Commissioner of GST, Panchkula
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 388 – CESTAT CHANDIGARH – TMI
CESTAT CHANDIGARH – AT
Dated:- 24-8-2018
Appeal No. ST/60725/2018-ST – Final Order No. 62857/2018
Service Tax
Hon'ble Mr.Devender Singh, Member ( Technical )
For the Appellant : Shri Vikash Bansal, CA
For the Respondent : Shri G.M.Sharma, AR
ORDER
Per : Devender Singh
The facts of the case are that the appellant were awarded three works contracts by Housing Board, Haryana (HBH) for construction of flats for BPL category in Housing Board Colony, at different locations. The HBH deducted service tax @ 2.472 % (50% of the applicable rate) approximately amounting to Rs. 87.36 Lacs from running bills of the appellants on the amount of gross work executed by them after 01.07.2012. Aggrieved by the action of HBH, the appellants filed writ petition vide CWP No.12304 of 2015 before Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court where the High Court vide Order dat

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

/72/PKL/16-17/1181 dated 18.05.2017 returned the refund application along with supporting documents stating as under:-
“Since M/s. Bharat Bhushan Gupta & Company is not registered with this office and no record/details of the party is available with this office, therefore, this office is unable to process the refund claim.
Secondly, you are also not a service receiver in respect of any services provided by any of the assessees in this jurisdiction. So, in any view provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to Service Tax, you are not eligible for refund from this office.”
2. Aggrieved from the letter dt.18.05.2017 issued by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Panchkula, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, their appeal was rejected on the ground that the appellant had no locus standi to file refund claim as service tax has been paid by the Housing Board Haryana. Second ground of rejection was that

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

yana in the case of Bharat Bhushan Gupta & Co. vs. State of Haryana and others in its judgment dt.11.8.2018 held that no service tax was leviable on reverse charge basis by the Housing Board Haryana and direction of Housing Board in deducting part of Service Tax was declared to be illegal. He submits that as the service tax has been deducted illegally by the Housing Board Haryana and deposited with the Service Tax Department, they were eligible to file refund claim. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. in its judgment dt.30.3.2015 in Civil Appeal No.2807 of 2004. He also submits that the Housing Board Haryana had issued disclaimer certificate dt.30.1.2018 in which the Housing Board Haryana has given its no objection to refund of service tax to the appellant and has stated that Housing Board will not make any claim for this amount at any time. Ld. CA submits that based on disclaimer certificate, the Comm

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

upreme Court has held as below:-
“5.Insofar as dismissing the application on the ground that the appellant did not have locus standi, we find that view taken by the authorities below is clearly erroneous in law. Section 11B of the Act which contains the provision for making a claim for refund of duty uses the expression “any person” who is eligible to claim refund of the duty. The relevant portion of Section 11B reads as under :
“Section 11B. Claim for refund of duty. – (1) Any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise before the expiry of six months from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed and the application shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (including the documents referred to in Section 12A) as the applicant may furnish to establish that the amount of duty of excise in relation to which such refund is claimed was collected from,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

m the reading of clause (e) to Explanation (B) appended to the aforesaid provision which is as under :
“Explanation. – For the purposes of this section, –
………………………….
……………………….
(B) “relevant date” means, –
………………………………….
………………………………….
in the case of a person, other than the manufacturer, the
(e) date of purchase of the goods by such person; …………………………………….”
7.Explanation (B) defines “relevant date”. Though this date has reference to the calculation of limitation period for the purposes of seeking refund of the duty under the aforesaid provision. However, clause (e) while stating the “relevant date” clarifies that in case of a person, other than the manufacturer, the date of purchase of goods by other person would be the relevant date. This itself indicates that the person can be other than the manufacturer and Explanation (B) caters to such ot

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

iew of the above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I hold that the appellant have locus standi to file refund claim in this case. I also find that the department has entertained the refund claim of another similarly placed contractor, as is evident from the Order-in-Appeal No.Appl/PKL/ST/32/2017-18 dt.22.2.2018 of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of Satish Kumar Gupta, Contractor. Hence, the rejection of plea of appellant on this ground by Commissioner (Appeals) is untenable.
8. The second issue pertains to merits of the case where HBH has given the disclaimer certificate. I find that the appellant have placed on record disclaimer certificate dt.30.1.2018 from the Housing Board Haryana in respect of their claim. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the present case is dated 31.1.2018. Admittedly, the disclaimer certificate was not produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) when the impugned order was passed. It would therefore be appropriate to set aside the impugned orde

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Commissioner of Central Tax GST Delhi East Versus Team HR Services Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Tax GST Delhi East Versus Team HR Services Ltd.
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 406 – DELHI HIGH COURT – 2019 (25) G. S. T. L. 207 (Del.)
DELHI HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 24-8-2018
SERTA 23/2018 & CM No.34017/2018
Service Tax
MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MS. ANU MALHOTRA JJ.
Appellant Through: Mr.Amit Bansal, Advocate.
Respondent Through: None
The Revenue's appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 seeks to urge a question of law with respect to the correctness of the Tribunal's (“CESTAT”) order to the effect that in the overall circumstances of the case, the impugned order, insofar as it held that the extended period of limitation invok

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

oncerned Commissioner), confirmed the demand for the period 01.07.2003 to pare down the quantification of demand; interest towards levy. The Commissioner was of the opinion that in the overall circumstances of the case, invocation of the extended period was proper and appropriate. In doing so, he was influenced in large measure, by the conditions of the agreement which the assessee entered into with its service recipients; that had adverted to levy of tax @ 5%.
The CESTAT, to whom the assessee approached, confirmed the Commissioner's order to the extent of levy of demand. However, invocation of the extended period was set aside. The levy was confirmed to the extent that the assessee had filed returns under the head “business support servic

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

bmitted that the CESTAT's decision that no misrepresentation was resorted to in this case, was not correct.
The CESTAT was influenced – as is apparent from the reading of the order, by the prevailing confusion between the nature and content of the two taxable incidents i.e. the definition between “business auxiliary services”, which insisted from 2003 and “business support services”, which was a fresh levy introduced w.e.f. 01.05.2006. Concededly, the assessee was filing his assessment returns after 01.05.2006 when business support service was introduced.
In these circumstances, the mere advertence to the possibility of service tax – without any material or evidence – or even a finding that such service tax had been collected by the asses

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re : Tata Projects Limited

In Re : Tata Projects Limited
GST
2018 (10) TMI 1245 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING – BIHAR – 2018 (17) G.S.T.L. 480 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING – BIHAR – AAR
Dated:- 24-8-2018
AR(B)-01/2018-19
GST
Shri Sanjay Kumar Mawandia, Member (State Tax) and T.G.Rathode, Member (Central Tax)

Represented By : Shri Shantanu Chakravarthy, Assistant Vice President, Finance & Accounts, for the Assessee.

ORDER

'Railway' means a railway, or any portion of a railway, for the public carriage of passengers or goods, and includes –

(a) All lands within the fences or their boundary marks indicating the limits of the land appurtenant to a railway;

(b) All lines of rails, sidings, or yards, or branches used for the purposes of, or in connection with, a railway;

(c) All electric traction equipment, power supply and distribution installations used for the purposes of, or in connection with, a railway;

(d) All rolling stock, stations, offices,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(d) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(e) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(f) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

“A track made of steel rails along which trains run.”

North American term 'railroad”

1. Civil Appeal No. 1722/1969 P.C. Cheriyan v. Barfi Devi on 16 October, 1979 [1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 593) (S.C.)].

2. M/s. Msco. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Other on 31 October, 1984 [1985 (19) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.)].

3. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Merico Industries Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 8656/2015 @ SLP(C) No. 21106 of 2014 [2016 (338) E.L.T. 335 (S.C.)]

4. Civil Appeal No. 3467/2007 Trutuf Safety Glass Industries v. Commissioner of sales Tax, UP [2007 (215) E.L.T. 14 (S.C.)]

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2. Ã Â¤ââ¬ Ã Â¤ÂµÃ Â¥ââ¬¡Ã Â¤Â¦Ã Â¤ââ¬¢ Ã Â¤ÂÃ Â¤ââ¬¢ Ã Â¤ââ¬¢Ã

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Â¾ Ã Â¤ââ¬¢Ã Â¤Â°

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Ã Â¤Â¸Ã Â¤Â®Ã Â¥ÂÃ Â¤ÂªÃ Â¤Â¾Ã Â¤Â¦Ã Â¤Â¿Ã Â

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Ã Â¤ÂÃ Â¤Â¾Ã Â¤Â°Ã Â¤Â¤Ã Â¥ââ¬Ã Â¤Â¯

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Ã Â¤ÂµÃ Â¤Â¿Ã Â¤Â¨Ã Â¤Â¿Ã Â¤Â°

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

–
Document 7
Ã Â¤ÂµÃ Â¤Â°Ã Â¥ÂÃ Â¤Â£Ã Â¤Â¿Ã Â¤Â¤ Ã Â¤ÂªÃ Â¤Â°Ã Â¤Â¿Ã Â¤ÂªÃ Â¥ÂÃ Â¤Â°Ã Â¥ââ¬¡Ã Â¤ââ¬¢Ã Â¥ÂÃ Â¤Â·Ã Â¥ÂÃ Â¤Â¯ Ã Â¤Â®Ã Â¥ââ¬¡Ã Â¤ââ¬Å¡ Indian Railways Act Ã Â¤Â®Ã Â¥ââ¬¡Ã Â¤ââ¬Å¡ Ã Â¤Â¦Ã Â¥ââ¬ Ã Â¤ââ¬âÃ Â¤Â¯Ã Â¥ââ¬ Ã Â¤ÂªÃ Â¤Â°Ã Â¤Â¿Ã Â¤ÂÃ Â¤Â¾Ã Â¤Â·Ã Â¤Â¾ Ã Â¤ââ¬¢Ã Â¥ââ¬¹ Tax Laws Ã Â¤ââ¬¢Ã Â¥ââ¬¡

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

¥ââ¬¡Ã Â¤ÂªÃ Â¥ÂÃ Â¤Â°Ã Â¤Â¾ Ã Â¤ÂÃ Â¤ââ¬¢ Joint Venture Ã Â¤ââ¬¢Ã Â¤Â®Ã Â¥ÂÃ Â¤ÂªÃ Â¤Â¨Ã Â¥ââ¬

Ã Â¤Â¹Ã Â¥Ëâ Ã Â¤ÅâÃ Â¤Â¿Ã Â¤Â¸Ã Â¤ââ¬¢Ã Â¤Â¾ Ã Â¤ââ¬âÃ Â¤Â Ã Â¤Â¨ Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) Ã Â¤ââ¬¢Ã Â¥ââ¬¡ Ã Â¤Â°Ã Â¥ââ¬Å¡Ã Â¤Âª Ã Â¤Â®Ã Â¥ââ¬¡Ã Â¤ââ¬Å¡ Ã Â¤Â¹Ã Â¥ÂÃ Â¤ââ¬ Ã Â¤Â¹Ã Â¥Ëâ Ã Â¥Â¤ Ã Â¤Â®Ã Â¤Â§Ã Â¥ââ¬¡Ã Â¤ÂªÃ Â¥ÂÃ Â¤Â°Ã Â¤Â¾ Ã Â¤ââ¬¡Ã Â¤Â²Ã Â¥ââ¬¡Ã Â¤ââ¬¢Ã Â¥ÂÃ Â¤Å¸Ã Â¥ÂÃ Â¤Â°Ã Â¥ââ¬Ã Â¤ââ¬¢

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Commissioner of CGST, ST And Central Excise Versus Cea Raj Constructions

Commissioner of CGST, ST And Central Excise Versus Cea Raj Constructions
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 1370 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – TMI
BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 24-8-2018
Notice of Motion No. 165 of 2018 And Central Excise Appeal (L) NO. 15 of 2018
Central Excise
MR M. S. SANKLECHA AND MR RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
For The Applicant : Ms. Neha Mehta and Nikhil Wadikar
ORDER
This Motion has been taken out for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal under Section 35G of Cen

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Seeks to extend the due dates for filing FORM GSTR-3B for the months of July, 2018 and August, 2018.

Seeks to extend the due dates for filing FORM GSTR-3B for the months of July, 2018 and August, 2018.
F.No. 3240/CTD/GST/2018/08 Dated:- 24-8-2018 Puducherry SGST
GST – States
Puducherry SGST
Puducherry SGST
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT
F.No. 3240/CTD/GST/2018/8.
Puducherry, the 24th August 2018.
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (5) of rule 61 of the Puducherry Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereafter in this notification referred to as the said rules), read with section 168 of the Puducherry Goods and Services Act, 2017 (Act No. 6 of 2017) [hereafter in this notification referred to as the said Act], the Commissioner of State Tax, Puducherry, on the recommendations

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Visa Resources India Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & C. Ex., Kolkata North

M/s Visa Resources India Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & C. Ex., Kolkata North
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 862 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 24-8-2018
Appeal No. ST/75425/2018 – FO/76539/2018
Service Tax
Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
Shri Nand Kishore Kothari, CA for the Appellant (s)
Shri H.S. Abedin, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s)
ORDER
Per Shri P.K. Choudhary
The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant assessee is engaged in the business of trading of minerals, metals and energy products in India as well as export of such goods. For the purpose of export of goods, the appellant has availed various taxable services on payment of Service Tax. Claim for rebate of service tax amounting to Rs. 2,83,731/- paid on the specified taxable services used for export of goods, during the period from 03.05.2014 to 12.07.2014, was submitted on 27.04.2015 under Notification No.41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012. Show Cause Notice date

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

der, if it remains not paid by the party”
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order.
2. Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant company submits that since the Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 is a beneficial legislation, the intent to promote exports by granting exemption of the service tax paid on various services utilized by the exporter during the course of exports of the goods has to be construed liberally.
3. Ld. D.R. reiterates the orders of the lower appellate authority.
4. I find that the issue is no more resintegra in view of the various decisions of the Tribunal holding a consistent view. I also find that this Bench in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Kolkata vs. SSK Exports Ltd. & others in Final Order No.FO/77622-77631/2017 in Appeal Nos. ST/76918, 76926, 76925, 76927, 76922, 76921/16, 76961, 76924, 76919 & 76923/16, wherein under similar circumstances, Revenue has contended that the refund claim for eac

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

under:
“6. The Department also observes that claim cannot be filed under Para 3 in the difference between the amount of rebate under the procedure specified in paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 is less than twenty per cent of the rebate available under the procedure specified in paragraph 2 in terms of Para 1 (c) of the Notification and accordingly. Accordingly, the refund of service tax of Rs. 1,64,163/- in respect of a few shipping bills under Para 3 is erroneous for the reason indicated above and the same needs to be recovered with interest.
7. The other grounds taken in the appeal are that rebate claim in respect of each shipping bill in an application is a separate claim and the requirement of certificate on the documents enclosed with Form A-1 in terms of clause (h) and clause (i) of Paragraph 3 of the Notification is required to be fulfilled with reference to each shipping bill. It is also contended that in respect of two shipping bills appearing in serial numbers 1 and 2, the re

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

turer-exporter, who is registered as an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) or the rules made thereunder, shall file a claim for rebate of service tax paid on the taxable service used for export of goods to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacture in Form A-1;
(d) the exporter who is not so registered under the provisions referred to in clause (c), shall before filing a claim for rebate of service tax, file a declaration in Form A-2, seeking allotment of service tax code, to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the registered office or the head office, as the case may be, of such exporter;
(e) the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, shall, after due verification, allot a serv

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

export goods and the exporter is registered with the Export Promotion Council sponsored by Ministry of Commerce or Ministry of Textiles, Form A-1 shall be submitted along with relevant invoice, bill or challan, or any other document for each specified service, in original, issued in the name of the exporter, evidencing payment for the specified service used for export of the said goods and the service tax paid thereon, certified in the manner specified in sub-clauses (A) and (B) :
(A) if the exporter is a proprietorship concern or partnership firm, the documents enclosed with the claim shall be self-certified by the exporter and if the exporter is a limited company, the documents enclosed with the claim shall be certified by the person authorised by the Board of Directors;
(B) the documents enclosed with the claim shall also contain a certificate from the exporter or the person authorised by the Board of Directors, to the effect that specified service to which the document pertain

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

) that duly certified documents have been submitted evidencing the payment of service tax on the specified services ;
(iii) that rebate has not been already received on the shipping bills or bills of export on the basis of procedure prescribed in paragraph 2; and
(iv) that the rebate claimed is arithmetically accurate,
refund the service tax paid on the specified service within a period of one month from the receipt of said claim :
Provided that where the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, has reason to believe that the claim, or the enclosed documents are not in order or that there is a reason to deny such rebate, he may, after recording the reasons in writing, take action, in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the rules made thereunder”.
8.1 From the bare reading of the Notification, it is clear that rebate may be claimed on the service tax actually paid on any specified service used for e

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nd that in the Form A-1, details of shipping bill/bill of export, details of goods exported, details of specified services used for export of goods, documents evidencing payment of service tax and total amount of service tax paid and claimed as rebate have to be furnished. Again, under column “total amount of service tax paid and claimed as rebate” as a percentage of FOB value in shipping bill has to be shown. Therefore, from the Form A-1 and its table it is clear that claim is not shipping bill wise but only details have to be furnished separately for each shipping bill. Nowhere in the Paragraph 3 of the Notification, it is stated that rebate claim has to be filed shipping bill wise. Further, the total amount of service tax paid which is claimed as rebate has to be shown in figure and as a percentage of total FOB value in shipping bill. This also shows that it is not shipping bill specific when more than one shipping bills are involved in a claim. Therefore, there is no requirement to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

IN RE: M/s. DRS MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

IN RE: M/s. DRS MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED
GST
2018 (12) TMI 893 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 471 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA – AAR
Dated:- 24-8-2018
GST-ARA-34/2018-19/B-99
GST
SHRI B.V. BORHADE, AND SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER
PROCEEDINGS
(Under section 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017)
The present application has been filed under section 97 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act and MGST Act”] by DRS MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, the applicant, seeking an advance ruling in respect of the following issue.
“Whether GST is applicable on Reimbursement of salary on behalf of foreign entity.”
At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the MGST Act are the same except for c

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Currency Account by Ship Manning/ Crew Management Agencies. According to the circular the credit to such foreign currency account would be through normal banking channels from the overseas principal and the debits would be towards various local expenses in connection with the management of Ships/Crew in the ordinary course of business. (A copy of the said RBI Circular is attached herewith for ready reference).
In view of the said RBI Circular, our principal has requested us for disbursal of salary to the crew members from our side. For this the principal would be transferring the sum of total salary to us and we will be disbursing the salary to the crew member through banking channels into their respective accounts. For this activity we would be charging/ invoicing service charges to the principal and on the said charges we would be discharging our GST liability.
In view of Rule 33 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, the expenditure or costs incurred by a supplier as a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

India) Regulations, 2000 notified vide Notfn No. FEMA 10/2000-RB dtd May 3, 2000, as amended from time to time, & A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 48 dtd April 30, 2007, in terms of which general permission is available to ship-manning/ crew managing agencies that are rendering services to shipping/ airline companies incorporated outside India, to open, hold and maintain non-interest bearing foreign currency account with an AD Category – I bank in India for meeting the local expenses in India of such shipping or airline company.
2. With a view to ensuring strict compliance, our guidelines on the operations in such foreign currency accounts opened with AD Category-I banks by foreign shipping or airline companies or their agents in India are reproduced below:
a) Credits to such foreign currency accounts would be only by way of freight or passage fare collections in India or in ward remittances through normal banking channels from the overseas principal. Debits will be toward Various loca

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

be seen thus-
The taxable person M/S DRS MARINE SERVICES PVT. LTD has approached your good offices for an advance ruling to determine liability to pay tax on a transaction of service. In context of this application it is submitted that-
The applicant DRS MARINE SERVICES PVT. LTD is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Mumbai, Maharashtra.
The Applicant's nature of services are Manpower Recruitment Services (HSN Code: 99851).
The applicant was providing services of manpower recruitment to M/S RMS Ltd, Bermuda. The applicant wef 05-07-2018 by way of addendum provides further services.
The additional Services and Fees are being incorporated as an addendum as follows:
2. Fee
2.4 Cost related to Training/ Briefing, Interviews in other Cities etc will be invoiced once approved on actual basis.
2.5 A Fix fees of US S 1250.00 per month will be charged as service charges towards disbursement of salaries.
2.6 GST as applicable.
3. Salary

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

urred by a supplier as a pure agent of the recipient of supply shall be excluded from the value of supply, if all the following conditions are satisfied, namely,-
(i) the supplier acts as a pure agent of the recipient of the supply, when he makes the payment to the third party on authorisation by such recipient;
(ii) the payment made by the pure agent on behalf of the recipient of supply has been separately indicated in the invoice issued by the pure agent to the recipient of service; and
(iii) the supplies procured by the pure agent from the third party as a pure agent of the recipient of supply are in addition to the services he supplies on his own account. Explanation.-
For the purposes of this rule, the expression “pure agent” means a person who-
(a) enters into a contractual agreement with the recipient of supply to act as his pure agent to incur expenditure or costs in the course of supply of goods or services or both;
(b) neither intends to hold nor holds any title to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e was taken up for Preliminary hearing on dt. 04.07.2018 when Sh. Mukund Pol, C.A. along with Sh. R. S. Bajwa, Director appeared & requested for admission of application as per contentions in their ARA. They were requested to provide copies of contracts that they were having with RMS in respect of recruitment services and salary transfer services or contract of any other nature as applicable. Jurisdictional Officer, Ms. R. S. lyer, State Tax Officer appeared and stated they have made written submissions.
The application was admitted and called for final hearing on 01.08.2018. Sh. Mukund Pol, C.A. along with Sh. R. S. Bajwa, Director appeared and made oral and written submissions. Jurisdictional Officer, Sh. Avinash Shinde, Dy. Commr of SGST appeared and made written submissions.
05. OBSERVATIONS
We have gone through the facts of the case, documents on record and submissions made by both, the applicant and the department.
The applicant is a Crew Recruitment and Placement Agency, an

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

that, the amount so remitted towards disbursal of salary would not be taxable under GST in view of provisions of Rule 33 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
The applicant has submitted that as per Regulation 6 of Foreign Exchange Management (Foreign Currency Accounts by a person resident in India) Regulations, 2000 notified vide Notification No. FEMA 10/2000-RB dated May 3, 2000, as amended from time to time, and A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 48 dated April 30, 2007, general permission is available to ship- manning/crew managing agencies that are rendering services to shipping/ airline companies incorporated outside India, to open, hold and maintain non-interest bearing foreign currency account with an AD Category – I bank in India for meeting the local expenses in India of such shipping or airline company.
The question raised by the applicant is connected with their agreement that they have entered into with M/s. Reefership Marine Services Limited (RMS), situated in Bermuda, i.e. outside Indi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

At point 2.5 of the said addendum it is mentioned that “a fix fees of LIS$ 1250.00 per month will be charged as service charges towards disbursement of salaries inclusive of GST applicable”
From a reading of points 2.5 and 3 of the Addendum #5 submitted by the applicant it is clear that the Salary of Crews of RMS will be deposited in the account of the applicant in one go and the same will be transferred from the applicant's account directly to the bank accounts of the Crews, by the bank, on the directions of the applicant. Here we find that the entire amount received by the applicant from RMS towards salary of crews is disbursed as such. Hence with respect to this transaction it is crystal clear that the applicant is acting as a pure agent of RMS.
Here is to reiterate that the amounts that are to be transferred to this account have to be genuinely in respect of salary of crew as discussed and no other amounts which are not authorized and due as salary can be handled through this ac

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ses of this rule, the expression “pure agent” means a person who-
(a) enters into a contractual agreement with the recipient of supply to act as his pure agent to incur expenditure or costs in the course of supply of goods or services or both;
(b) neither intends to hold nor holds any title to the goods or services or both so procured or supplied as pure agent of the recipient of supply;
(c) does not use for his own interest such goods or services so procured; and
(d) receives only the actual amount incurred to procure such goods or services in addition to the amount received for supply he provides on his own account.
From the above provisions of Rule 33 and the facts of the proposed transaction explained by the applicant, we find that the applicant will be acting as a pure agent of RMS in as much as the entire amount received by them as Crews' Salary will be disbursed to the Crew and no amounts from the said receipt will be used by the applicant for his own interest. In f

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

LUT and ARN is the same?

LUT and ARN is the same?
Query (Issue) Started By: – negi ns Dated:- 23-8-2018 Last Reply Date:- 27-8-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 5 Replies
GST
is ARN and LUT no. same.?
we got the ARN no. but LUT no. not mention there. can we get LUT online (first time)?
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Dear Querist, Go through this circular. Your doubt will be clear.
Exports – Furnishing of Bond/Letter of Undertaking for exports – Clarification
C.B.I. & C. Circular No. 40/14/2018-

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Canteen Supplies to SEZ unit employees

Canteen Supplies to SEZ unit employees
Query (Issue) Started By: – Ravikumar Doddi Dated:- 23-8-2018 Last Reply Date:- 26-9-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 15 Replies
GST
Dear sir,
Kindly clarify as to GST Head of tax, dealer running a canteen in a SEZ unit, for the supplies done to employees as per the agreement they are collecting IGST from the SEZ Unit , often employees will also come and eat in the same canteen by paying their personal money to the canteen, Which tax we have to collect and pay either local tax(CGST+SGST) or IGST.
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani:
The Reply:
In my view, cgst, sgst is applicable.
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
I am also of the same view as opined by Sh.Ganeshan Kalyani Ji.
Reply By Ramaswamy S:
The Reply:
As per the 26th July, ,2018 order of Advance Ruling of Karnataka in the case of Coffee Day, = 2018 (8) TMI 875 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA the supplies do not qualify as zero rated as per the IGST Act, 2017. Th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ited – 2018 (8) TMI 875 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA
a) The applicant installs beverage vending machines inside SEZ premises, prepares beverages using the vending machines & its ingredients, supplies to SEZ units which are consumed by the employees of SEZ units and charge the SEZ units based on number of cups of beverages supplied. (Cuppage billing)
b) The applicant installs beverage vending machines inside SEZ premises, supplies beverage ingredients to the SEZ units and bills based on the quantity of ingredients supplied. SEZ units prepare the beverages using the vending machines and serve them to its employees. There will not be any consideration for the usage of vending machine by the SEZ units.
Reply By Ravikumar Doddi:
The Reply:
Dear sir,
My question is Supplies done to SEZ is making bill as per the agreement under IGST, and another supply is Employees of SEZ other than agreement supply i.e, General supply, which tax to collect.
Reply By Ramaswamy S:
The Reply

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

kes it clear that IGST is applicable.
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani:
The Reply:
Views expressed by Sri Ramasamy Sir and Sri Kasturi Sir clarifies that Igst is applicable. I go with third views.
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani:
The Reply:
* their
Reply By subramanian vijayakumar:
The Reply:
You have to pay IGST AND ABREE WITH THE VIEWS OF RAMASAMY SIR
Reply By Nitin Vipradas:
The Reply:
There are two cases. 1. supplies through vending machine.
2.General supplies such as buisuits chips curd shrikhand other than tea. These are on payment by employee in cash.
These bought out items sold supplied by vendors to employees for which whether bills to be issued by canteen contractors whose billing per month is 12 lacs. And taxability will be IGST or else as in SEZ.
In my opinion it is taxable. As supply is within sez to SEZ even though it will not attract s ction 16 zero rated. Moreover it is no way to furtherance of export business. It is a sales and purchase between employees and contracto

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Purchase Rejection procedure in GST

Purchase Rejection procedure in GST
Query (Issue) Started By: – Yatin Bhopi Dated:- 23-8-2018 Last Reply Date:- 24-4-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 17 Replies
GST
Sometimes we received defective goods which need to be return to seller. For rejecting goods, under Section 34 of CGST ACT 2017, supplier of goods should issue credit note and he should declare this credit note in GSTR-1. Once seller uploads credit note, GST amount will be reflected in our GSTR-2 it will be reduce our available ITC.
Is that mean for every purchase rejection we need to First avail the Input tax credit (whether full or part rejection) so that when seller issue credit note it will be nullify.
Please let me know
Reply By Praveen Nair:
The Reply:
Dear Yatin
How will you send back the defective material to the Supplier?
1. With a Tax Invoice by charging GST? or
2. Against a Delivery Challan?
Let me know
Reply By Yatin Bhopi:
The Reply:
goods will be return on delivery challan and ewa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ds rejected, the invoice is either short booked to the extent of rejection and the Debit note issued to the Supplier. Therefore, there is no question of ITC at the recipient end. At the supplier end, the issuance of Credit Note reduces his liability and the receivables, the tax is also reduced based on the Credit Note.
Regards
S.Ramaswamy
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani:
The Reply:
I fully agree with you Sir.
Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN:
The Reply:
I endorse the views of Sri Ramaswamy.
Reply By Arunachalam siva:
The Reply:
sir, If there is a difference in value/tax rate, either CN/DN to be issued. If defective item received, account it and avail credit, then return under cover of Tax invoice and pay tax. Now tax effect is nil. further to state that purchase return has to be treated as deemed supply by recipient under GST. Sending material back under DC seems improper.
Reply By Ramaswamy S:
The Reply:
36
What is the procedure for return of goods under GST?
In terms of Sec

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

se Credit Note and consider the same in GSTR-1, which will reflect in your GSTR2A and on acceptance of the said credit note the amount will be reduced from your Electronic Credit Ledger online, which you may have already debited by raising a Tax Invoice (reflected in your GSTR 1 & GSTR 3B) hence possibility of double effect.
It is advisable to send material by DC as suggested by other experts with E-Way bill.
Regards
Pravin
Reply By Avneesh Sachdev:
The Reply:
hello all,
why cant the receiver just issue a tax invoice back to the vendor instead of all this.
Reply By Praveen Nair:
The Reply:
In most of the company it has been seen that there are process for Inward of goods. If the goods are received in the system they may either;
a. Send back the material against a Tax Invoice or
b. Send back the material against DC.
If the goods are sold prior to the appointed date (excise law) and received after appointed date (GST) then Tax Invoice should be raised by the purchaser for any

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

INVENTORY -PROVISION FOR WRITE OFF IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS

INVENTORY -PROVISION FOR WRITE OFF IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS
Query (Issue) Started By: – Ramaswamy S Dated:- 23-8-2018 Last Reply Date:- 28-8-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 6 Replies
GST
Section 17(5)(h) of the CGST Act, 2017 says that the ITC is not allowed if the stock is written off in the books of accounts.
Rule 3(5B) of Cenvat Credit Rules says that the Credit is to be reversed if the stock is written off fully or partially or provision is made in the books of accounts partially or fully.
Further, the CCR provided the recredit of credit reversed already whereas there is no such provision in the GST.
There is a difference in the two provisions.
Whether this omission is a unintentional or delibrate?
Whether the ITC is

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e law is evolving. The omission may be intentional or may be mistake. But as of the law is clear that only if stock is written off in the books it has to be considered for reversal of credit. If you differ with my view, kindly share sir.
Reply By Ramaswamy S:
The Reply:
Thank you sir for your views. Hitherto, the benefit of doubt is to be given to the assessee and not the revenue. The latest Apex Court ruling has reversed the same. It is the same old officers in the department whose mind set is yet to change and will err on the revenue side and issue notice for the same. From the plain reading, it is not includible. However, with the litigation, the Govt can either provide an explanation stating that the words : written off includes provi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the said input or capital goods."
Section 17 (5) (h) of CGST Act, 2017 stipulates that " Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 16 and subsection (1) of section 18, input tax credit shall not be available in respect of goods lost, stolen, destroyed, written off or disposed of by way of gift or free samples."
In Section 17 (5) (h) of CGST Act, 2017 the words and phrases where any provision to write off fully or partially has been made in the books of account is absent. Therefore only when the inputs and/or capital goods are written off fully input tax credit availed on such inputs and/or capital goods is to be paid back. Therefore, in my opinion, where any provision to write off fully or partially h

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE VADODARA – II Versus M/s MEGHMANI FINCHEM LTD.

COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE VADODARA – II Versus M/s MEGHMANI FINCHEM LTD.
Central Excise
2018 (8) TMI 1451 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – TMI
GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 23-8-2018
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1043 of 2018
Central Excise
MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. B.N. KARIA, JJ.
For The Petitioner : Mr Nirzar S Desai (2117)
For The Respondent : Mr Paresh M Dave(260)
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. This Tax Appeal is filed by the department challenging the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31.07.2017. The issue arises in somewhat peculiar background. We may briefly record the facts:
2. The principal issue between the department and the respondent-manufacturer is with respect to the assessee's claim of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on sales commission. Such an issue was decided by Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd reporte

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the Tribunal on this very issue. The department obviously placed heavy reliance on the judgements of High Court in cases of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad vs. Cadila Healthcare and Astik Dyestuff Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. The assessees relied on the amendment to the definition of term “input service” and argued that the same would apply to all pending cases irrespective of the date of amendment.
4. In view of such facts, the options before the Tribunal were either to await the outcome of the department's appeal in case of Essar Steel India Ltd (supra) if the decision in such appeal was likely to be rendered in near foreseeable future which would in addition to reducing the effort of both sides would also in many cases eliminate one stage of litigation. However, if the Tribunal was of the opinion that the judgement of the High Court may not be available in near future or for any such other good reason, it would not possible or advisable to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

en to reopening of all the issues. This would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The parties, i.e. the department or the assessee, as the case may be, would have to file fresh proceedings once the High Court disposes of the appeal in case of Essar Steel India Ltd. In the mechanism provided, the Tribunal has also left many gaps. For example, there is no clarity as to what time limit within which the parties would have to file fresh proceedings. The Tribunal merely stated that soon after the verdict either side can approach. This term “soon after the verdict” is not possible of any clear application. Further, we wonder what would happen if no appeal is filed as per the liberty granted by the Tribunal. Whether the decision against the losing party would achieve finality; in which case what would happen to the tax or the refund is not clear. At which point of time such finality would be presumed is not specified. All in all, this is the most unsatisfactory manner in which, such large num

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-III (now Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax, Gurugram) Versus M/s Chang Yun India Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-III (now Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax, Gurugram) Versus M/s Chang Yun India Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (8) TMI 1507 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – TMI
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 23-8-2018
CEA No.36 of 2018 (O&M)
Central Excise
MR. RAJESH BINDAL AND MR. AMIT RAWAL, JJ.
For The Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocatea
ORDER
RAJESH BINDAL J.
The appellant in the present appeal has challenged the order dated 05.06.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh arising out of Appeal No. E/395/2012, raising the following substantial questions of law:-
“(i) Whether the impugned order dated 05.06.2017 Annexure A-4 passed b

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

benefit of CENVAT Credit for 'rent service', when admittedly, the part of premises has been sub leased to sister concern and therefore that part of service is not availed and does not have nexus with manufacturing process?
(iv) Whether Hon'ble CESTAT is justified in not considering the provisions of Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which categorically provides for the documents on the basis of which CENVAT Credit may be claimed by the party?
(v) Whether the Ld. CESTAT has committed a grave error in allowing the appeal of the respondent and allowing CENVAT Credit claimed by the respondent on the basis of debit notes which does not find mention in Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004?
(vi) Whether in the facts and c

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

To extend the due date for filing of FORM GSTR-3B for the month of July, 2018.

To extend the due date for filing of FORM GSTR-3B for the month of July, 2018.
35/2018-State Tax Dated:- 23-8-2018 Maharashtra SGST
GST – States
Maharashtra SGST
Maharashtra SGST
COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, MAHARASHTRA STATE
GST Bhavan, Mazgaon, Mumbai 400 010,
dated the 23rd August 2018.
NOTIFICATION
Notification No. 35/2018-State Tax
MAHARASHTRA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017.
No. JC(HQ)-1/GST/2018/Noti/Returns/ADM-8.- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 168 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (XLIII of 2017) read with sub-rule (5) of rule 61 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra State, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Vasu Clothing Private Limited Through Shri Ajay Jain Versus Union Of India Through Ministry Of Finance

M/s Vasu Clothing Private Limited Through Shri Ajay Jain Versus Union Of India Through Ministry Of Finance
GST
2018 (9) TMI 118 – MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. J73 (M. P.)
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 23-8-2018
W. P. No. 17999 of 2018
GST
P. K. Jaiswal And S. K. Awasthi, JJ.
Shri R. Gogoi and Shri Alok Barthwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned Counsel for the respondents
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission as well as for grant of interim relief.
Issue notice.
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents and, therefore, no further notice is required.
In respect of interim relief, learned Counsel for the petitioner

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

APGST Act, 2017- Intelligence based Enforcement action- Tax payers allotted to Central Tax Authorities – GST Council decisions on Cross –Empowerment

APGST Act, 2017- Intelligence based Enforcement action- Tax payers allotted to Central Tax Authorities – GST Council decisions on Cross –Empowerment
CCW/GST/74/2015 Dated:- 23-8-2018 Andhra Pradesh SGST
GST – States
Circular No. CCT's Ref. No. CCW/GST/74/2015 Dated. 23rd August, 2018
Office of the
Chief Commissioner of State Taxes,
Edupugallu, Vijayawada.
Present :- Sri J.Syamala Rao, I.A.S.,
Sub :- APGST Act, 2017- Intelligence based Enforcement action- Tax payers allotted to Central Tax Authorities – GST Council decisions on Cross -Empowerment- Reg.
Ref :-1. Minutes of the 9th GST Council Meeting held on 16.1.2017.
2. Minutes of the Coordination meeting held on 29.5.2018 at CGST, Visakapatnam.
********
It is notice

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the State tax administration on the same basis as under the CGST and SGST Acts either under law or under Article 258 of the Constitution but with the exception that the Central tax administration shall alone have the power to adjudicate a case where the disputed issue relates to place of supply, or when an affected State requests that the case be adjudicated by the CGST authority and for such issues of export and import as may be discussed in the Law Committee of officers and brought back to the Council for decision:
Further in the coordination meeting of the Central Tax and State Tax authorities of Andhra Region the following decisions relate to Enforcement Activities are taken.
A) Intelligence based irregularities: –
The authority dete

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

The Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Versus C. Kamalakannan

The Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Versus C. Kamalakannan
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 262 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 589 (Mad.)
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 23-8-2018
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.35 of 2018 and CMP.No.441 of 2018
Service Tax
T. S. Sivagnanam And V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, JJ.
For the Appellant : Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy, SPC
For the Respondent : Mr.N.V.Balaji
ORDER
Judgment was delivered by T. S. Sivagnanam, J.
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai in Appeal No.ST/41802/2016-SM in Final Order No.40715 of 2017 dated 18.5.2017.
2. The above appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law :
“In the facts and circumstances of the case, in the absence of documentary evidence to show that the assessee had acted in bona fide belief and in the light of evide

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d charges and value added tax on them. However, the distributors did not raise any separate sale document in respect of subsequent sales made by them and did not charge sales tax/VAT on such sales and thus, they acted as a commission agent on behalf of the principal by promoting their products.
5. On scrutiny of the records furnished by the assessee, the Original Authority stated that the assessee is not registered with the Department till 17.7.2012 whereas he received commission charges for the services provided under the category 'business auxiliary service' from 2007-08 to 2011-12. However, the assessee did not disclose the actual amount received as commission as reflected in his balance sheets in the ST-3 returns filed on 24.8.2012 for the period from 2007-08 to 2011-12.
6. It appears that certain clarifications were obtained by the assessee and a statement was also recorded and ultimately, the assessee was called upon to show cause as to why the service tax along with ce

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 since there is no fraud or suppression of facts, etc., and the entire service tax along with interest was paid before the Department and the Department had any clue that the appellant was providing taxable service and before issuance of the said show cause notice and that therefore, they were covered under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. Apart from the above contention, the assessee also advanced other contention on facts and relied upon certain judicial precedents.
9. The Tribunal, vide final order dated 18.5.2017, disposed of the appeal in favour of the assessee by setting aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority as well as the First Appellate Authority and held that the demand beyond the period of limitation would not be sustainable. Hence, the Revenue is on appeal before us as against order of the Tribunal.
10. We have heard Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.N.V.Balaji,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

taxable services and certain Appellate Authorities hold otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Continental Foundation Jt. Venture Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I [reported in (2007) 216 ELT 177] considered the expressions used under the Proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and held as follows:
“10. The expression 'suppression” has been used in the Proviso to Section 11A of the Act accompanied by very strong words as 'fraud' or “collusion” and, therefore, has to be construed strictly. Mere omission to give correct information is not suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to stop the payment of duty. Suppression means failure to disclose full information with the intent to evade payment of duty. When the facts are known to both the parties, omission by one party to do what he might have done would not render it suppression. When the Revenue invokes the extended period of limitation under Section 11-A the burden is cast upon it to prove suppr

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rticular stand which rules out application of Section 11A of the Act.
12. As far as fraud and collusion are concerned, it is evident that the intent to evade duty is built into these very words. So far as mis-statement or suppression of facts are concerned, they are clearly qualified by the word 'wilful', preceding the words “mis-statement or suppression of facts” which means with intent to evade duty. The next set of words 'contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or Rules' are again qualified by the immediately following words 'with intent to evade payment of duty.' Therefore, there cannot be suppression or mis-statement of fact, which is not wilful and yet constitute a permissible ground for the purpose of the Proviso to Section 11A. Mis-statement of fact must be wilful.
13. That being so, the adjudicating authorities were not justified in raising the demand and CEGAT was not justified in dismissing the appeals.
14. On the ground of adjudica

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ger period under the Proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be invoked.
15. The operative portion of the order in the decision in Charanjeet Singh Khanuja reads as follows :
“Another plea raised in these appeals is regarding limitation. It is the contention of the assessees that there was absolutely no suppression or mis-statement of facts or deliberate contravention of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 or of the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of service tax. The Department's contention, on the other hand, is that the assessees neither obtained service tax registration nor did they declare their activities to the jurisdictional Service Tax Authorities nor did they file ST-3 return and, therefore, they are guilty of suppression of relevant facts and deliberate violation of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and of the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of tax. On considering the rival submissions on this point,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

oundation Joint Venture Vs. CCE [(2007) Taxmann.com 532], when there is scope for doubt in the mind of an assessee on a particular issue, the longer limitation period under Proviso to Section 11A(1) cannot be invoked and in our view, the ratio of this judgment of the Apex Court is applicable to the facts of these cases. Therefore, the longer limitation period of five years under Proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 would not be invocable and duty can be demanded for normal limitation period of one year from the relevant date.”
16. In the impugned order, the Tribunal had followed the decision in Charanjeet Singh Khanuja, which has attained finality. The Revenue does not dispute the fact that there were two views on the issue within the Department itself and this was considered by the New Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in a batch of appeals, which consisted of both appeals filed by the Department against the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as appeals filed

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Arignar Anna Sugar Mills Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy

M/s. Arignar Anna Sugar Mills Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 387 – CESTAT CHENNAI – 2019 (26) G. S. T. L. 54 (Tri. – Chennai)
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 23-8-2018
Appeal Nos. ST/526/2011 and ST/40938/2013 – Final Order Nos. 42303-42304 / 2018
Service Tax
Hon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C. S., Member ( Judicial ) And Hon'ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical )
Shri T. Ramesh, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC ( AR ) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses. They are holding registration for payment of service tax on the services of transport of goods by road in goods carriage. On the basis of intelligence received that the appellants are providing taxable services on manpower recruitment or supply agency service, but not taken registration and are not paying service tax, investigations were conducted. It was revealed that the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

o demand service tax along with interest and for imposing penalty under the category of manpower recruitment or supply agency service. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,54,57,555/- for the period from November 2005 to September 2010 and Rs. 56,37,264/- for the period from October 2010 to March 2011 along with interest and also imposed penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. Hence these appeals.
2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. Counsel Shri T. Ramesh submitted that the appellant is a public sector undertaking under the Government of Tamilnadu engaged in the manufacture of sugar. The sugar factory is totally controlled by the Government of Tamilnadu and the price of the goods manufactured by the factory is also controlled by the Government. Further, the price of sugarcane procured is also periodically fixed by the Government. The employees of the sugar mill in the muster roll of the mill which in turn is controlled by the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

they are also provided necessary facilities. One of the said facility is to get the farmers registered themselves with the appellant's factory / sugar mill. Though it has become duty bound to supply the sugarcane at the doorsteps of the appellant-factory and appellant agrees to pay the price for such supply as per the price fixed by the Government of Tamilnadu, it is to ensure that there is consistent supply of sugarcane at the time of seasonal period. On receipt of the sugarcane in the factory, the total quantity supplied by such grower would be quantified and the price is paid to them after deducting the labour charges for harvesting the sugarcane. The cutting charges are negotiated by the farmers with the cutting labourers and the appellant has no say whatever in fixing the cutting price of the sugarcane. The farmer alone is liable to pay cutting charges to the labourers and not the sugar mill. To ensure that the sugarcane is harvested and there is regular supply during the period

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

.7.2018 in the case of M/s. The Amaravathi Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. It is also submitted by him that for the subsequent period for the same assessee, Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped the demand on similar set of facts.
4. The ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy supported the findings in the impugned order.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The demand has been made on manpower supply service alleging that the appellant have supplied manpower to the sugarcane farmers for sugarcane harvesting. The contention of the department that the charges towards supply of cane harvesting labourers are recovered from the farmers at the rate accepted by the farmers and therefore the said activity would be covered within the definition of manpower recruitment or supply agency service under Section 65(68) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant has replied to the show cause notice dated 5.4.2011. It is explained by the appellant that there is no employer and employee relationship between the cutting labourer

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Amendment of notification no-11872 dt-10.08.2018 filling of return in form GSTR-3B

Amendment of notification no-11872 dt-10.08.2018 filling of return in form GSTR-3B
POL-41/1/2017-POLlCY /12281/CT Dated:- 23-8-2018 Orissa SGST
GST – States
Orissa SGST
Orissa SGST
Commissionerate of CT and GST, Odisha (At Cuttack)
(Finance Department, Government of Odisha)
No-POL-41/1/2017-POLlCY /12281/CT
Dated 23.08.2018
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 168 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Odisha Act 7 of 2017) (hereafter in this

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advantage India Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & others

Advantage India Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & others
GST
2018 (9) TMI 1417 – MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 46 (M. P.)
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 23-8-2018
Writ Petition No. 16266 of 2018
GST
Shri Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal And Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi, JJ.
For the Petitioner : Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel
For the Respondent Nos. 2 to 3 – State : Shri Romesh Dave, learned Government Advocate
ORDER
PER P.K. JAISWAL, J.
In the present writ petition, the petitioner – Advantage India Logistics Private Limited is praying for quashment of seizure memo dated 15.07.2018 (Annexure-P/1) issued under Section 129(1) of Madhya Pradesh Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short “the MPGST Act, 2017”).
2. According to the petitioner, M. P. State Government or officials authorized under the MPGST Act, 2017 have no jurisdiction to exercise the powers under the Integrated Goods and Services Act, 2017 (in short “the IGST Act, 2017), pa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

purposes of this Act, subject to such exceptions and conditions as the Government shall, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify.
6. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that the officers appointed under the MPGST Act, 2017 was authorized to be proper officers for the purposes of the IGST Act.
7. At present, no notification was issued by the Central Government under Section 4 of the IGST Act. By order dated 12.10.2017, the respondent No.4 was authorized as proper officer and was bestowed with powers such as inspection, search and seizure under Section 68 of the MPGST Act. Serial Nos.31 and 57 of the order dated 12.10.2017 (Annexure-R/1) reads as under :-
S. No.
Section
Functions Assigned
Desgination of Proper Officer
31
68(3)
To intercept any conveyance to inspect documents, devices and goods
Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Assistant Commissioner of State Tax State Tax Officer Inspector of State Tax Taxation Assistant
57
129(3)
To issue

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

issued on 13.07.2018 to inspect the subject vehicle on 15.07.2018. On inspection, the respondent No.4 in exercise of powers under Section 129(1) of the MPGST Act passed the seizure order (Annexure-P/1) on 15.07.2018.
10. The respondent No.4 in compliance of the statutory mandate under Section 129(6) has passed a final order dated 23.07.2018 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 4,20,266/- (minimum) as tax and penalty in terms of Section 129(3) of the MPGST Act.
11. Against the aforesaid final order dated 23.07.2018, statutory appeal under Section 109 of the Act has been provided.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Article 246-A and 269-A of the Constitution which was brought by one hundred and first (101) amendment on 08.09.2016 and submitted that Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to goods and service tax where the supply of goods, or of services, or both takes place in the course of inter-state trade or commerce. As

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai

M/s. Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 1666 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 23-8-2018
Appeal No. ST/391/2010 – Final Order No. 42290/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri J. Shankar Raman, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The facts of the case are that the appellants inter alia, were engaged in cargo handling service. Pursuant to audit, it appeared to the department that appellants (i) were required to pay service tax on reimbursable expenses incurred during the period 19.4.2006 to 31.7.2

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

earing, ld. counsel Shri J. Shankar Raman appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that both the issues in dispute are no longer res integra and have been settled by number of decisions. In respect of demand pertaining to reimbursable expenses, he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. – 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC). In respect of the demand with regard to alleged wrong availment of CENVAT credit of services used for non-taxable output service, he relies on the following case laws:-
a. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. – 2005 (179) ELT 276 (SC)
b. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Narayan Polyplast – 2005 (179

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =