INFORMATION REGARDING GST REFUND APPLICATION – GST – States – Circular No. 1819006/117 – Dated:- 25-4-2018 Circular – Trade Notice – Public Notice – Instructions – Office orders
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
INFORMATION REGARDING GST RFD-01A. – GST – States – Circular No. 1819007/118 – Dated:- 25-4-2018 Circular – Trade Notice – Public Notice – Instructions – Office orders
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (12) TMI 773 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI – Penalty u/s 11AC – the Duty has been paid prior to the issuance of the SCN along with interest – Held that:- The Appellant Company had cleared the waste & scraps from their manufacturing facility under challans but subsequently, no Central Excise invoices were raised. However, on being pointed out, the discrepancy by the Central Excise Officers, the assessee did not dispute the clearance of waste & scraps generated in the course of production of finished goods and also admitted that the violation of the Statutory Provisons of the Central Excise Act was unintentional.
–
The entire demand along with interest was deposited by the assessee much before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice – also,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ctory to M/s. Om Trading Corporation, Howrah during the period from April, 2009 to March, 2010 under challans. No Central Excise invoice was issued against such challans. Statements of the Production Manager and the Chief Executive Officer of the Appellant Company were recorded. They admitted the clearnce of waste and scrap under challans and also admitted the duty liability of ₹ 3,75,000/- and paid through the Account Payee Cheque on 16/03/2010. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice dated 24/06/2010 was issued alleging surreptitious removal of the waste and scrap and for recovery of Cenvat Duty along with interest and imposition of penalty and appropriation of the amount of ₹ 3,75,000/- already paid by the assessee. The Adjudicatin
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
uring facility under challans but subsequently, no Central Excise invoices were raised. However, on being pointed out, the discrepancy by the Central Excise Officers, the assessee did not dispute the clearance of waste & scraps generated in the course of production of finished goods and also admitted that the violation of the Statutory Provisons of the Central Excise Act was unintentional. 7. I also find from the records that the entire demand along with interest was deposited by the assessee much before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. I also observe that none of the Lower Authorities had intimated the assessee regarding option to pay penalty of 25% of the duty amount. 8. In view of the above discussions, the demand of Central Ex
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Detention and seizure of goods with vehicle – non furnishing of the E-Way Bill immediately at the time of detention – The respondent is directed to release the loader/tipper w
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Release of detained goods – Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act – the competent authority is directed to complete the adjudication provided for u/s 129 of the statutes – HC – TMI Updates – Highlights
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (4) TMI 1389 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – CENVAT credit – input services – construction services – extended period of limitation – Held that: – the appellate authority has upheld the extended period on the short ground that the details of the services in respect of which the credit was availed has not been reflected in ER 1 return and no document/ invoices stand given by the assessee – as is seen from the above observations of the appellate authority himself, no documents are required to be submitted by the assessee after 1996.
–
If there is no legal obligation on the part of the assessee to do a particular act, non observation of that procedure / act cannot be held to be violative of law – If the law does not require documents / invoices, non submission of the same by an assessee is in accordance with the law and cannot be held to be a suppression or mis-statement, with an intent to evade payment of duty, thus justifying the invocation of longer period of limitation.
–
Th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the period 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. A part of the credit amount around ₹ 15,000/- relate to repair and maintenance of drains lying outside the factory premises. 2. Inasmuch as in the year 2011, the construction services were excluded from the definition of input services, as available in terms of Rule2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, the Revenue entertained a view that the said services are not cenvatable. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 28.1.2016, which stand upheld by the impugned order of authorities below. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned order on limitation by submitting that the entire credit was availed by reflecting the same in cenvat credit account as also in the ER 1 return filed by them. As such, the notice issued in January, 2016 for the period 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, is hopelessly barred by limitation. She has also drawn my attention to observations made by Commissioner (Appeal
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
services, he fairly agreed that no provision of law requires them to do so. 5. Inasmuch as the entire demand is barred by limitation, I propose to dispose of the appeal on the said issue. Admittedly, the show cause notice stand issued by invoking the longer period of limitation. The appellant had taken a categorical stand that they had declared the disputed cenvat credit in their ER 1 return. The said stand of the appellant is disposed of by Commissioner (Appeals) by observing as under: ..In this case the appellant have submitted that they had declared the amount of CENVAT credit availed by them in their ER1 returns and suppression of facts cannot be alleged against them and therefore, extended period of five years for recovery of wrongly availed CENVAT credit / duty was not invokable in their case and hence no penalty was imposable on them. After 1996 no documents on which credit has been availed are required to be submitted and therefore from the amount of credit shown in the ER 1 re
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
be made to Tribunal s decision in the case of Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut I [2014 (33) STR 305 (Tri-Del)] wherein it was observed as under:- 7. Apart from allowing the appeals on merits, I also note that demands stand raised by invoking the extended period of limitation. The Commissioner has rejected the appellants plea that the proper returns under Rule 9(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 were filed by them by observing that since the appellants have not shown availment and use of the credit in respect of independent and separate input services, it has to be held that there was suppression on their part, justifying the invocation of longer period of limitation. I note that in the returns, as the assessee is not required to give separate amount of credit availed by him in respect of separate services. The fact is that the credit so availed was part of the total credit availed by the assessee and was being duly reflected in the returns so filed. The appellant cannot be held g
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST – States – F.No. 3240/CTD/GST/2018/3 – Dated:- 24-4-2018 – F.No. 3240/CTD/GST/2018/3 GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT Puducherry, the 24th April, 2018 NOTIFICATION Sub: Puducherry Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Withdrawal of exemption given to intra-State movement of goods from generation of e-way bill – Reg. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-rule (14) of rule 138 of the Puducherry Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the Commissioner of State T
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Padmavati Enterprise, Abicor and Binzel Technoweld Pvt. Ltd., Draeger Safety India Private Limited, AGS Transact Technologies Limited, M/s. Arihant Vatika Realty Private Ltd., M/s. Arihant Abode Limited, M/s. Arihant Aashiyana Pvt. Limited, M/s. Arihant Superstructures Limited, Sigma Electric Manufacturing Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India & Anr. – 2018 (4) TMI 1546 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 596 (Bom.) – Due date of filing of Tran-1 return – Reference to Nodal Officer – glitch on the common portal (GST portal) in relation to an identified issue due to which the tax payer could not comply with the provisions of law – time limitation – Held that: – We are not disturbing the date which has been determined for filing of GSTR-3B for that is prescribed as 31st May, 2018 – However, given that only 25th, 26th and 27th April, 2018 are the working days available before 30th April, 2018 and 30th April, 2018 is declared to be a public holiday, interest of justice wo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e petitioner. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly a/w. Amol Joshi for the respondent. → WP 4584/18, WP 4604/18, WP4613/18 AND 4615/18 :Ms. Gunjan Jayakar a/w. Miheer Jaykar for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for respondent in WP 4584/18, 4604/18 and 4615/18. → WP 5092/18 :Mr. Sridharan, Sr. Counsel a/w. Prakash Shah I/b. PDS Legal for the petitioner. P.C.: 1. We have taken on record the additional affidavit-in-reply filed in Writ Petition (L) No.424 of 2018 and in Writ Petition (St.) No.2230 of 2018. 2. Mr. Milind Gawai, Commissioner of Central Tax PuneI Commissionerate in his additional affidavit-in-reply filed in Writ Petition (St.) No.2230 of 2018 has, firstly, indicated that the system error or fault or what is called IT related glitch would be a grievance definitely looked into and is being looked into by Grievance Redressal Committee. In his affidavit, he has indicated as to how Nodal Officers have been appointed in terms of several circulars, copies of which are at Exhibits 
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
eral says that the circular gives the tax payer time till 30th April, 2018 to access the network. This time cannot be extended. Various circulars have been issued and the deponent and such other officers at the commissionerate level will not be in a position to make a definite statement as to whether the tax payer can access the online portal beyond 30th April, 2018 or even if accesses it before this date, his grievance / complaint would be decided within a given time frame. 4. We inquired from the Additional Solicitor General whether any time limit can be prescribed so that these complaints made to the Nodal Officer can be disposed of expeditiously and promptly. That would assist both the assessee as well as the revenue and would not delay the tax collection. 5. The Additional Solicitor General, after speaking to the officers present in Court, stated that presently there is nothing which has been evovled as a time frame within which the grievance raised before the Nodal Officer could
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
extend this date of 30th April, 2018 in relation to filing of TRAN-1 and which filing was not possible due to technical glitches / IT related glitches. We extend it to 10th May, 2018. 8. It is clear that this facility is extended only to those tax payers who could not access the system due to technical glitches. It is very clearly stated in the affidavit that only in the case of tax payers who could not complete the process of TRAN-1 filing either at the stage of original or revised filing due to IT related glitches, for those the facility is extended and that the last date is extended only in their case. However, those tax payers would have to provide necessary proof of their inability to access the portal due to technical glitches or a Information Technology related matter which prevented them from accessing the system earlier. This is not a facility which could be availed of for any other reason and not attributable to such glitches or system faults / errors. We accept and endorse t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (5) TMI 367 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (14) G. S. T. L. 177 (All.) – Seizure of goods – penalty u/s 129(1) and 129(3) of GST Act – GST e-way bill-01 – petitioner claim is that the distance was much below within the prescribed limit of 50 km in between the consignors place of business and transport company from where the goods were required to be reloaded in different transport vehicles for their onward journey and so they are not required to furnish the details of conveyance in 'Part B' of GST e-way bill-01.
–
Held that: – since the consignor and consignee both are registered dealers as well as the present petitioner who is a transport company, there is no basis or reason not to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and further once the Government itself has clarified the situation by allowing the transporter/dealer to fill up 'Part B' of the e-way bill when the goods are reloaded in a vehicle which is meant for delivery to the consignee, there re
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
any is also declared in the State of U.P. which situates at Plot No.68, Ecotech-12, Greater Noida, U.P. The said Branch has been leased out to the petitioner by one M/s Paras Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi for the purpose of loading and unloading of goods which are brought from the Delhi for transportation and re-loading in different vehicles to be booked for transportation of goods outside Delhi. One M/s Paharpur 3P, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, the consignor has dispatched Flexible Laminates, which are covered by invoices dated 15.04.2018, for the supply to the consignee M/s Bayer Bioscience Pvt. Ltd., Medak, Telangana, who is also a registered dealer. Apart from the aforesaid item, the said consignor M/s Paharpur 3P has also dispatched Flexible Laminates which too are covered against the tax invoice dated 15.04.2018 to be supplied to the consignee M/s Saife Vetmed Pvt. Ltd. Dehradun, Uttrakhand which is also a registered firm. For the dispatch of the aforesaid two consignments namely for T
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ed the notification no.12 of 2018 dated 07.03.2018 by which amended e-way bill Rules was enforced. In exercise of powers under Section 164 of UPGST Act, U.P. Goods and Service (Fourteenth Amendment), Rules 2018 was framed vide notification no.487 dated 26.03.2019. Clause three of the Fourteen Amendment Rules of Rule 138 was amended paving way for national e-way bill. The Amended Rule 138 of GST Rules provides that before dispatching of goods for outward supply from the premises of the consignor, it was incumbent to download national e-way bill, which according to the counsel, the petitioner has downloaded two national e-way bills, one for Telangana and another for Deharadun. He has further submitted that the consignor has duly filled the part of the aforesaid national e-way bill which contains the details of consignor as well as consignee and further the details and description of goods to be supplied. 'Part B' which pertains to details of truck/vehicle number was left blank to
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
not filled and since the movement of goods is from inside the State of U.P. to outside the State of U.P., as such, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to carry out and to scrutiny the documents namely 'Part B' of e-way bill. According to the respondent no.4, since the details of the vehicle are not found in 'Part B' of the e-way bill, therefore, the petitioner has committed an illegality and accordingly he has passed the seizure order dated 16.04.2018 by which the petitioner was directed to pay the proposed tax at the rate of 18% of the value of goods to the tune of ₹ 1,54,792/-. The respondent no.4 has also issued a notice under Section 129(3) of the Act determining therein both the tax liability as well as penalty and directed the petitioner to deposit the such tax and penalty by way of bank guarantee for release of seized goods as well as the truck. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the notification no.12 of 2018 dated 07.03.2018 issued by CG
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ment has supported the order of seizure passed by respondent no.4 and consequential penalty proceedings. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and we find substances in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us a Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, clarification with respect of e-way bill system dated 31st March, 2018. This clarification clearly provides the procedure with regard to the inter-state movement of goods across the country as e-way bill system has been introduced with effect from 1st April, 2018. For perusal, the said clarification is placed hereinbelow; Press Information Bureau Government of India Ministry of Finance 31-March-2018 18: 30 IST Clarification with respect to the E-way Bill System. The e-way Bill System for Inter-State movement of goods across the country is being introduced from 01st April, 2018. Few clarifications
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
r B will be able to update the details of PART B of FORMGST EWB-01. Transporter B will fill the details of his vehicle and move the goods from City Y to City Z. 2. Situation : – Consider a situation where a Consignor hands over his goods for transportation on Friday to transporter. But, the assigned transporter starts the movement of goods on Monday. How would the validity of e-way bill be calculated in such situations? Clarification: -It is clarified that the validity period of e-way bill starts only after the details in PART B of FORMGST EWB-01 are updated by the transporter for the first time. In the given situation, Consignor can fill the details in PART A of FORMGST EWB-01 on Friday and handover his goods to the transporter. When the transporter is ready to move the goods, he can fill the PART B of FORMGST EWB-01 i.e. the assigned transporter can fill the details in PART B of FORMGST EWB-01 on Monday and the validity period of the e-way bill will start from Monday. The aforesaid c
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
vehicle when admittedly the details are not known or available to the consignor or the Driver. We have also seen other objections of the authority and we find that there is no reason to disbelieve the contention of the petitioner which has been furnished at the time of inspection of the vehicle before the respondent no.4. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the consignor and consignee both are registered dealers as well as the present petitioner who is a transport company, there is no basis or reason not to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and further once the Government itself has clarified the situation by allowing the transporter/dealer to fill up 'Part B' of the e-way bill when the goods are reloaded in a vehicle which is meant for delivery to the consignee, there remain no reasons to seized the goods and the vehicle. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we set aside the order of seizure dated 16.04.2018 pass
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (5) TMI 788 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI – Validity of Show Cause Notice demanding service tax – Maintainability of petition – Jurisdiction – Mega Exemption Notification dated 20.06.2012 – renting of immovable property service – Held that: – what is being sought to be taxed is the renting of immovable property and not for excavation work. Therefore, if any remittance being made by the Contractor who has excavated the earth for the purpose of renting of immovable property, will not absolve the petitioner from the proposal made in the SCN.
–
The jurisdictional issue, which is pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General is not purely a jurisdictional issue as it primarily involves adjudication of facts.
–
The writ petition is not maintainable and it is premature, for the reason that the impugned order in the writ petition is only a SCN and not an order for the petitioner to be aggrieved – petition dismissed being not maintainable. – W.P.No.6059 of 2018 & W.M.P.No.747
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
22) read with Section 66E(a) of the Finance Act; as to why an amount of ₹ 3,85,67,112/- [Rupees three crores eighty five lakhs sixty seven thousand one hundred and twelve only] payable towards service tax for the period from 2012-13 to 2016-17 should not be demanded from the petitioner under "Renting of immovable property" services; as to why interest under section 75 of the Act should not be demanded; as to why penalty should not be imposed under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. In terms of the impugned show cause notice, the petitioner was required to produce all the evidences which they intend to rely upon in support of their defence at the time of showing cause . Further, the petitioner was to indicate in the written reply as to whether they wish to be heard in person before the case is adjudicated. 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ petition as the impugned
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ing the optical fibre cables, viz., excavation, which is done by the contractor, who remit the payment inclusive of all taxes and the other being work of restoration, which is done by the Corporation of Chennai. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Central Government in exercise of power conferred under section 93(1) of the Act has issued Mega Exemption Notification 25/2012, dated 20.06.2012 in and by which certain taxable services have been exempted from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66B of the Act. Referring to clause 13 of the Mega Exemption Notification, it is submitted that services provided by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance for the use of , renovation or alteration for the use of general public is wholly exempted from the payment of service tax and therefore, the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notice. Further, it is rei
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
roposal to tax the petitioner, the Mega Exemption Notification will have no application to the case on hand. 7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent reiterated the submissions put-forth by the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. 8. After elaborately hearing the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perusing the materials on record, I am of the considered view that the writ petition is not maintainable and it is premature, firstly for the reason that the impugned order in the writ petition is only a show cause notice and not an order for the petitioner to be aggrieved. The petitioner challenges the impugned show cause notice on the ground of jurisdiction. The petitioner has challenged the impugned show cause notice primarily on two grounds. Firstly on the ground that it performs public duty and in the process of doing so, there is excavation work and for the said excavation work the concerned contractor, is remitting ta
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
fication. Therefore, the disputed questions of fact as to whether the nature of services proposed to be taxed, viz., renting of immovable property would fall under clause 13 of the Mega Exemption Notification has to be adjudicated before the authority. Thus, the jurisdictional issue, which is pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General is not purely a jurisdictional issue as it primarily involves adjudication of facts. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has to necessarily submit their reply to the impugned show cause notice and participate in the adjudication process. Therefore, on the grounds raised by the petitioner, the show cause notice cannot be quashed. 10. For the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, it is made clear that the observation made in this order are only prima facie observations made while testing the legal question as to whether the writ petition is maintainable or not and these observations wi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (6) TMI 769 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Demand of duty- Scrap – Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – Held that:- There is no doubt that the removal of defective/damaged mould is nothing but a removal of input for further processing by the job worker. Therefore, the removal is correctly covered by Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal Nos. E/87995,87998/2017 – Order No. A/86152-86153/2018 – Dated:- 24-4-2018 – Hon ble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Sunil Agarwal, Advocate, for appellant Shri S.J. Sahu, Assistant Commissioner (AR), and Shri Deepak Chavan, Superintendent (AR), for respondent ORDER The facts of the case are that the appellant is using their
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nder Rule 4(5)(a). 2. Shri Sunil Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the issue is no longer res integra as the same is settled by the fivemember Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. vs. CCE, Bombay – 2000 (120) ELT 218 (Tri.-LB). He also relied upon the following judgments:- (i) La Prenca Industries Pvt. Ltd. – 2017 (346) ELT 412 (Tri.-Mum.); (ii) La Prenca Industries Pvt. Ltd. – 2017 (349) ELT A27 (Bom.); (iii) Shakti Wire Products – 2009 (241) ELT 223 (Tri.- Mum.); (iv) Surya Colour Products Pvt. Ltd. – 2012 (280) ELT 455 (Tri.-Bang.). 3. Shri S.J. Sahu, learned Assistant Commissioner and Shri Deepak Chavan, learned Superintendent (ARs), appearing on behalf of Revenue
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (6) TMI 797 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Refund claim – relevant date – What should be the relevant date for filing the refund u/r 5 / N/N. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012? – Held that:- As per the Larger Bench decision in the case of Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 946 – CESTAT BANGALORE], it was held that in case of refund under Rule 5, the relevant date is the end of the quarter wherein the FIRC is received – In the facts of the present case, the refund for the period October 2012 to December 2012, the refund was submitted on 30.9.2013, which shows that the refund was filed within one year from the end of the quarter. Therefore, it is well within the prescribed time as provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act – refund allowed.
–
Refund claim – export of services – input services – general insurance services – real estate agent’s services – stock broker services – online information and data access or retrieved services – club or association services – s
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e involved in the present case is that – (i) What should be the relevant date for filing the refund under Rule 5 / Notification 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012. (ii) Whether the input services viz. general insurance services, real estate agent s services, stock broker services, online information and data access or retrieved services, club or association services and sponsorship services, are input services for the purpose of refund under Rule 5 and whether these services have nexus with the export of services. 2. Shri S. Thirumalai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in appeal No.ST/88029/2017, submits that all the input services on which refund was rejected are essential services which are used in or in relation to providing output services. He explained the use of each service. He also submits that in respect of almost all the services which were disputed by the Commissioner (Appeals), this Tribunal and court have taken consistent view that all these services are ad
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
amp;ST, Hyderabad-IV – Final Order No.A/30309/2016 dated 7.4.2016. 3. As regards the Revenue s appeal, the refund claim was filed well within one year from the end of the quarter. Therefore, as per the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE& SST, Bengaluru ST-I vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. – 2018-VIL-107- CESTAT-MUM-ST-LB, the refund stands filed within one year from the end of the quarter, which is the relevant date in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable by Notification No.27/2012- CE(NT). Therefore, the refund was filed within time. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the refund holding that it is within the prescribed time. 4. Shri Vivek Dwivedi, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the finding of the impugned order as regards the issue involved in appeal No. ST/88029/2017. As regards the Revenue s appeal No. ST/85149/2018, he reiterates the grounds of appeal. 5
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ices, stock broker services, online information and data access or retrieved services, club or association services and sponsorship services are admissible input services and have nexus with the services exported in term of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. As explained by the learned counsel, which is based on the invoices submitted, I find that general insurance is for the purpose of insurance policy for the entire premises, including fire, asset of the premises, a small part of the inputs, mediclaim for the employees. In this fact, I find that for a business entity, comprehensive insurance for the entire premises along with its employees is must. Therefore, it is indeed used for providing output service. This Tribunal in the case of Hydus Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) allowed the credit on general insurance. As regards real estate agent s service, it is towards the payment of brokerage to the broker for arranging accommodation for their CEO and this expenditure of t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d that this service is for subscription of website which is used for conducting their business. Therefore, it is directly used for providing the output service, hence the credit is admissible. As regards club or association services, the invoice shows that the membership is of business association. It is common that every membership is for business association which helps the assessee to promote their business by meeting the various members of the association who are into similar business. Therefore, the membership of a business association is an input service for providing the output service. This issue is covered by the Tribunal s judgment in the case of Steria India Ltd. (supra) and Xilinx India Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The assessee has availed sponsorship services. On perusal of invoice of the sponsorship service, I find that this sponsorship is for U.S. Chamber of Commerce for the benefit of U.S. India Business Council. This service is also used directly in relation
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (6) TMI 999 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Refund claim – relevant date – Rule 5 read with N/N. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012 – Whether the relevant date should be taken from the date of invoice or date of FIRC or end of the quarter wherein the FIRC is received? – Held that:- The respondents have filed refund claim for each quarter within one year from the end of the quarter. Therefore, the refund is well within the prescribed time limit in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – the issue is no longer res-integra and is decided in the case of Bengaluru ST-I vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 946 – CESTAT BANGALORE], where it was held that In respect of export of services, the relevant date for purposes of deci
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
f FIRC or end of the quarter wherein the FIRC is received. 2. Shri Dilip Shinde, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the grounds of appeal. 3. Shri S. Thirumalai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the issue is no longer res integra in terms of the Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE& SST, Bengaluru ST-I vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. – 2018- VIL-107-CESTAT-MUM-ST-LB. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of Commissioner, CGST vs. Morgan Stanley India Services Pvt. Ltd. – Order No.A/85150- 85151/2018 dated 29.1.2018. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and perusal of the records, I find that
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (7) TMI 695 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Classification of services – Letting out the studio for the purpose of film shooting – Whether classifiable under the category of Renting of immovable property service or under the category of Video Tape Production Service – Held that:- The Tribunal in the appellant’s own case M/S. AVM STUDIOS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI [2018 (4) TMI 1098 – CESTAT CHENNAI] has analyzed the issue and arrived at the conclusion that the activity does not fall under the category of video tape production service – Further, the assessees are also discharging service tax on the said activity under renting of immovable property service with effect from 1.6.2007.
–
Demand set aside – appeal dismissed –
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
to demand service tax along with interest and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed penalties. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, interest but however set aside the penalties. Aggrieved by the demand and interest, the assessee has filed Appeal No. ST/388/2010 and the department being aggrieved with the setting aside of penalty has filed appeal No. ST/366/2010. 2. On behalf of the assessee, ld. counsel Ms. Cynduja Crishnan submitted that the issue stands covered by the decision rendered in the assessee s own case vide Final Order No. 43507/2017 dated 19.12.2017 wherein the Tribunal has held the issue in favourof the assessee. 3. The ld. AR Shri K
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (10) TMI 1238 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (17) G. S. T. L. 373 (All.) – Seizure order u/s 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 – penalty u/s 129(3) of the said Act – Transaction Declaration Form (T.D.F.) was not attached with the consignments – Held that:- The issue is settled in the case of SATYENDRA GOODS TRANSPORT CORP. THRU. PROP. BHUWAN KOHLI & A VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. TAX & REGISTRATION & OTHERS [2018 (4) TMI 807 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], where it was held that On the relevant date i.e. 17.12.2017 there was no requirement of carrying T.D.F. Form-1 in the case of an inter-State supply of goods. In fact on the relevant date there was no prescription of the documents to be carried in this regard under Rule 138 of the C.G.S.T. Act 2017, accordingly, the seizure and penalty imposed upon the petitioners based on the notification dated 21.7.2017 issued under Rule 138 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017, which was not applicable, is clearly illegal.
–
The impugned seizure
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Section 129(3) of the said Act. Facts are that petitioner-consignor in pursuance of an order issued to it for supply of 1936 Units of Biscuits for the consignee booked the consignments through Ajay Road Lines, Gwalior (M.P.) which were being transported on vehicle No. HR-55 S-7077 and Challan No.6037 dated 21.03.2018 was generated. The consignments were duly accompanied by E-way Bill from the web portal of the Central Government containing the details of the consignor, consignee, challan number and other requisite documents having validity upto 28.03.2018. However, the Transaction Declaration Form (T.D.F.) was not attached with the consignments. The goods were being moved from Gwalior (M.P.) to Zirkpur (Punjab) and while the vehicle was passing through State of U.P. (Agra), it was intercepted by the respondent no. 2 on 23.03.2018 at around at 8-30 a.m. and an interception memo was drawn and the vehicle was seized on the ground that the goods loaded on the vehicle were being transporte
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ner relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court, at Lucknow, rendered in Misc. Bench No.5536 of 2018, Satyendra Goods Transport Corporation through Prop. Bhuwan Kohli & another Vs. State of U.P. and others thru. Principal Secretary Tax & Registration & others, dated 13.04.2018 wherein it has been held as under : " Furthermore, we find that alongwith the consignment of goods the driver was carrying an invoice which mentioned that the goods were being taken from the State of Uttarakhand to the State of West Bengal, therefore, as of now, it was an inter-State trade and there is nothing on record to show otherwise. The assertion that I.G.S.T. had already been paid, has also not been denied by the opposite parties nor that both the consignor and consignee are registered dealers. Moreover, the requisite details having been mentioned in the invoice etc. the same would be verified at the point of destination and accordingly the matter would be scrutinized as regards th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST – Started By: – Archna Gupta – Dated:- 23-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 10-1-2019 – Dear experts One company is in business of export of services (no domestic supplies). initially it exported services on payment of IGST. It utilised ITC at the time of payment of IGST on export of services. Later it applied for LUT and after that all supplies were done under LUT without payment of IGST. Since then it has huge balance of ITC in its credit ledger. ITC includes ITC on Inputs, Input services and capital goods (approx 40 lacs). As per Rule 89, the company can claim refund of ITC on Inputs and input services only and the accumulated balance of ITC on capital goods will remain as it is. Please suggest what action can be suggested to company to sa
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
refund claim under Rule 89(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 read with Section 54 (1) of GST Act,2017. However, till date the same is not available on portal but may be in future. Our experts may correct me if mistaken. – Reply By Archna Gupta – The Reply = Dear Alkesh ji Under Rule 89 in case of export we can claim refund of unutilised ITC on Inputs and input services only and not on capital goods. – Reply By Alkesh Jani – The Reply = Sir/Madam, For more clarity let me reproduced the relevant rules of CGST Rules:- 89 (1) Any person, except the persons covered under notification issued under section 55, claiming refund of any tax, interest, penalty, fees or any other amount paid by him, other than refund of integrated tax paid on goods exported out of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – GST – Dated:- 23-4-2018 – As per the decision of the GST Council, e-Way Bill system for Inter-State movement of goods has been rolled-out from 01st April, 2018. As on 20th April, 2018, e-Way Bill system for Intra-State movement of goods has been rolled-out in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Telangana, Tripura, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. E-Way Bills are getting generated successfully and till 22ndApril, 2018 more than one crore eighty four lakh e-Way Bills have been successfully generated which includes more than twenty two lakh e-Way Bills for Intra-State movement of Goods. It is hereby inform
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Procedure to issue E-way Bill – Bill To Ship To model under GST – TMI Updates – Highlights
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – GST – Dated:- 23-4-2018 – A number of representations have been received seeking clarifications in relation to requirement of e-Way Bill for Bill To Ship To model of supplies. In a typical Bill To Ship To model of supply, there are three persons involved in a transaction, namely: A is the person who has ordered B to send goods directly to C . B is the person who is sending goods directly to C on behalf of A . C is the recipient of goods. 2. In this complete scenario two supplies are involved and accordingly two tax invoices are required to be issued: Invoice -1, which would be issued by B to A . Invoice -2 which would be issued by A to C . 3. Queries have been raised as to who would generate the e-Way Bill for the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Deepa Praveen – Dated:- 23-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 28-4-2018 – Facts: ABC Medical Sciences is a Partnership Firm engaged in Health Care Services. A new Company, PQR Healthcare Co Pvt. Ltd has been formed as a Private Limited Company , for the management of ABC Medical Sciences. All the partners of ABC Medical Science are either directors or major shareholders of the new company. PQR Healthcare Co Pvt. Ltd is willing to enter into an agreement with ABC Medical Science whereby PQR Healthcare Co Pvt. Ltd shall takeover Plant & Machinery and Land of ABC Medical Science, having market value of ₹ 40 crores at a monthly lease rent of ₹ 1.5 lakhs, in addition to interest free refundable Lea
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ance of litigation in future with respect to value of supply? Does acceptance of lease rent deposit of ₹ 20 crore which is nearly 50% of the market value of asset to be leased, justify the lower lease rent. Should ABC Medical Sciences go for GST registration , as the turnover of KIMS is only from Lease Rent which is less than threshold limit of ₹ 20 Lakhs? – Reply By Alkesh Jani – The Reply = Sir/Madam,In my point of view, the reply is as follows:-1. Deposit given in respect of the supply of goods or services or both shall not be considered as payment made for such supply unless the supplier applies such deposit as consideration for the said supply i.e. to say if the said deposit will be appropriated against the pending rent, th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – MohanLal tiwari – Dated:- 23-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 29-4-2018 – Dear experts,We have dispatched / removed consignments on 29th & 30th March but transporter has kept the same in their godown due to year end pressure and non availability of vehicles. Now transporting is dispatching the goods, please advise :1. There was no compulsion of way bill up to 31st March, no way bill was generated by us.2. Now transporter should generate e-Way bill from their
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Yatin Bhopi – Dated:- 23-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 30-4-2018 – We have wrongly availed excise duty credit in the month of May 2017 and same has been reflected in May 17 ER-1. now we want to reverse the wrong credit. I tried to reverse the credit in GSTR-3B in table 4, under column B, ITC reversed 2) Others. I inserted reversible amount in CGST column (since Trans Credit pertaining to excise and service tax had been reflected in CGST. but when I input figure in CGST, portal automatically posting the same figure in SGST column and not allowing to delete figures in SGST due to this reversible figure is getting dabbled. Please let me know whether it is correct to reverse the excise duty credit in said co
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Praveen Nair – Dated:- 23-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 28-4-2018 – Dear Experts,Kindly suggest whether Canteen Services Provider, an outside agency providing exclusive service to a factory – providing food to the employees, be registered as a Composite Tax Dealer?Currently he is registered as a Outdoor Catering Service provider and charges GST at applicable rate.ThanksPravin Nair – Reply By Alkesh Jani – The Reply = Sir, In this regards, my point of view is that, person supplying outdoor catering service cannot opt for composition scheme in terms of Section 10(2)(a) of the CGST Act,2017. This query is raised with regards to sub-clause (b) of Para 6 of Schedule -II. The said sub-clause deals with registe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Shankar Nayakar – Dated:- 23-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 28-4-2018 – Sir,Now E-way bill is mandatory for Gujarat.Suppose vendor sent material exceeding rs. 50,000, but he did not create and provide E-Way Biil.In this scenario what should we do ?can we accept the material with out E-Way bill or reject ? – Reply By Praveen Nair – The Reply = Dear Shankar, Moving goods without the cover of an invoice and E-way bill constitutes an offence and attracts a penalty of ₹ 10,000 or the tax sought to be evaded (whichever is greater). Hence, the bare minimum penalty that is levied for not complying the rules is ₹ 10,000. The vehicle that is found to be transporting the goods without an E-way bill can b
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Seizure of goods – E-Way Bill itself was downloaded on 07.01.2017 i.e. four days after the seizure has been made – petition dismissed – HC – TMI Updates – Highlights
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
