Issue related to classification and GST rate on Terracotta idols.

Issue related to classification and GST rate on Terracotta idols.
13/2017-2018-GST Dated:- 7-2-2018 Goa SGST
GST – States
Government of Goa
Department of Commercial Taxes
Vikrikar Bhavan,
Panaji – Goa – 403001
CCT/26-4/2017-2018/5150
Dated: 7th February, 2018
CIRCULAR
(No. 13/2017-2018-GST)
Subject: Issue related to classification and GST rate on Terracotta idols-regarding
The GST rate on Idols made of clay is Nil. (Sl.No. 135A of Schedule notification 38/1/2017-Fin(R&C)(2/2017

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Clarifications regarding GST on College Hostel Mess Fees

Clarifications regarding GST on College Hostel Mess Fees
18/2017-2018-GST Dated:- 7-2-2018 Goa SGST
GST – States
Government of Goa
Department of Commercial Taxes
Vikrikar Bhavan,
Panaji – Goa – 403001
Ph: 0832-2229430
CCT/26-4/2017-2018/5155
Dated: 7th February , 2018
CIRCULAR
(No. 18/2017-2018-GST)
Subject: reg.
The educational institutions have mess facility for providing food to their students and staff. Such facility is either run by the institution/ students themselves or is outsourced to a third person. Supply of food or drink provided by a mess or canteen is taxable at 5% without Input Tax Credit [Serial No. 7(i) of Notification No. 38/1/2017-Fin(R&C)(11/2017-Rate) dated 30.06.2017, published in the Extraordinary

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Clarification regarding applicability of GST on Polybutylene feedstock and Liquefied Petroleum Gas retained for the manufacture of Poly Iso Butylene and Propylene or Di-butyl para Cresol.

Clarification regarding applicability of GST on Polybutylene feedstock and Liquefied Petroleum Gas retained for the manufacture of Poly Iso Butylene and Propylene or Di-butyl para Cresol.
19/2017-2018-GST Dated:- 7-2-2018 Goa SGST
GST – States
Government of Goa
Department of Commercial Taxes
Vikrikar Bhavan,
Panaji -Goa-403001
Dated: 7th February, 2018
CIRCULAR
(No. 19/2017-2018-GST)
Subject: Clarification regarding applicability of GST on Polybutylene feedstock and Liquefied Petroleum Gas retained for the manufacture of Poly Iso Butylene and Propylene or Di-butyl para Cresol – Regarding.
The principal raw materials for manufacture of Propylene or Di-butyl para Cresol and Poly Iso Butylene goods are Liquefied Petroleum Gas

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of net quantity of polybutylene feedstock and liquefied petroleum gas retained for the manufacture of Poly Iso Butylene and Propylene or Di-butyl Para Cresol.
4. Accordingly, it is hereby clarified that, in the aforesaid cases, GST will be payable by the refinery only on the net quantity of Polybutylene feedstock and Liquefied Petroleum Gas retained by the manufacturer for the manufacture of Poly Iso Butylene and Propylene or Di-butyl para Cresol. Though, the refinery would be liable to pay GST on such returned quantity of Polybutylene feedstock and Liquefied Petroleum Gas, when the same is supplied by it to any other person.
5. This clarification is issued in the context of the Goods and Service Tax (GST) law only and past issues, if an

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Filing of Returns under GST

Filing of Returns under GST
20/2017-2018-GST Dated:- 7-2-2018 Goa SGST
GST – States
=============
Document 1
Government of Goa
Department of Commercial Taxes
Vikrikar Bhavan,
Panaji – Goa – 403001

email: comm-ctax.goa@nic.in
Dated: 7th February, 2018
Ph: 0832-2229430
CCT/26-4/2017-2018/5/57
CIRCULAR
(No. 20/2017-2018-GST)
Subject: Filing of Returns under GST- regarding
Various representations have been received seeking clarifications on
various aspects of return filing such as return filing dates, applicability and
quantum of late fee, amendment of errors in submitting / filing of FORM GSTR-
3B and other related queries. In order to consolidate the information in various
notifications and circulars regarding return filing and to ensure uniformity in
implementation across field formations, the Commissioner, in exercise of its
powers conferred under section 168 (1) of the Goa Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 hereby clarifies the following issue

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ublished in Official Gazette.
Series II No. 40 dated 04th January, 2018. (superseding Notification No.
38/1/2017-Fin(R&C) (31) dated 23rd November, 2017, published in
Extraordinary Official Gazette, Series 1 No. 34 dated 23rd November, 2017
and CCT/26-2/2017-18/22 dated 15th November, 2017, published in
Extraordinary Official Gazette No. 2, Series II No. 32 dated 15th
November, 2017) have been issued to notify the due dates for filing of
outward supply statement in FORM GSTR-1 for various months / quarters
(as depicted in the calendar above) by registered persons having aggregate
turnover in the previous financial year or current financial year of upto 1.5
Crores rupees and above 1.5 Crores rupees respectively. Since, the option
of quarterly filing was not available earlier, many taxpayers have already
filed their FORM GSTR-1 for the month of July, such taxpayers shall not
file these details again and shall only file details for the month of August
and September, 2017. Fo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 2(6) of the Goa Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 (hereinafter referred as ” Goa GST Act”) for the previous financial
year or the current financial year (in case of new registrants). Based on this
self-assessed turnover, the registered person with turnover up to Rs. 1.5
Crore will be required to file FORM GSTR-1 on quarterly basis instead of
on monthly basis. It is also clarified that the registered person may opt to
file FORM GSTR-1 on monthly basis if he so wishes even though his
aggregate turnover is up to Rs. 1.5 Crore. Once he falls in this bracket or if
he chooses to file return on monthly basis, the registered person will not
have the option to change the return filing periodicity for the entire financial
year. In cases, where the registered person wrongly reports his aggregate
turnover and opts to file FORM GSTR-1 on quarterly basis, he may be
liable for punitive action under the Goa GST Act, 2017.
2.Applicability and quantum of late fee:
2.1 The late fee f

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

n of errors:
COMMISSIONER
GOVT. O
L-GOA
3.1 Various representations have been received wherein registered persons have
requested for clarification on the procedure for rectification of errors made
3
TAXES
*
while filing their FORM GSTR-3B. In this regard, Circular No. 2/2017-
2018-GST dated 7th February, 2018 was issued which clarified that errors
committed while filing FORM GSTR – 3B may be rectified while filing
FORM GSTR-1 and FORM GSTR-2 of the same month. Further, in the
said circular, it was clarified that the system will automatically reconcile the
data submitted in FORM GSTR-3B with FORM GSTR-1 and FORM
GSTR-2, and the variations if any will either be offset against output tax
liability or added to the output tax liability of the subsequent months of the
registered person.
3.2 Since, the GST Council has decided that the time period of filing of FORM
GSTR-2 and FORM GSTR -3 for the month of July 2017 to March 2018
would be worked out by a Committee of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he output tax liability or input
tax credit, there can be no negative entries in the FORM GSTR-3B. The
amount remaining for adjustment, if any, may be adjusted in the return(s)
in FORM GSTR3B of subsequent month(s) and, in cases where such
adjustment is not feasible, refund may be claimed. Where adjustments have
been made in FORM GSTR-3B of multiple months, corresponding
adjustments in FORM GSTR-1 should also preferably be made in the
corresponding months.
TAXES
COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL
GOVT. OF GOA, PANAJI-GOA
4
5. Where the taxpayer has committed an error in submitting (before offsetting
and filing) the information in FORM GSTR-3B, a provision for editing the
same has been provided. The facility to edit the information can be used
only before offsetting the liability and editing will not be permitted after
offsetting the liability. Hence, every care should be taken to ensure the
accuracy of the figures before proceeding to offset the liabilities.
6.
It is further

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

I
Liability was
under
reported
Change in
FORM
GSTR-1
Stage 1
Confirmed submission
Return liabilities / Input tax credit
availed were confirmed and
submitted and therefore no change
can be done to the liability. No
action was taken after this step.
Use “Edit” facility to add under
reported liability
Company A has four units in
Haryana, while filing their return
for the month of July, they
inadvertently, missed on details of
a last minute order. Since, they had
already submitted and confirmed
their output supply details, they
were not sure of how to proceed.
What can they do?
The company may use the edit
return” facility to add such liability
in their submitted return and then
proceed for filing of their return
|
Stage of Return Filing (GSTR – 3B)
Stage 2
Cash ledger updated
Cash was added to the electronic cash ledger as per
the return liability. No action was taken after this
step.
Use “Edit” facility to add such liability and
additional cash, if re

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

quent month(s) after payment of
interest.
Company A has four units in Haryana,
while filing their return for the month of
July, they inadvertently, missed on details
of a last minute order. The Company had
filed their returns in order to not pay late
fee and other penalties. What can they do?
In this case, they may report this
additional liability in the return of next
month and pay tax with interest.
If such liability was not reported in FORM GSTR-1 of the month/quarter, then such liability may be declared in the subsequent
month's/quarter's FORM GSTR-1 in which payment was made.
COMISSIONER
OF
COMMERCIAL
TAXES
GOVT. OF GOA
RENENGOA
6
Common
Error II

Liability was
over reported
Stage 1
Confirmed submission
Return liabilities / Input tax credit availed
were confirmed and submitted and therefore
no change can be done to the liability. No
action was taken after this step.
Stage of Return Filing (GSTR – 3B)
Stage 2
Cash ledger updated
Cash was added to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he company
had already deposited cash in their cash
ledger before realizing this error. What can
company B do?
In this case, Company B has the option to
use the “edit” facility to reduce such
liability. Once, this is done, they can
partially debit their cash ledger to offset
their tax liability. Further, remaining
balance can either be claimed as refund or
used to offset future liabilities.
Stage 3
Offset Liability
Stage 4
Return Filed
All liabilities were offset Return was filed.
by debiting the cash and
credit ledger. No action
was taken after this step.
Liability may be adjusted in return of subsequent
month(s) or refund may be claimed where adjustment
is not feasible.
Company B had reported an inter-State sale but
realized that the same sale was counted twice and
hence was not to be reported or taxed. But the return
form was already filed and no change could be done
to reduce the liabilities. What can company B do?
In this case, they may reduce this liabi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

g balance, if any may
be either claimed as refund or used to offset
future liabilities.
Company C is registered in the State of
Haryana. While entering their outward
supplies in FORM GSTR-3B, the company
| realized that they had inadvertently, shown
inter-State supply as intra-state supply and
submitted the return. Further, they also had
updated their Central Tax and State tax cash
Company C is registered in the State of
Haryana. While entering their outward
supplies in FORM GSTR3B, the company
realized that they had inadvertently, shown
inter-State supply as intra-State supply and
submitted the return. What can they do?
In this case, the company will have to rectify | ledgers. What can they do?
wrongly reported liability using the edit
facility. Here, the company will reduce their
Central Tax / State tax supplies and liability
and add integrated tax liability and proceed
to file their return.
In this case, the company will have to rectify
wrongly reported liabil

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

filed their return in order to avoid late fee and
penalty? What can they do? Since, the return
has already been filed, then the company will
have to report the inter-state supply in their next
month's liability and adjust their wrongly paid
intra-State liability in the subsequent months
returns or claim refund of the same.
Such taxpayers will have to file for amendments by filling Table 9 of the subsequent month's / quarter's FORM GSTR-1.
TAXES
COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL
GOVT. OF GOA AVAJAGO
00
8
Common
Error
IV
Input Tax
credit was
under
reported
Change in
Stage 1
Confirmed submission
Stage of Return Filing (GSTR-3B)
Return liabilities / Input tax credit availed were
confirmed and submitted and therefore no
change can be done to the liability. No action
was taken after this step.
Use 'Edit” facility to add un-availed input tax
credit. Input tax Credit will be added to the
credit ledger and may be used for offsetting this
month or subsequent month's lia

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

this month
or for subsequent months.
No Action
GSTR – 3B for the month of July,
inadvertently, misreported Input tax
credit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as Rs.
10,00,000/-. They had filed their return
and paid Rs. 90,00,000/- in cash. What
can they do?
Since, the return has already been filed,
Company D may add such Input tax
credit in their return for subsequent
month(s).
FORM
GSTR-1
CONERS SIGNER
GOVT. OF
ان من
COMMERCIAL
-GO
TAXES
9
Common
Error – V
Input tax
credit was
over
reported
Change in
FORM
GSTR-1
Stage 1
Confirmed submission
Return liabilities / Input tax credit availed
were confirmed and submitted and
therefore no change can be done to the
liability. No action was taken after this
step.
Stage of Return Filing (GSTR – 3B)
Stage 2
Cash ledger updated
Cash was added to the electronic cash ledger as
per the return liability. No action was taken
after this step.
Use “Edit” facility to rectify the over Additional cash, if requir

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

osit additional Rs. 10,00,000/- in
the cash ledger by creating challan in FORM
GST PMT-06.
No Action
Stage 3
Offset Liability
All liabilities were offset
by debiting the cash and
credit ledger. No action
was taken after this step.
Stage 4
Return Filed
Return was filed.
Pay (through cash) / Reverse such over
reported input tax credit with interest in return
of subsequent month (s).
While filing their FORM GSTR 3B for the
months of July, 2017, Company E
inadvertently, reported their eligible input tax
credit, as Rs. 20,00,000/- instead of Rs.
10,00,000/-. Company E also utilized their
additional input tax credit and filed their
returns. What can they do?
Since, the company had utilized ineligible
credit to offset such liabilities, the company
will have to pay (through cash) / Reverse such
over reported utilized input tax credit with
interest.
10
GOUT OF COP
Common Error
– VI
Input Tax
Credit of the
wrong tax was
taken
Change in
FORM GSTR-1
Stage 1
C

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

for
the months of July, 2017, Company E
inadvertently, reported their Central
Tax credit of Rs. 20,00,000/- as
Integrated tax. What can they do?
They can use “edit” facility to correct
central tax credit under the right head.
For offsetting any integrated tax
liability, additional cash may be
deposited in the cash ledger by creating
challan in FORM GST PMT-06.
No Action
|
Stage 3
Stage 4
Return Filed
Offset Liability
All liabilities were offset by Return
debiting the cash and credit filed.
ledger. No action was taken after
this step.
was
Pay(through cash) / Reverse any wrongly reported
input tax credit in return of subsequent month(s).
For under reported input tax credit, the same may
be availed in return of subsequent month(s).
While filing their FORM GSTR 3B for the months
of July, 2017, Company E inadvertently, reported
their Central Tax credit of Rs. 20,00,000/- as
Integrated tax credit. In order to avoid late fee and
penalties, they paid Rs. 20

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Clarifications regarding GST on College Hostel Mess Fees.

Clarifications regarding GST on College Hostel Mess Fees.
Trade Notice No. 18/2017-18 Dated:- 7-2-2018 Madhya Pradesh SGST
GST – States
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, GOODS & SERVICES TAX HQRS.
GST BHAWAN, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) 482001
C.No. IV(16)01/Trade Notice/HQ/Tech/2017-18
Trade Notice No. 18/2017-18
Dated 07.02.2018
Clarifications regarding GST on College Hostel Mess Fees – Reg.
Kind attention is invited to Circular No.28/02/2018-GST dated 08.01.2018 issued under F.No.35

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

USA Company – US Citizen- Living India more than 3 years

USA Company – US Citizen- Living India more than 3 years
Query (Issue) Started By: – Prime Edge Dated:- 6-2-2018 Last Reply Date:- 14-3-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 10 Replies
GST
Hello,
I am USA Citizen. I have Tax return filing Firm in USA. Its LLC sole proprietorship. Its single member only company. I am the member. I run that company from India for USA Clients and Money goes to that company and later that money comes to member of that company. That means money will come back to me. I file the tax return in India and Report the income. Do I have to file GST as LUT? As far as I feel that since money is going to Company, I don't have to deal with GST.
Please assist on this query.
Thanks.
Reply By Rajagopalan R

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ports of goods or services or both and inter-State supplies of persons having the same Permanent Account Number, to be computed on all India basis but excludes Central tax, State tax, Union Territory tax, Integrated tax and Cess.
The value of following supplies shall be taken into account while computing the limit of ₹ 20 Lakh/ ₹ 10 Lakh.
(a)
Value of all taxable supplies excluding the value of inward supplies
(b)
Value of exempted supplies
(c)
Value of export goods or services or both
(d)
Value of inter-State supplies of persons having same Permanent Account Number to be computed on all India basis
Thus in view of the above legal position and in view of your turnover in the preceding year as well as this year, you can

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tributed to member of Partnership LLC company. Do I still fall into GST registration and filing GST Return?
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Company is treated as a person. One irrespective of members in a. Company. If you talk of partnership firm, it is one.
Reply By Prime Edge:
The Reply:
i think I didn't explain my company structure.
Prime Edge LLC(USA Based)
Member 1 : Janak Shah
Member 2: Akshay Shah
Both members are based on India. Prime Edge LLC is providing service tax return filing to USA based Customers. Both members are paying the taxes to India for the profit which coming from LLC.
Based on my understanding both members are not required to file GST even revenue goes more than ₹ 20 lakh. Please confirm it.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund of GST paid against supply to SEZ units

Refund of GST paid against supply to SEZ units
Query (Issue) Started By: – MohanLal tiwari Dated:- 6-2-2018 Last Reply Date:- 8-2-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 4 Replies
GST
Dear Experts,
We have supplied goods during July'17 to SEZ unit on payment of applicable IGST, our SEZ customer had initially paid the IGST charged in bill but later on recovered asking to claim refund.
Kindly advise procedure with rulings & forms if any for claiming refund of IGST paid on supplies to SEZ units.
Reply By Rajagopalan Ranganathan:
The Reply:
sir,
According to second proviso to rule 89 (1) of CGST rules, 2017 "in respect of supplies to a Special Economic Zone unit or a Special Economic Zone developer, the application for

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

TRA:
The Reply:
GST RFD-01 is to be filed online as duty will be debited at common portal by doing so and ARN shall be generated. Application with supporting documents is to be filed manually with jurisdictional GST officer.
Reply By Gorantla Bhaskar Rao:
The Reply:
Dear sir,
I agree with the above experts. However, as of now due to non-availability of the refund module on the common portal, manual filing and processing of refund claims in respect of zero-rated supplies was prescribed vide CBEC circular 17/17/2017-GST Dt.15.11.2017. Accordingly, the application for refund of integrated tax (IGST) paid on zero-rated supply of goods to SEZ developer/SEZ unit is required to be filed in Form GST RFD-01A (as notified in the CGST Rules vide N

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

RCM & FCM METHOD FOR TRANSPORTER

RCM & FCM METHOD FOR TRANSPORTER
Query (Issue) Started By: – MANAV KEDIA Dated:- 6-2-2018 Last Reply Date:- 6-2-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 2 Replies
GST
CAN A TRANSPORTER REGISTERED IN DIFFERENT STATES OPT FOR FCM IN ONE STATE AND RCM IN ANOTHER STATE and WHAT WILL BE THE PROCEDURE TO TAKE INPUT TAX CREDIT ?
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani:
The Reply:
The service provider is exempted from taking registration if the service provided by him is covered under reverse charge notif

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST ON SUPPLY OF USED MOTOR VEHICLE BY TRANSPORTER

GST ON SUPPLY OF USED MOTOR VEHICLE BY TRANSPORTER
Query (Issue) Started By: – MANAV KEDIA Dated:- 6-2-2018 Last Reply Date:- 26-2-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 5 Replies
GST
WHAT WILL BE GST RATE ON SUPPLY OF USED MOTOR VEHICLE BY TRANSPORTER AND ALSO RELEVANT NOTIFICATION ?
Reply By CS SANJAY MALHOTRA:
The Reply:
IGST Notification No 09/2018 w.e.f. 25/01/18
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani:
The Reply:
Great relief is given by the Govt by reducing the tax rate.
Reply By CS SA

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax Settlement of Funds (Amendment) Rules, 2018

Goods and Services Tax Settlement of Funds (Amendment) Rules, 2018
F. No. 31013/16/2017-ST-I-DoR – G.S.R. 145(E) Dated:- 6-2-2018 Central GST (CGST)
GST
CGST
CGST
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 6th February, 2018
G.S.R. 145(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 53 read with section 17 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), sections 17 and 18 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (13 of 2017) and section 21 of the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (14 of 2017), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the Goods and Services Tax Settlement of Funds Rules, 2017, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be c

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Abicor and Binzel Technoweld Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India and Anr.

Abicor and Binzel Technoweld Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India and Anr.
GST
2018 (2) TMI 766 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – 2018 (10) G. S. T. L. 18 (Bom.) , [2018] 2 GSTL 37 (Bom)
BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 6-2-2018
Writ Petition (L) No. 2230 of 2018
GST
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.
Mr. Vinayak Patkar with Mr. Ishaan Patkar and Mr. G.Y. Patwardhan i/b Ms. Roshni Naik for the petitioner.
Mr. Sonpal with Mr. B.V. Samant, AGP for respondent no.2. Mr. Jitendra Mishra for respondent no.1.
P.C.:
The petitioner has brought before this Court his grievance and it is little peculiar.
2. The petitioner says that it is a company engaged in manufacturing of robotic and automation equipment. The 1st respondent is the Union of India through the Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Pune and the 2nd respondent is the State of Maharashtra through the Commissioner of State Goods and Services Tax.  
3. The purpose of filing this petition is bec

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tioner from securing the final registration number. In the absence thereof, the petitioner is exposed to interest liability and may have to face even penal consequences. Importantly, the petitioner as well as its customers are unable to avail input tax credit mechanism.
5. The writ petition was filed in this Court and after its filing, notice was issued. On the earlier occasion, only the learned AGP representing the State Goods and Services Tax Commissioner appeared before us. After notice, Mr. Mishra is instructed to appear for respondent no.1.
6. The petitioner says that after filing of this petition, on 25th January 2018, it has been allowed access to the online profile. However, even this access is not complete. The petitioner was granted the final registration number and the profile was made operational, but the petitioner could not file the necessary return, and particularly the Return GSTR-3B, and the payment of tax is not possible without this return. This return is not being

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

r would be projected and raised before the Council or not, Mr. Mishra could not give us a definite answer. All that Mr. Mishra says is that he may be granted two weeks' time to take instructions and file affidavit.
10. We do not think that these are satisfactory state of affairs. A tax like Goods and Services Tax was highly publicised and termed as popular. We had yet not seen a celebration of New Tax regime, but that has followed with great hue and cry. These celebrations mean nothing. The special sessions of Parliament or special or extraordinary meetings of Council would mean nothing to the assessees unless they obtain easy access to the website and portals. The regime is not tax friendly. We hope and trust that those in charge of implementation and administration of this law will at least now wake up and put in place the requisite mechanism.
This is necessary to preserve the image, prestige and reputation of this country, particularly when we are inviting and welcoming foreig

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Versus Shri Dheeraj Lulla

Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Versus Shri Dheeraj Lulla
Central Excise
2018 (2) TMI 921 – MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – TMI
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 6-2-2018
CEA No. 41 of 2017
Central Excise
P. K. Jaiswal And Virender Singh, JJ.
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant
ORDER
This appeal under Section 35-G (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been filed by the Revenue against order dated 11.01.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, by which the learned Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee filed against order dated 26.07.2012 passed in Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Indore, whereby the assessee was denied benefit of CENVAT credit on input and input services.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has made a statement at Bar that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the order dated 31.01.2018 passed in Central

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

actures of Cement & Clinker falling under Sub-Heading No.25.23 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986). They are availing CENVAT Credit facility on inputs capital goods and input services under Rules 2 and 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. On the basis of departmental audit carried out in September, 2005, it was alleged that several input services for which CENVAT Credit has been allowed, would not be eligible for the same and show cause notice was issued. The Original Authority dismissed CENVAT Credit on various input services to the extent of Rs. 28,24,034/-. Vide order dated 30.03.2007 (Annexure-C) First Appellate Authority – Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Indore allowed the CENVAT Credit to the tune of Rs. 27,57,759/- and upheld the demand to the tune of Rs. 1,16,280/-.
3. The Revenue aggrieved by the aforesaid order, challenged the same by filing appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal. Credit has been taken as distributed by

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

y covered by a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Cadile Health Care v. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 2010 (17) STR 134 (Tribunal Ahmedabad) and held that denial of credit for these services is not legally sustainable and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.
4. Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that one appeal against order passed by the Delhi High Court on 08.03.2017 in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-I etc. v. M/s. Space Telelink Limited & another has been filed before the Apex Court and the aforesaid matter is pending, and therefore, till the matter is decided, it cannot be said that the issue has been finally decided by the Courts of law.
5. It is not in dispute that the claims of CENVAT Credit was held to be admissible and penalty imposed was set aside by the Gujarat High Court as well as other High Courts. Gujarat High Court took note of the revenue's contention with regard to the justification of Rule 8 (3A). It wa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the fact, which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the Revenue, that the matter has been decided and appeal has been dismissed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I v. Space Telelink Limited reported in 2017 (355) ELT 189 (Delhi) by giving following reasons in paragraphs No.6, 7 and 8, which read, as under: –
“6. This Court also notices that the Indsur Global Ltd. (supra) decision had cited and relied upon the decision in Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of India 1999 (106) ELT 3 (SC) as well as upon the decision in Collector v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. 1999 (112) ELT 353 (SC). In Dai Ichi (supra), the Court held as follows: –
“17. It is clear from these Rules, as we read them, that a manufacturer obtains credit for the excise duty paid on raw material to be used by him in the production of an excisable product immediately it makes the requisite declaration and obtains an acknowledgment thereof. It is entitled to use the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

le.
18. It is, therefore, that in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of India [1999(106) ELT 3] this Court said that a credit under the MODVAT scheme was as good as tax paid.”
7. The revenue has argued that the Supreme Court has entertained a Special Leave Petition against the judgment of Gujarat and Madras High Courts and furthermore, granted a stay of proceedings and that in these circumstances, the law declared in those judgments are no longer applicable. This submission is fallacious because in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association (1992) 3 SCC 1, the Supreme Court had observed as follows: –
“While considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of opera

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

at the passing of the interim order dated February 21, 1991 by the Delhi High Court staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority dated January 7, 1991 does not have the effect of reviving the appeal which had been dismissed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated January 7, 1991 and it cannot be said that after February 21, 1991, the said appeal stood revived and was pending before the Appellate Authority.”
8. It is apparent therefore, that an order keeping in abeyance the judgment of a lower Court or authority does not deface the underlying basis of the judgment itself, i.e., its reasoning.”
7. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the law on the issue is well settled by various High Courts. No case to interfere with order dated 02.06.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal, as prayed for, is made out, nor any substantial question of law is arising in this appeal.
8. Central Excise Appeal No.32/2016 filed by the Revenue has no merit, and is acco

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. Versus Stae of U.P.

M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. Versus Stae of U.P.
GST
2018 (3) TMI 678 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (10) G. S. T. L. 133 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 6-2-2018
Misc. Bench No. -31799 of 2017
GST
Mr. Rajan Roy And Rajesh Singh Chauhan, JJ.
For The Petitioner : Aditya Pandey,Bipin Kumar Pandey,Vaibhav Pandey
For The Respondent : C. S. C., A. S. G.
ORDER
Heard.
The petitioners have approached this Court against the order of the seizure dated 05.12.2017 passed by the proper Officer under Section 129 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 read with Section 7 of the same Act.
As regards the contention of the petitioners on merits as to his liability to tax etc. these are issues which would be considered either in the pe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

REJI KURIAN Versus THE STATE TAX OFFICER GOODS & SERVICE TAXES, MATTANCHERRY, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOODS & SERVICE TAXES, (FORMERLY COMMERCIAL TAXES) AND THE COMMISSIOENR OF GOODS & SERVICE TAXES (FORMERLY COMMERCIAL TAXES), THIRUVANANTHAPURA

REJI KURIAN Versus THE STATE TAX OFFICER GOODS & SERVICE TAXES, MATTANCHERRY, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOODS & SERVICE TAXES, (FORMERLY COMMERCIAL TAXES) AND THE COMMISSIOENR OF GOODS & SERVICE TAXES (FORMERLY COMMERCIAL TAXES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
VAT and Sales Tax
2018 (6) TMI 1129 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2018 (13) G. S. T. L. 260 (Ker.)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 6-2-2018
W.P. (C). No. 2384 of 2018
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
MR. P. B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
For The Petitioner : Sri. Aji V. Dev, Sri. M.G. Shaji And Smt.O.A. Nuriya
For The Respondents : Sri. V. K. Shamsudheen
JUDGMENT
Petitioner along with others was carrying on business in partnership in the name 'Vibgyor Digital Colour Lab'. The firm of the petitio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the firm is no longer doing business since 31.07.2011. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no communication thereafter to the firm from the Department. While so, it is stated that the petitioner has received notice under the Revenue Recovery Act for realization of amounts payable under the Act, and the enquiries made by the petitioner thereafter revealed that proceedings have been initiated by the first respondent against the firm after Ext.P3 notice under Section 25(1) of the Act, for assessing the escaped turnover of the petitioner for the year 2011-12 and an assessment order has been passed pursuant to the said proceedings, on 20/03/2017. Ext.P6 is the order passed by the first respondent in this connection and the said order

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

heir business address and the firm has responded to the said notice. It is submitted that in so far as the firm has received Ext.P3 notice earlier sent, they cannot be heard to contend that they have not received the notice issued prior to Ext.P6 order. It was also pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the registration of the firm of the petitioner is yet to be cancelled and on that ground also, they cannot contend that they have not received the notice sent in the business address of the firm .
5. True, in so far as one of the partners of the firm is doing business with others in the very same premises, they must have received Ext.P3 notice. But, that does not mean that they should always get the notices sent in that address.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Versus Endo Labs Ltd.

Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Versus Endo Labs Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (2) TMI 1755 – MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – TMI
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 6-2-2018
CEA No.40 of 2017
Central Excise
P. K. Jaiswal And Virender Singh JJ.
For the Appellant : Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel
ORDER
This appeal under Section 35-G (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been filed by the Revenue against order dated 11.01.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, by which the learned Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee filed against order dated 26.07.2012 passed in Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Indore, whereby the assessee was denied benefit of CENVAT credit on input and input services.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has made a statement at Bar that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the order dated 31.01.2018 passed in Central Exc

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

res of Cement & Clinker falling under Sub-Heading No.25.23 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986). They are availing CENVAT Credit facility on inputs capital goods and input services under Rules 2 and 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. On the basis of departmental audit carried out in September, 2005, it was alleged that several input services for which CENVAT Credit has been allowed, would not be eligible for the same and show cause notice was issued. The Original Authority dismissed CENVAT Credit on various input services to the extent of Rs. 28,24,034/-. Vide order dated 30.03.2007 (Annexure-C) First Appellate Authority – Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Indore allowed the CENVAT Credit to the tune of Rs. 27,57,759/- and upheld the demand to the tune of Rs. 1,16,280/-.
3. The Revenue aggrieved by the aforesaid order, challenged the same by filing appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal. Credit has been taken as distributed by the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

y covered by a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Cadile Health Care v. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 2010 (17) STR 134 (Tribunal Ahmedabad) and held that denial of credit for these services is not legally sustainable and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.
4. Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that one appeal against order passed by the Delhi High Court on 08.03.2017 in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-I etc. v. M/s. Space Telelink Limited & another has been filed before the Apex Court and the aforesaid matter is pending, and therefore, till the matter is decided, it cannot be said that the issue has been finally decided by the Courts of law.
5. It is not in dispute that the claims of CENVAT Credit was held to be admissible and penalty imposed was set aside by the Gujarat High Court as well as other High Courts. Gujarat High Court took note of the revenue's contention with regard to the justification of Rule 8 (3A). It was

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

o the fact, which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the Revenue, that the matter has been decided and appeal has been dismissed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I v. Space Telelink Limited reported in 2017 (355) ELT 189 (Delhi) by giving following reasons in paragraphs No.6, 7 and 8, which read, as under: –
“6. This Court also notices that the Indsur Global Ltd. (supra) decision had cited and relied upon the decision in Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of India 1999 (106) ELT 3 (SC) as well as upon the decision in Collector v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. 1999 (112) ELT 353 (SC) . In Dai Ichi (supra), the Court held as follows: –
” 17. It is clear from these Rules, as we read them, that a manufacturer obtains credit for the excise duty paid on raw material to be used by him in the production of an excisable product immediately it makes the requisite declaration and obtains an acknowledgment thereof. It is entitled to use the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ble.
18. It is, therefore, that in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of India [1999(106) ELT 3] this Court said that a credit under the MODVAT scheme was as good as tax paid.”
7. The revenue has argued that the Supreme Court has entertained a Special Leave Petition against the judgment of Gujarat and Madras High Courts and furthermore, granted a stay of proceedings and that in these circumstances, the law declared in those judgments are no longer applicable. This submission is fallacious because in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association (1992) 3 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court had observed as follows: –
“While considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of operat

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

t the passing of the interim order dated February 21, 1991 by the Delhi High Court staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority dated January 7, 1991 does not have the effect of reviving the appeal which had been dismissed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated January 7, 1991 and it cannot be said that after February 21, 1991, the said appeal stood revived and was pending before the Appellate Authority.
” 8. It is apparent therefore, that an order keeping in abeyance the judgment of a lower Court or authority does not deface the underlying basis of the judgment itself, i.e., its reasoning.”
7. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the law on the issue is well settled by various High Courts. No case to interfere with order dated 02.06.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal, as prayed for, is made out, nor any substantial question of law is arising in this appeal.
8. Central Excise Appeal No.32/2016 filed by the Revenue has no merit, and is accordi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Procedure for validation of Bank Accounts and rectification of EGM errors for credit of IGST Refund through PFMS Portal

Procedure for validation of Bank Accounts and rectification of EGM errors for credit of IGST Refund through PFMS Portal
08/2018 Dated:- 6-2-2018 Trade Notice
Customs
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT & ADMN)
AIR CARGO COMPLEX, NSC131 AIRPORT, KOLKATA: 700 052.
F. NO. S41 (Misc) – 64/2017CCX/Pt
Date: 06.02.2018
PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 08/2018
Sub: Procedure for validation of Bank Accounts and rectification of EGM errors for credit of IGST Refund through PFMS Portal.
Attention of the exporters. Custom House Brokers, all Carriers and all Members of Trade invited regarding Refund of IGST paid on export of goods under Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017 and validation of Bank accounts in the PFMS for quick dis

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ata for validating their Bank Accounts in the Customs EDI System.
4. The Exporters/their Authorized Representatives are advised to submit the following documents to Drawback: Section (Airport) for updating their Bank Accounts details in the Customs EDI system.
(i) The Bank Account No. and the name of the Bank declared for credit of Drawback.
(ii) The Bank Account and name of the Bank declared in the GSTN Registration Form as uploaded in GSTN Portal.
(iii) Authorization letter issued to the Agent/Broker for Updating the Bank account in the Customs EDI system.
(iv) Request letter along with valid IEC No. and cancelled cheque of the Bank Account declared in the GSTN and the Bank Account no. desired by the Exporter to be updated in the Cus

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

0.10% MERCHANT EXPORT OR THIRD PARTY EXPORT TO BE TREAT AS DEEMED EXPORT IN GSTR1 AND PROCEDURE FOR REBATE CLAIM ON LINE IN GST REGIME AS EXPORTED WITH DUTY PAYMENT

0.10% MERCHANT EXPORT OR THIRD PARTY EXPORT TO BE TREAT AS DEEMED EXPORT IN GSTR1 AND PROCEDURE FOR REBATE CLAIM ON LINE IN GST REGIME AS EXPORTED WITH DUTY PAYMENT
Query (Issue) Started By: – nandankumar roy Dated:- 5-2-2018 Last Reply Date:- 7-2-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 4 Replies
GST
DEAR SIR,
PL HELP REGARDING TO CLEAR 0.10% DUTY MERCHANT EXPORT OR THIRD PARTY EXPORT TO BE TREAT AS DEEMED EXPORT IN GSTR1 AND PROCEDURE FOR REBATE CLAIM ON LINE IN GST REGIME WITHIN GST SITE AS EXPORTED WITH DUTY PAYMENT
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
It is not deemed export. Anchor
Deemed exports : The Government may notify certain supplies of goods as deemed exports, where goods supplied do not leave India, and payment fo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST ON INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT

GST ON INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT
Query (Issue) Started By: – ROHIT GOEL Dated:- 5-2-2018 Last Reply Date:- 5-2-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 3 Replies
GST
We have purchased Cigarettes for which payment has been made beyond due date of payment and therefore interest on delayed payment has been charged by company. Company has issued debit note where HSN code of cigarette is mentioned and description mentioned as Interest on delayed payment….
Whether it is correct treatment by company and how to treat it in our GST return??
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Yes. The Company is correct in this aspect. As per Section 15 of CGST Act, 2017 interest on delayed payment is part of taxable value/transaction value(on which

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bisen Engineering (P) Ltd. Versus CGST & CC, Bhopal

Bisen Engineering (P) Ltd. Versus CGST & CC, Bhopal
Central Excise
2018 (2) TMI 1246 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 5-2-2018
Appeal No. E/51810/2017-SM – Final Order No. 50548/2018
Central Excise
Hon'ble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member ( Judicial )
Shri Sandeep Mukherjee, C.A. – for the appellant
Shri K. Poddar, D.R. – for the respondent
ORDER
Per Ashok Jindal
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim of duty paid during the course of investigation along with interest has been denied to the appellant following the decision of this Tribunal in appellant's own case wherein penalty against the appellant has been dropped by this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 52203/2015 dated 27th May 2015.
2. The facts of the case are that an investigation was conducted at the end of the appellant and it was found that the appellant is required to pay duty which the appellant paid along with interest during investigation itsel

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

iated in terms of Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and no show cause notice was required to be issued. Thereafter, the appellant has filed this refund claim. The refund claim was rejected by the authorities below on the ground that this Tribunal has considered the issue of imposition of penalty and observed that confirmation of the demand along with interest is to be appropriated in terms of Section 11A (2B) of the Act. Therefore, refund claim are not entertainable. Against the said order, the appellant is before me.
3. The ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that as the show cause notice is barred by limitation. Therefore, whatever amount they have paid during the course of investigation is pre-deposit is required to be refunded. In support of this contention, he relied on the following decisions:
(i) Nandeshwari Packaging Ltd. – 2008 (229) ELT 441 (Tri.-Ahmd.);
(ii) Birla Ericsson Optical Ltd. – 2007 (212) ELT 213 (Tri.-Del.);
(iii) Parle

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ant before issue of show cause notice, the appellant should get the benefit of provisions of Section 11A (2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, according to which, there was no requirement of issuance of show cause notice, once the duty along with interest has been paid. Further, since the ingredients mentioned in the proviso to Section 11A and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act are absent in the present case, the question of imposition of penalty does not arise.”
7. On going through the said findings of this Tribunal, this Tribunal categorically held that the show cause notice was not required to be issued and the amount already paid by the appellant during the course of investigation along with interest was required to be appropriated in terms of Section 11A(2B)of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Although, it was also held that show cause notice is barred by limitation but the findings of this Tribunal has not been challenged by the appellant before the higher forum and the same has

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Postponement of introduction of E-way bill under GST.

Postponement of introduction of E-way bill under GST.
11/2018-State Tax Dated:- 5-2-2018 Maharashtra SGST
GST – States
Maharashtra SGST
Maharashtra SGST
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Madam Cama Marg, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032, dated the 5th February 2018
NOTIFICATION
Notification No. 11/2018-State Tax
No. MGST.1018/C.R.04(1)/Taxation-1.-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Mah. XLIII of 2017), the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rasik Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India

Rasik Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India
GST
2018 (4) TMI 1215 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – TMI
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 5-2-2018
Writ Tax No. – 131 of 2018
GST
BHARATI SAPRU AND NEERAJ TIWARI, JJ.
Counsel For Petitioner: Shri Suyash Agarwal, Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: A.S.G.I., C.S.C.
JUDGEMENT
Heard Sri Suyash Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anant Kr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Shri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 5.
The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the GST council respondent no.2 to make recommendations to the State Government to extend the time period for filing of GST Tran-1 in the case of the petit

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Rajratan Global Wire Ltd. Versus CGST, CC & CE, Ujjain

M/s Rajratan Global Wire Ltd. Versus CGST, CC & CE, Ujjain
Central Excise
2018 (2) TMI 1725 – CESTAT DELHI – TMI
CESTAT DELHI – AT
Dated:- 5-2-2018
Appeal No. E/51805/2017-SM – Final Order No. 50540/2018
Central Excise
Hon'ble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate – for the appellant
Shri K. Poddar, D.R. – for the respondent
Ashok Jindal:
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order where Cenvat credit on telephone services and insurance services has been denied to the appellant on the ground that these services are not input service as per Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 1.4.2011.
2. Heard the parties.
3. Considering the fact that telephone service i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e. The insurance policy taken for marine specific voyage and insurance for finished goods after place of removal have been excluded from the definition of input in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 1.4.2011. Therefore on these services, appellant is not entitled to avail Cenvat credit.
5. Further, I find that on group insurance for employees and group gratuity scheme the insurance taken on these has not been specifically excluded from the definition of input services with effect from 1.4.2011. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on the said services as held by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Hydus Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
6. In these terms appeal is disposed of.
(Dictat

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re : M/s. Sammarth Overseas & Credits Pvt. Ltd

In Re : M/s. Sammarth Overseas & Credits Pvt. Ltd
GST
2018 (6) TMI 427 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, HYDERABAD TELANGANA – 2018 (13) G. S. T. L. 370 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, HYDERABAD TELANGANA – AAR
Dated:- 5-2-2018
A. R. Com/2/2017 – TSAAR Order No. 1/2018
GST
Sri J. Laxminarayana, Additional Commissioner (State Tax) And Sri V. Srinivas, IRS, Joint Commissioner (Central Tax)
RULING
Under Section 100(1) of the CGST/TGST Act, 2017, any person aggrieved by this order can prefer an appeal before the Telangana State Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Hyderabad, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
I. M/s. Sammarth Overseas & Credits Pvt. Ltd., Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, (GSTIN No. 36AAGCS9604PIZ0) has filed an application and sought advance ruling on the following issues under Section 97(1) of TGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 103 of CGST/TGST Rules, 2017.
II. Issue to be decided:
(i) Classification of Goods- “Roof V

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

continuous extraction of air from the building. As the turbine rotates, the centripetal forces associated with the rotation fling air outwards from the tips of the vanes.
3. The windmill's only source of energy is derived from the wind. It is the same as the wind turbine ventilator. The wind turns the blades which spin a shaft, in turn, prompt a generator to produce electricity. These blades are connected to a generator, sometimes through a gearbox and sometimes directly. In both the cases, the wind produces the mechanical energy. Depending on wind speed, most modern turbines can operate at speeds from as little as 4 meters per second to as much as 15 mps as the wind turbine ventilators.
4. The wind turbine ventilators work on the very same principle of windmill. The mechanical power generated is due to wind flow.
5. These run on free wind power and hence it is zero running power cost. It can be installed anywhere as it runs on wind power. These save electricity required for coo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d.
9. In this ventilator, mechanics involved in the air movement are very simple. The hot air inside the shed tends to rise up. When the device rotates, it sucks out hot air, thereby creating a low pressure area in the structure and forcing movement of fresh air through doors and windows inside the structure. This is a continuous process throughout the day.
10. Appellant therefore submits that these roof ventilators are windmills and hence requested the Advance Ruling Authority to issue Ruling and clarification, holding that roof / wind turbine ventilators fall under Entry 234 in the I Schedule to the Notification No.1/2017 Central (rate) dated 28.6.2017 for the purpose of levy of CGST, SGST and IGST.
V. The issue has been examined with reference to the provisions of the CGST/TGST Act, 2017 and the Rules made there under and the notifications issued till date; and the Advance Ruling is given as under:-
1. As per the Rules for Interpretation of Customs tariff as made applicable t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

, Dt. 21-11-2017, issued by Government of Telangana, the rate of GST on Roof Ventilators is as under :-
Notification No. 41/2017 – Central Tax (Rate)
(G.O.Ms No. 250, Revenue (CT-II) Department, Dt. 21-11-2017)
Sl. No.
Chapter / Heading / Sub-heading / Tariff item
Description of Goods
Rate
317B Sch-III of notification 1/2017 – Central Tax (Rate)
8414
Air or vacuum pumps, air or other gas compressors and fans; ventilating or recycling hoods incorporating a fan, whether or not fitted with filters [other than bicycle pumps, other hand pumps and parts of air or vacuum pumps and compressors of bicycle pumps]”;
CGST 9% + TGST 9%
 
As seen from the above, Roof Ventilators falls under Schedule-III of Notification No. 1/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) to GST Act, 2017 as amended and attracts a tax rate of 18% (CGST 9% + TGST 9%) w.e.f. 15-11-2017.
The application filed by M/s Sammarth Overseas & Credits Pvt. Ltd., is disposed accordingly.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re : M/s. Shree Vishwakarma Engineering Works

In Re : M/s. Shree Vishwakarma Engineering Works
GST
2018 (6) TMI 517 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, GUJARAT – 2018 (14) G. S. T. L. 124 (A. A. R. – GST), 2018] 2 GSTL (AAR) 83 (AAR)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, GUJARAT – AAR
Dated:- 5-2-2018
ADVANCE RULING NO. GUJ/GAAR/RULING/2018/2 (IN APPLICATION NO. Advance Ruling/SGST&CGST/2017/AR/6)
GST
Mr. R.B. Mankodi, Member And Mr. G.C. Jain, Member
For The Applicant : Shri N.N. Patel, Advocate
RULING
The applicant M/s. Shree Vishwakarma Engineering Works is engaged in the assembling and manufacturing of musical instruments known as electrically operated drum with bell and zalar. The applicant has submitted that they are purchasing various components for assembling of musical instrument. The applicant had installed lathe machine, drill machine and welding machine which are mainly used for preparing body and machining work. Thereafter, different parts are manually assembled. Accordingly, as per applicant, the use

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of GST Tariff provides musical instruments, parts and accessories of such articles. The Chapter 92 provides various kinds of musical instruments which are subject to tax under the GST Act. The Chapter 92 also provides the 'Indigenous handmade musical instrument' subject to NIL rate of GST. They submitted that the entry of musical instrument under the VAT Act and as provided under Chapter 92 of the GST Act are identical and hence according to them the exemption granted under the VAT Act is continued even under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. They requested that the disputed item known as electrically operated drum with bell and zalar be held as covered under Chapter 92 of the GST Tariff applicable at NIL rate of tax.
4. The applicant made further written submissions in support of their claim of classification of the item electrically operated drum with bell and zalar as an indigenous handmade musical instrument. They submitted that the Chapter 92 of GST Tariff provides for musical

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

t is an instrument created or adapted to make musical sound. In principle any object that produces sound can be consider a musical instrument. It is through purpose that the object becomes a musical instrument”. Accordingly, the disputed item manufactured by the applicant is musical instrument as covered under Chapter 92 of the GST Tariff.
6. The applicant submitted that the second requirement is that the musical instrument should be indigenous. The term indigenous as defined in Cambridge Advance Dictionary means “Naturally existing in a place of country rather than arriving from another place”. Further, as per Oxford Dictionary, indigenous means “originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native”. The disputed item 'electrically operated drum with bell and zalar' is manufactured by the applicant at his place of business. Accordingly, the item manufactured by the applicant is an indigenous musical instrument.
7. The applicant submitted that the third requirement is tha

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d is to be determined by following the test of common parlance or commercial parlance and relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Indo International Industries, reported at 45 STC Page 359. They submitted that the disputed item of the applicant is Page 2 of 5 popularly known as musical instrument and is also played in every Hindu Temple during performing morning and evening Aarti. Accordingly, as per common parlance principle, the disputed item is indigenous handmade musical instrument and hence the rate of tax applicable would be NIL rate of tax. They further relied on the following judgments
(a)
Atul Glass Industries (p) Ltd.

63 STC Page 322 (S.C.)
(b)
Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd.
 –
64 STC Page 180 (S.C.)
(c)
 Alpine Industries,
 –
131 STC Page 9 (S.C.)
9. The applicant further submitted that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), vide Notification No. 28/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 29.09.20

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

dated 28-6-2017 issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and corresponding Notification issued under the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which provided exemption to 'Indigenous handmade musical instruments' of Chapter 92.
12.1 It is observed that the Explanation (iii) and (iv) of the Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 provides as follows :-
“Explanation. – For the purposes of this notification, –
(i) ……
(ii) ……
(iii) “Tariff item”, “sub-heading” “heading” and “Chapter” shall mean respectively a tariff item, sub-heading, heading and chapter as specified in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975).
(iv) The rules for the interpretation of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), including the Section and Chapter Notes and the General Explanatory Notes of the First Schedule shall, so far as may be, apply to the interpretation of this notification.”
12.2 Further, H

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

doubt that the HSN Explanatory Notes are a dependable guide even while interpreting the Customs Tariff.”
13.1 As per the submissions of the applicant, for manufacture of product 'Electrically operated Drum with Bell and Zalar', they prepare body by using Lathe Machine, Drill Machine and Welding Machine, wherein different parts are manually assembled. In the said product, Drum, Bell and Zalar are used which are played in a rhythm by mechanical operation of electric motor run by electricity. The resultant product is distinctly known in the market as 'Electrically operated Drum with Bell and Zalar'.
13.2 The description of goods covered by Heading 9208 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, is as follows :-
“Musical boxes, fairground organs, mechanical street organs, mechanical singing birds, musical saws and other musical instruments not falling within any other heading of this Chapter; decoy calls of all kinds; whistles, call horns and other mouth-blown sound signa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ral Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 was amended vide Notification No. 28/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 22.09.2017, whereby, inter-alia, in Sl. No. 143, entry “Indigenous handmade musical instruments as listed in ANNEXURE II”, has been substituted and 'Annexure – II' containing list of 134 indigenous handmade musical instruments, was inserted. Thus, the exemption vide Sl. No. 143 of the said Notification is now admissible only to those indigenous handmade musical instruments of Chapter 92 as are listed in Annexure-II of the said Notification.
14.2 As per the submissions of the applicant, for manufacture of product 'Electrically operated Drum with Bell and Zalar', they prepare body by using Lathe Machine, Drill Machine and Welding Machine, wherein different parts are manually assembled. In the said product, Drum, Bell and Zalar are used which are played in a rhythm by using electricity and electric motor. The resultant product is distinctly known in the market as 'Electrically operated Dru

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re : M/s. Mitora Machinex Pvt. Ltd.

In Re : M/s. Mitora Machinex Pvt. Ltd.
GST
2018 (6) TMI 624 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT – 2018 (14) G. S. T. L. 141 (A. A. R. – GST), [2018] 2 GSTL (AAR) 82 (AAR)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT – AAR
Dated:- 5-2-2018
ADVANCE RULING NO. GUJ/GAAR/RULING/2018/1 (IN APPLICATION NO. Advance Ruling/SGST&CGST/2017/AR/14)
GST
R. B. Mankodi Member And G. C. Jain Member
For the Applicant : Shri K.A. Nagar, Consultant
RULING
The applicant M/s. Mitora Machinex Pvt. Ltd. has submitted that they manufacture and supply the 'Ice Cream Making Machines' in diverse specifications such as Automatic Ice Cream Making Machine, Countertop Ice Cream Making Machine, Soft Ice Cream Making Machine and Fully Automatic Ice Cream Making Machine..
2. The applicant has raised the following questions for Advance Ruling –
(i) Whether the aforesaid goods fall under Chapter Heading 8438 of GST Tariff ?;
(ii) Whether the applicant is liable to pay GST at the rate of 18% on s

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ription of Chapter Heading No. 8438 of GST Tariff, which attracts the rate of 18%.
4. It is submitted by the applicant that the said goods primarily designed for manufacture of ice cream i.e. food, thus the same cannot be treated as similar to refrigerator, freezer, heat pumps or other refrigerating or freezing equipments of Chapter Heading No. 8418 of GST Tariff. The description of Chapter Heading 8418 is as under –
“Refrigerators, freezers and other refrigerating or freezing equipment, electric or other; heat pumps other than air conditioning machines of heading 8415”.
It is submitted that the aforesaid description of the goods relates to (i) the refrigerators, in which goods can be stored at low temperatures; (ii) freezers which withdraw the heat to change something from a liquid to a solid; change to ice; cause to freeze; and (iii) Heat Pump is a device which draws heat from a suitable heat source and converts it with the assistant of a supplementary energy source into a source

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

distributor normally attract GST rate of 18%. (ii) The description of Chapter Heading 8438 fits to the Ice Cream Machine. (iii) the impugned goods is not in the category of luxury item like car, which is deemed to be unnecessary or non-essential, or not like sin product 'tobacco' or demerit goods to attract GST rate of 28%. Therefore, the applicant is of the view that the goods in question are specifically covered by Chapter Heading 8438, which attracts the GST rate of 18%.
7. The applicant, vide their further submissions dated 30.11.2017, referred to the decision in the case of Milk Food Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, New Delhi [1994 (71) ELT 549 (Tri.)] and submitted that the Tribunal has held that a single unit for manufacture of ice cream is classifiable under sub-heading 8438 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The applicant also referred to the decisions in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Gakso Refrigeration Engineers [1993 (63) ELT 568 (Tribunal)] and [1997 (89) ELT A4

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

and other refrigerating or freezing equipment, electric or other; heat pumps other than air conditioning machines of heading 8415' with Chapter Head 8418. As per the description given by the applicant, the product namely, 'Ice Cream Making Machines' appear to be falling under the entry at Serial No. 120 of Schedule IV of Notification No. 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
9. We have considered the submissions made by the applicant in their application for advance ruling and additional submissions made vide letter dated 30.11.2017 as well as submissions made at the time of personal hearing. We have also considered the information and views submitted by the Goods & Services Tax and Central Excise, Ahmedabad South Commissionerate.
10. The issue involved in this case is regarding classification of 'Ice Cream Making Machine'.
11.1 It is observed that the Explanation (iii) and (iv) of the Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 provides as follows :-
“Ex

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ise Tariff Act, 1985, the Central Excise Tariffs are based on the Harmonious System of Nomenclature (HSN) and the internationally accepted nomenclature was taken into account to reduce disputes on account of tariff classification. Accordingly, for resolving any dispute relating to tariff classification, a safe guide is the internationally accepted nomenclature emerging from the Harmonious System of Nomenclature (HSN). Although, the decision in the case of Woodcraft Products (supra) dealt with the interpretation of the provisions of the Central Excise Tariff there can be no doubt that the HSN Explanatory Notes are a dependable guide even while interpreting the Customs Tariff.”
12.1 The Tariff Heading 8418 reads as follows :-
“Refrigerators, freezers and other refrigerating or freezing equipment, electric or other; heat pumps other than air conditioning machines of heading 8415”
12.2 The Explanatory Notes for 'Refrigerators, freezers and other refrigerating or freezing equipment, ele

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ed gas from the evaporator and delivers it under pressure to
(2) The condenser or liquefier where the gas is cooled and liquefied, and
(3) The evaporator, the active cooling element, consisting of a tubular system in which the condensed refrigerant, released through an expansion valve, evaporates rapidly with the absorption of heat from the surrounding air or, in the case of large cooling installations, from brine or a solution of calcium chloride kept in circulation around the evaporator coils.
In the marine type there is no compressor and condenser in the refrigerant (water or brine) circuit, but the evaporation is induced by a vacuum produced by an ejector pump working with a steam condenser.
The later condenses and disposes of the vapours produced, which are not returned to the system.
(B) ABSORPTION TYPE REFRIGERATORS
xxx xxx
xxx xxx
Apparatus of the foregoing kinds are classified in this heading if in the following forms:
(1) xxx xxx
(2) Cabinets or other furn

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

iff. The Tariff Heading 8438 reads as follows :-
“Machinery, nor specified or included elsewhere in this Chapter, for the industrial preparation or manufacture of food or drink, other than machinery for the extraction or preparation of animal or fixed vegetable fats or oils”
The Tariff Heading 8438 covers the machinery not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 84, for the industrial preparation or manufacture of food or drink. As the 'Ice Cream Makers' are specifically covered under Tariff Heading 8418, the same do not fall under Tariff Heading 8438.
13.2 In support of the contention that the Ice Cream Making Machine manufactured by them fall sunder Tariff Heading 8438, the applicant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble CEGAT in the case of Milk Food Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, New Delhi [1994 (71) E.L.T. 549 (Tribunal)]. We have gone through the said decision. It is observed that the goods / products under dispute have been described in the first paragraph of the said dec

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

der Heading 8418.69 (read with Notification No. 59/87-Cus.). The Department has not accepted the importer's claim for classification under these headings but has assessed both the consignments under sub-heading 8438.80, as the complete system on the grounds that in the first consignment “product forming system” itself consists of conveyor and freezing tunnel without which it cannot work and in the other consignment, enrobing system also cannot work without the conveyor and coating hardening tunnel. ………”.
It is not the case of the applicant that the Ice Cream Making Machines manufactured and supplied by them consists of the above referred products, which were the subject matter of dispute in the case of Milk Food Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the said decision is not found to be applicable in the facts of the present case.
14.1 The applicant has also submitted that the Ice Cream Making Machine manufactured and supplied by them are classifiable under Chapter Heading 8419 and referred

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

hem are 'Freezing-salt type freezers'. Therefore, the decision in the case of Gakso Refrigeration Engineers (supra) is not applicable to the present case. For the same reasons, the decision in the case of General Fabricators (supra) rendered in respect of products 'fully fabricated insulated tanks and semi-finished insulated tanks' by relying on the decision of Gakso Refrigeration Engineers is not found to be applicable in the facts of the present case.
15. In the copy of Invoice No. 70/17-18 dated 13.06.2017 submitted by the applicant, the Tariff / HSN Classification 8418 5000 has been shown in respect of product 'Soft Ice-Cream Machine SM-301/MGF', which indicates that the applicant was classifying their product under Tariff Heading 8418 in the erstwhile Central Excise regime.
16. In view of the foregoing, we rule as under –
RULING
The product “Ice Cream Making Machine” is classifiable under Tariff Heading 84.18 and not under Tariff Heading 84.38 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =