Minutes of the 9th GST Council Meeting held on 16 January 2017
9th CST Council Meeting Dated:- 16-1-2017 GST Council – Minutes
GST
Minutes of the 9th GST Council Meeting held on 16 January 2017
The ninth meeting of the GST Council (hereinafter referred to as 'the Council') was held on 16 January 2017 in Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi under the Chairpersonship of the Hon'ble Union Finance Minister, Shri Arun Jaitley. The list of the Hon'ble Members of the Council who attended the meeting is at Annexure 1. The list of officers of the Centre, the States, the GST Council and the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) who attended the meeting is at Annexure 2. The officials from the Ministries of Power and Renewable Energy of the Government of India and the trade representatives who made presentations before the Council is at Annexure 3.
2. The following agenda items were listed for discussion in the ninth meeting of the Council-
1. Brief presentation by representative
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
entatives of the Power Sector to make a brief presentation on the impact of GST on Power Sector.
4.1 Shri Pradeep Kumar Pujari, Secretary, Ministry of Power, in his introductory remarks, stated that implementation of GST would have an impact on the cost of generation, transmission and distribution of power. He observed that impact on thermal and hydel power plants would be different because coal was a major input for thermal power plants. He stated that any change in the tariff of power would have a big impact on the economy. He further stated that power tariff was approved by the regulator. He explained that there were broadly two regimes for determining power tariff, namely the cost-plus regime and the competitive bid regime. He explained that in the cost-plus regime, the cost of inputs was passed on to the consumers and in the competitive bid regime, the bidder took into account the cost of the inputs while making the bid for power tariff. He also explained that there was a very la
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
, Ministry of Power made a presentation giving different input tax rate scenarios under GST for the power sector and its impact on the price of power per unit for both coal-based and hydro power plants. For coal-based power plants, he stated that if electricity was kept out of the GST net, but inputs for generating electricity were taxed at the rate of 18%, the net impact could be an increase in price per unit from Rs. 6.99 to Rs. 7.10. He suggested alternative options for plants in operation and for new plants. He explained that if electricity was kept under GST in the zero rated category, the cost per unit would be reduced to Rs. 6.53 from the present Rs. 6.99. He stated that if this scenario was not possible due to revenue implication and if electricity was kept out of the GST net, the cost per unit of power for plants in operation would be Rs. 7.01 if coal was taxed at the rate of 12% and other inputs were taxed at the rate of 18%. He added that this cost could come down to Rs. 6.9
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e same GST rate was kept for inputs for coal based and hydro power plants. He suggested that the hydro power plants should be treated as part of the renewable energy sector where presently duty regime was considerably lower as compared to coal and hydel power plants. He stated that around 11,000 megawatt hydro power capacity was expected to be added in the next five years and most of the projects were situated in the North-East or in the Special Category States. He suggested that supplies made to under-construction power projects should be granted the status of deemed export as was being contemplated for solar power projects. He observed that this would involve a relatively small tax short fall ofRs. 880 crore spread over a period of five years. He pointed out that any tariff increase on power due to GST would have a multiplier effect on economic development and would adversely impact industrial production, GDP growth, make in India campaign and export competitiveness ofIndian products
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
out that they had also given alternate proposals. The Hon'ble Chairperson enquired whether it would be desirable to maintain the present rate of taxation for the power sector and to this the Secretary, Ministry of Power responded that this could work for the thermal power sector but not for the hydro power sector. He also pointed out that electricity sector was different from the sectors like transport, civil aviation, etc. as this was consumed by the poorer sections of the society and the aim of the Government has been to electrify every home. The Secretary, Renewable Energy observed that permitting zero rating for this sector would not have any impact as presently they were not charged to any taxes. The Hon'ble Minister from Tamil Nadu observed that tax rate should be revenue neutral. He also wondered whether increase of tariff was due to tax rate on services going up to 18% for EPC (Engineering Procurement and Construction) contracts. He also observed that this could be addr
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d to replace the version of the Hon'ble Minister as per the suggestion made.
5.2. The Hon'ble Minister from Karnataka stated that the decision recorded in paragraph 24(ii) in relation to Section 10(2) of the Draft GST Compensation Law implied that the Council would sit and decide the mode of raising additional resources only when amount in the GST Compensation Fund fell short. He observed that this would not be a practical approach and suggested that, instead, the Council could give a standing authorisation to the Government of India to raise additional resources when the amount in the GST Compensation Fund fell short. The Secretary to the Council (hereinafter referred to as 'the Secretary') suggested to also add the expression 'is likely to fall short' in the fourth line. The Council agreed to the suggestion of the Secretary.
6. In view of the above discussions, for Agenda item 2, the Council decided to adopt the Minutes of the 8th meeting of the Council with
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
iscussed first such as the 13 changes to the Model GST Law proposed by the Law Committee and circulated as an agenda note under agenda item 7 for the 8th GST Council meeting held on 3 and 4 January 2017, the provisions of Appellate Tribunal and the fitment of various commodities into the tax slabs. He suggested that the subject of cross-empowerment might be taken up after discussing and deciding the above issues. The Hon'ble Chairperson stated that the issues relating to the Model GST Law could be taken up later and that in this meeting, the Council should try to resolve the thorny issue of cross-empowerment. He invited the Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) to give his views on this subject. He further stated that along with the Members, officers could also contribute in the discussion to follow.
8. The Chairman, CBEC observed that cross-empowerment in the context of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) was envisaged to f
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
. 1.5 crore could be entrusted to the States and that the Centre could only have a small presence in this taxpayer segment. He stated that for taxpayers with turnover above Rs. 1.5 crore, Centre could carry out a greater percentage of scrutiny. He suggested that the taxpayers could be given a choice to go to either of the two administrations and that a taxpayer could choose to go to the State administration for activities relating to registration, post registration, etc. On IGST, he emphasised that there was a Constitutional challenge to entrust its administration to the State tax authorities, but in order to help build a consensus, he presented two options by which the Central government could cross-empower the State tax authorities under the IGST Act. He stated that the first option could be to empower State tax administrations for all processes like scrutiny, demand, audit, etc. but they should refer the case to the Central tax administration wherever a need for adjudication arose s
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ication on place of supply issues, he suggested that this should apply only where there was a dispute between two States. The Chairman CBEC suggested that carve out for the Central tax administration should be for all place of supply issues including where a third State was aggrieved or where there was a valuation challenge for an inter-State supply.
10. The Hon'ble Chief Minister of Puducherry stated that earlier, several permutations and combinations had been discussed on this issue including a proposal of vertical division. He added that an entirely new concept had been introduced by the Chairman, CBEC and requested that it should be tabled in writing. The Hon'ble Minister from Karnataka observed that the proposal appeared rational and worthy of consideration but requested more details in terms of numbers. He also added that the Chairman, CBEC had introduced a few caveats which needed to be deliberated upon in greater detail.
11. The Secretary amplified the proposal made b
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e done by each. He stated, as an example, that more complicated service tax assessees could be taken up for audit by the Central tax administration. He stated that other than audit, servicing of taxpayers in other areas like change in registration particulars, etc. could be done by the State tax administration if the taxpayer was comfortable with them and this could also include taxpayers from the services sector. He stated that on cross-empowerment under the IGST Act, out of the two options proposed by the Chairman, CBEC, the better option would be that the States could do adjudication relating to issues arising out of inter-State supply except for place of supply issues as such disputes would affect the interest of two States.
12. The Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister of Gujarat suggested to first arrive at the ratio for division and the rest could follow. He stated that as the theme of GST was 'one tax-one nation', the theme of GST administration should be 'one business
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the auditable sample should be 5% each for taxpayers below and above Rs. 1.5 crore turnover. He also agreed that neither the Central Government nor the State Government should be ousted from any jurisdiction. He stated that 42 lakh taxpayers with turnover above Rs. 1.5 crore should be divided in the proportion of the staff strength of each administration. He also supported the proposal of the Chairman; CBEC that the other functions in relation to taxpayers below the turnover of Rs. 1.5 crore should be handled by the State tax administration. The Hon'ble Minister from Assam welcomed the proposal of the Chairman, CBEC to empower the State tax authorities under the IGST Act. The Hon'ble Minister from Telangana also observed that the suggestion of the Chairman, CBEC was a good one and it could be a basis to resolve this issue. Ms. Mona Khandhar, Secretary (Economic Affairs), Gujarat suggested to divide the taxpayers vertically.
13. During the lunch break, the Secretary discussed t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
if freedom was left to the taxpayer to choose one of the two administrations, he might choose the one who would favour him. The CCT, Assam also expressed the apprehension that a taxpayer might not choose any tax administration or choose one who could collude with him. The ACS and CCT, Tamil Nadu stated that a large number of functions needed to be carried out in the field and the taxpayers needed handholding by the tax administration. The CCT, Uttar Pradesh supported dividing the taxpayer base. The CCT, Gujarat observed that for a successful implementation of GST, responsibilities to tax administrations should be assigned clearly and, if this was not done, there would be lack of accountability. He supported a vertical division. The CCT, Bihar supported the suggestion of Chairman, GSTN that a tax payer should report to the same authority to whom he was reporting presently and a tax payer who had an overlap between two tax administrations, could be given a choice to be assigned to one o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
t of inter-State supplies of goods and services except in the following situation: (i) where issue related to changing the declared nature of supply from intra-State to inter-State or vice versa or led to change in the destination of supply from one State to another; (ii) consumption of supply was required to be apportioned between various States; (iii) valuation of inter-State supplies between related parties; (iv) the consuming State advise that the case be adjudicated by the Centre; (v) all import and export related functions.
15. The Secretary summed up the deliberations during the lunch break meeting with the officers and informed the Council that the overwhelming view of the States was to have a division of tax-payers for administrative purposes between the Central and the State tax administrations. He further informed that two options emerged in this regard: the first was that the present Value Added Tax (V A T) dealers could report to the State tax administration and the servi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ated by the CBEC had five caveats. He expressed that the notion of taking geographically stratified sample was problematic. He further pointed out that CBEC's proposal appeared to be more in the nature of loud thinking as it was contingent upon the Ministry of Law being able to find a viable legal solution. The Hon'ble Chairperson stated that CBEC had taken a strict legal view that IGST could only be levied and collected by the Central tax administration and apportioned to the States. He pointed out that there was another view that under Article 258 of the Constitution, the Hon'ble President of India, with the consent of the Hon'ble Governor of the State, could entrust the function of the Central administration to the State administration. The Hon'ble Minister from Karnataka stated that another alternative was to delegate the entire task of administration to the States as was done under the Central Sales Tax(CST) Act under Article 269 of the Constitution. Dr. C. Cha
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nce with the statement of the Chairman, CBEC. He stated that in his view, IGST could not work without cross-empowerment to the State tax authorities and that it was not a correct way of discussion to state that the legal department would need to find a solution for cross-empowerment. He suggested that in order to avoid dual interface for tax payers, there should be a cut off of Rs. 1.5 crore turnover and audit of a certain percent of 'tax payer falling below this threshold could be done by the Central tax administration but otherwise, the control of the taxpayers in this segment should rest with the States. He added that taxpayers above the turnover of Rs. 1.5 crore should be divided equally between the Central and the State tax administrations. He stated that the overall percentage of sharing should be 75% for the States and 25% for the Centre and that small taxpayers should remain with the State administration except for a small number to be audited by the Central tax administrat
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
.5 crore should be divided equally between the two administrations. He further stated that there should be cross-empowerment under the IGST Act. Shri Alok Shukla, Joint Secretary TRU, CBEC stated that like States had concern regarding ensuring correctness of assessment of IGST and wanted powers under the IGST Act, the Central administration must also have a say on the collection of CGST for tax payers with turn over below Rs. 1.5 crore. He added that the Centre's jurisdiction for enforcement, audit and scrutiny of returns should not be completely ousted in respect of taxpayers below Rs. 1.5 crore turnover segment but the other functions could be carried out by the States. He also suggested that for tax payers below Rs. 1.5 crore turnover, Centre's intervention could be limited to 1% within the overall cap of 5%. The Hon'ble Minister from Tamil Nadu observed that this construct was not workable as one was talking of two universe of tax payers – one with turnover below Rs. 1.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nversely went below this threshold. The Hon'ble Minister from Maharashtra also supported a vertical division in the ratio of two-third for the States and one-third for the Centre and suggested that computer could do this division. The Hon'ble Minister from Kerala stated that all taxpayers below the turnover of Rs. 1.5 crore should be exclusively under the control of the State tax administrations. Shri Manish Kumar Sinha, Commissioner GST Council suggested that whatever model was adopted, the risk prone taxpayers for audit should be drawn from the entire taxpayer base.
19. The Hon'ble Chairperson, summing up the discussion laid out a few broad guidelines for a possible decision on the subject. He stated that out of the entire universe of the taxpayer base, draw a line of division for taxpayers below and above the turnover of Rs. 1.5 crore. For taxpayers below the turnover of Rs. 1.5 crore, States could do the entire administration. He added that scrutiny and audit could be
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
te tax administration was closer to small dealers in the administrative reach and he agreed that the Centre could have a small space for auditing taxpayers falling below the turnover limit of Rs. 1.5 crore and that this sample could be drawn from the entire taxpayer base below Rs. 1.5 crore turnover. The Hon'ble Minister from Maharashtra reiterated his preference for a vertical division with two-third share going to the States from the entire value chain and suggested that a variation of this principle might be allowed for those States who wanted to have exclusive control of taxpayers below Rs. 1.5 crore turnover. He added that the two-third share of such States could be calculated after adjusting the total number of taxpayers below Rs. 1.5 crore turnover in their share. He observed that his proposal would help in expanding the tax base of the States and would obviate the need to expand their tax collection overhead. The Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister of Gujarat supported this p
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
heir jurisdiction. He further stated that such an arrangement should not be made as a part of the law; rather it could be operated through a resolution which could be changed later. He stated that the Council could also permit a State to move from one model to another. Shri Tuhin Kanta Pandey, Principal Secretary (Finance), Odisha stated that there should be no diffused accountability except for enforcement and that a fixed proportion of dealers should be assigned to the Central and the State tax administrations. He added that option may also be made available to any State if it wishes to be allocated 100% taxpayers below the turnover of Rs. 1.5 crore subject to the overall share/proportion of dealers allocated to a State. The Hon'ble Minister from West Bengal stated that for division of taxpayers in the segment of above Rs. 1.5 crore turnover, a standardized model should be followed. The Hon'ble Minister from Kerala emphasised that the Central Government could not handle the s
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
go to the Centre (Gujarat's suggestion); (ii) for taxpayers below Rs. 1.5 crore, the administrative control should vest with the States and only 10% of units to be audited by the Central tax administration (Tamil Nadu's proposal); (iii) administration of taxpayers below Rs. 1.5 crore turnover to rest with the States and those above Rs. 1.5 crore to be divided between the Centre and States; (iv) States could have flexibility to negotiate the numbers with the Central tax administration; (v) Intelligence based action could be taken by both tax administrations without any division; (vi) Scrutiny and audit to be part of the division; (vii) IGST to be cross-empowered either under law or under Article 258 of the Constitution with a carve out for the Central tax administration in relation to place of supply issues; (viii) Territorial waters within the twelve nautical miles of the coastline to remain a territory of the Union of India unless the Supreme Court decided otherwise in the on
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
l formula of two-third and one-third division between State and the Centre, it could also be considered whether the base of the Service Tax payers could be left with the Central tax administration. The Hon'ble Minister from Assam observed that the States might need to create more posts at State level if administration of all Service Tax assessees below the turnover of Rs. 1.5 crore was entrusted to the States. The Hon'ble Minister from West Bengal suggested that both the Central and the State tax administrations could completely give up audit of taxpayers below Rs. l.5 crore turnover and that the other aspects of administration should be left with the States alone.
24. The Secretary informed that in the officers' discussion during the lunch break, all State Governments expressed a preference of a vertical division of the taxpayers. He stated that there were approximately 26 lakh taxpayers between the turnover of Rs. 20 lakh to Rs. 1.5 crore, and if 20% was given to the Cen
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ere should be a particular percent of division of taxpayers below Rs. 1.5 crore turnover and another percent for taxpayers above Rs. 1.5 crore. He further stated that no carve out should be allowed in relation to cross-empowerment under lGST. The Hon'ble Chairperson stated that the only grey area left was in relation to division of taxpayers below Rs. 1.5 crore threshold where the Centre proposed a 20% share and the Hon'ble Minister from Tamil Nadu had suggested a 10% share. He further observed that there was not much substantial difference between the two proposed percentages of 20 and 10.
25. The Hon'ble Minister from Tamil Nadu sought clarification that the proposed division was only in respect of audit and that all other administrative powers was to vest with the States. The Secretary clarified that there was a need for a vertical division for administrative purposes and that the proposed division of taxpayers was 20% for the Centre and 80% for States in respect of tax
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he States. He stated that Tamil Nadu's position was very close to the option of 100% and 0%. He added that the proposal made by the Hon'ble Minister of Tamil Nadu was not acceptable to his State and he sought a flexibility for West Bengal that 100% of its taxpayers below Rs. 1.5 crore turnover would remain with the State. The Hon'ble Chairperson stated that broadly, the concern of the States was that the Central tax administration should not scrutinise the books of account of small taxpayers in the goods sector and one solution to this concern could be that the 20% taxpayers allocated to the Centre should only be from the Service Tax assessee base. The Hon'ble Minister from Assam strongly supported this proposal. The Hon'ble Minister from West Bengal reminded that there was a unanimous decision of the Empowered Committee of State Finance Ministers on this subject and it needed to be respected. The Hon'ble Minister from Haryana stated that the decision of the Emp
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d an issue whether goods would include 'deemed' goods and whether these would remain with the States. The Secretary observed that the 'deemed' goods were mostly considered as services and that the Centre would have to get a share of such Service Tax assessees. The Hon'ble Minister from West Bengal stated that restaurant was in the category of deemed goods and it should remain in the jurisdiction of States. The Hon'ble Minister from Tamil Nadu suggested not to divide the taxpayer base on the basis of service category and suggested that the division should be based on the available resources with the Centre and the State tax administrations. The Hon'ble Minister from West Bengal again suggested that there could be no audit of taxpayers below Rs. 1.5 crore but the Hon'ble Minister from Tamil Nadu observed that audit was an important function and it should not be dispensed with.
27. The Hon'ble Minister from Maharashtra suggested that the existing taxpa
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
and on this issue, no sense of the House had emerged as yet. The Hon'ble Chairperson observed that the Council had avoided voting till now and it must continue to work on the principle of consensus and develop a healthy convention in this regard. The Hon'ble Minister from Tamil Nadu stated that he had changed his position and now supported a vertical division with two-third of taxpayers going to the States and one-third to the Centre. The Hon'ble Chairperson stated that in order to reach consensus, he offered that of the taxpayers below Rs. 1.5 crore turnover, 90% should be allocated to the States and 10% to the Centre. He invited the Hon'ble Minister from West Bengal to join the emerging consensus on the basis of this revised proposal. However, the Hon'ble Minister from West Bengal stated that he was unable to join the consensus as he was still of the view that the entire taxpayer base below the turnover of Rs. 1.5 crore should fully remain in the administrative j
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
lly agreed;
v. The new registrants shall be initially divided one each between the Central and the State tax administration and at the end of the year, once the turnover of such new registrants was ascertained, those units with turnover below Rs. 1.5 crore shall be divided in the ratio of 90% for the State tax administration and 10% for the Central tax administration and those units above the turnover of Rs. 1.5 crore shall be divided in the ratio of 50% each for the State and the Central tax administration;
vi. The division of the taxpayers may be switched between the Centre and the States at such interval as may be decided by the Council;
vii. The above arrangement shall be reviewed by the Council from time to time;
viii. Both the Central and the State tax administrations shall have the power to take intelligence-based enforcement action in respect of the entire value chain;
ix. Powers under the IGST Act shall be cross-empowered to the State tax administration on the same b
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
agenda item 3.
Agenda Item 5: Date of the next meeting of the GST Council
30. Before discussing the next date of the meeting, the Council briefly discussed the date Of implementation of GST. The Hon'ble Minister from Maharashtra suggested that GST should be implemented from l” April, 2017. The Hon'ble Minister from Assam stated that it was not desirable to change the tax regime in the middle of the financial year and suggested that it should be implemented from 1st April, 2017. The Hon'ble Minister from Kerala stated that the decision could not be rushed to implement GST from 1st April, 2017 and that it could also be implemented from July or August, 2017. The Hon'ble Minister from Bihar expressed his preference for introducing GST from 1st April, 2017 but if it was not possible, he stated that it must be implemented from I” July, 2017. The Hon'ble Minister from Karnataka suggested that there must be a time schedule for each task for timely roll out of GST. The Hon
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the status of fitment exercise for rates of tax was not known. The Hon'ble Minister from West Bengal stated that adequate time was needed for rate of taxes to be put into the ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) of the taxpayers. The Hon'ble Minister from Tamil Nadu stated that 1 st July, 2017 appeared a more practical date for implementation of GST. The Hon'ble Minister from Kamataka also concurred with this observation. The Principal Secretary (Revenue), Telangana stated that an effort could be made to implement GST by 1st April, 2017 and if it was not feasible, it should be implemented from I” July, 2017. The Hon'ble Chairperson observed that the officers dealing with law would also need to work on the rates under GST which could spill into March, 2017 and in this view the deadline of 1 st April, 2017 could be a major challenge. After further discussion the Council unanimously agreed to extend the date of GST rollout to 1st July, 2017.
31. After discussion, the Counci
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ure
Finance Minister
12
Maharashtra
Shri Sudhir Mungantiwar
Finance Minister
13
Mizoram
Shri Lalsawta
14
Rajasthan
Shri Rajpal Singh Shekhawat
15
Tamil Nadu
Shri K. Pandiarajan
16
Telangana
Shri Etela Rajender
Finance Minister
Minister for Industries
Minister, School Education,
Sports & Youth Welfare
Finance Minister
17
West Bengal
Dr. Amit Mitra
Finance Minister
Page 17 of 23
CHAIRMAN'S
INITIALS
CHAIRMAN'S
INITIALS
MINUTE BOOK
Annexure 2
List of Officers who attended the 9th GST Council Meeting on 16 January 2017
S No
State/Centre
Name of the Officer
Charge
1
Govt. of India
Dr. Hasmukh Adhia
2 Govt. of India
Shri Najib Shah
3
Govt. of India
Shri Arvind Subramanian
4 Govt. of India
Shri Ram Tirath
5
Govt. of India
Shri Mahender Singh
Secretary, GST Council & Department of
Revenue
Permanent Invitee to GST Council &
Chairman, CBEC
Chief Economic Adviser
Member (GST), CBEC
Director General, DG-GST
6
Govt. of India
Shri P.K. Jain
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Govt. of India
Shri S.P. Bhatia
22
GST Council
Shri Arun Goyal
23 GST Council
Shri Shashank Priya
Assistant Commissioner (GST), CBEC
Assistant Director, Press, MoF
Additional PS to FM
Additional Secretary
Commissioner
Page 18 of 23
WRITE A WAY
MINUTE BOOK
S No
State/Centre
Name of the Officer
Charge
24
GST Council
Shri Manish K Sinha
Commissioner
25 GST Council
Shri G.S. Sinha
26 GST Council
Ms. Thari Sitkil
27
GST Council
Shri Rakesh Agarwal
Joint Commissioner
Deputy Commissioner
Assistant Commissioner
28 GST Council
Shri Kaushik TG
29
GST Council
Shri Sandeep Bhutani
Assistant Commissioner
Superintendent
30
GST Council
Shri Shekhar Khansili
Superintendent
31
GST Council
Shri Manoj Kumar
Superintendent
32
GST Council
Shri Amit Soni
Inspector
33
GST Council
Shri Alok Bharti
Inspector
34
GST Council
Shri Anis Alam
Inspector
35
GST Council
Shri Ashish Tomar
Inspector
36 GST Council
Shri Sharad Kumar Verma
PA to Commissione
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
hri Khemraj Jhariya
51
Delhi
Shri H. Rajesh Prasad
52 Delhi
Shri Anand Kumar Tiwari
53 Goa
54 Gujarat
Shri Dipak Bandekar
Dr. P.D. Vaghela
55 Gujarat
Ms. Mona Khandhar
56 Haryana
57 Haryana
58 Haryana
59 Haryana
60 Himachal Pradesh
Shri Sanjeev Kaushal
Shri Shyamal Misra
Shri Vidya Sagar
Shri Rajeev Chaudhary
Shri Pushpendra Rajput
Shri K.L. Negi
61
Himachal Pradesh
62
Jammu & Kashmir
Shr P.I. Khateeb
63 Jammu & Kashmir
Shri P.K. Bhat
Shri Sushant Kumar
Mukherjee
Charge
Additional Commissioner, Commercial
Taxes
Commissioner, VAT
Joint Commissioner, GST
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
Secretary (Economic Affairs)
Additional Chief Secretary
Commissioner, Excise & Taxation
Joint Commissioner, Excise & Taxation
Deputy Commissioner, Excise & Taxation
Commissioner, Excise & Taxation
OSD to Excise & Taxation Minister
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
Additional Commissioner, Commercial
Taxes
64 Jharkhand
65 Jharkhand
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ga
79
Mizoram
Shri R. Zosiamliana
80 Nagaland
Shri Asangba Chuba Ao
81
Odisha
Shri Tuhin Kanta Pandey
82
Odisha
Shri Saswat Mishra
83
Odisha
Shri Sahadev Sahu
84 Puducherry
Dr. V. Candavelou
85 Puducherry
86 Punjab
87 Punjab
Shri Rajeev Gupta
88 Punjab
Shri Varun Roojam
89 Punjab
Shri Kumar Saurabh
90 Sikkim
91 Rajasthan
92 Rajasthan
93 Rajasthan
94 Tamil Nadu
Dr. C. Chandramouli
95 Tamil Nadu
96 Telangana
97 Telangana
98 Telangana
Shri Laxminarayan Jannu
99 Uttarakhand
Shri Manoj Rai
Shri Praveen Gupta
Shri Alok Gupta
Shri Ketan Sharma
Shri K. Gnanasekaran
Shri Somesh Kumar
Shri Anil Kumar
Charge
Parliamentary Secretary, Taxation
OSD to Government of Mizoram
Joint Commissioner, Taxes
Deputy Commissioner, Taxes
Commissioner, Taxes
Principal Secretary (Finance)
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
Secretary (Finance)
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
Additional Chief Secretary
Advisor (GST), Govt of Punj
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
i Mahapatra
106 West Bengal
Shri Khalid A Anwar
107 GSTN
Shri Navin Kumar
Chairman
108
GSTN
Shri Prakash Kumar
CEO
Page 22 of 23
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
Senior Joint Commissioner, Commercial
Tax
WRITE A WAY
MINUTE BOOK
Annexure 3
List of Representatives from the Power Sector who attended the 9th GST Council Meeting on
16 January 2017
S No
Sector/Ministry
Name
Designation
1 Ministry of Power
Shri Pradeep Kumar Pujari
Secretary
2 Ministry of Power
Shri Raj Pal
Economic Adviser
3 Ministry of Power
Shri Somit Das Gupta
4
Power Sector
Shri K.P. Gupta
Member (E&C), CEA
Executive Director,
NTPC
5
Power Sector
Shri Atul Gupta
Consultant (GST)
6
Power Sector
Shri Ajay Kapoor
CEO, Tata Power
Ministry of New & Renewable
7 Energy
Shri Rajeev Kapoor
Ministry of New & Renewable
8 Energy
Shri Santosh Vaidya
Secretary
Joint Secretary
Ministry of New & Renewable
9 Energy
Shri Ruchin Gupta
Deputy Secretary
Page 23 of 23
CHAIRMAN'S
INITIAL
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =