Goods and Services Tax

2018 (10) TMI 514 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KERALA – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 93 (A. A. R. – GST) – Input Tax Credit – Demo cars – Whether input tax credit on the motor car purchased for demonstration purpose of the customer can be availed as credit on capital goods and set off against output tax payable under GST in the case of a motor car dealer?
–
Held that:- The capital goods which are used in the course or furtherance of business, is entitled for input tax credit. As the impugned purchase of demo car is in furtherance of business, the applicant is eligible for input tax credit. Furthermore, this activity does not come under the negative clause, as after a limited period of use as demo car, the vehicles are sold at the written down book value.
–
The availability of input tax credit shall be subject to the provisions of Section 18(6) of the GST Act. In the case of supply of capital goods on which input tax credit has been taken, the registered person shall pay an amount

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

onstration purpose for the prospective customer and after a specific period of time, they are sold off for the book value, paying the applicable taxes at that point of time. The petitioner sought for advance ruling on the following: Whether input tax credit on the motor car purchased for demonstration purpose of the customer can be availed as credit on capital goods and set off against output tax payable under GST in the case of a motor car dealer. The authorized representative of the firm was heard. He has stated that the demo car is purchased against tax invoice and reflected in the books as capital assets. As per their business norms, every sales outlet is bound to maintain at least three demo cars. The duration of test drive vehicles is usually two years or 40,000 kms. whichever is earlier. As per Section 16(1) of the GST Act, every registered person shall be entitled to take credit of input tax charged on any supply of goods or services or both which are used or intended to be use

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

iod. Later on, when demo cars are sold at the written down book value, applicable GST is satisfied at that point of time. GST Act does not prescribe the time within which further supply is to be effected. So much so, the embargo under Section 17(5) will not apply and the applicant is entitled for input tax credit as against demo cars. The issue was examined in detail. The suppliers of vehicles supplied demo cars against tax invoices. The demo car is an indispensable tool for promotion of sales by providing trial run to customers and to understand the features of the vehicle. The applicant capitalizes the purchase in the books of accounts. The capital goods which are used in the course or furtherance of business, is entitled for input tax credit. As the impugned purchase of demo car is in furtherance of business, the applicant is eligible for input tax credit. Furthermore, this activity does not come under the negative clause, as after a limited period of use as demo car, the vehicles a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (10) TMI 477 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Renting of immovable property service – appellant leased out lands to M/s. NLC Tamilnadu Power Ltd. for setting up for coal based Thermal Power Plant at Tuticorin – Held that:- The Tribunal in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [2014 (1) TMI 1203 – CESTAT NEW DELHI] has discussed the issue and held that renting of vacant land is not taxable prior to amendment with effect from 01.07.2010 – demand do not sustain – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – ST/40359/2015 – 42476/2018 – Dated:- 26-9-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri R. Sai Prasanth, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, ADC (AR) ORDER PER BENCH Brief facts are that on investigation it was revealed that the appellant leased out lands to M/s. NLC Tamilnadu Power Ltd. for setting up for coal based Thermal Power Plant at Tuticorin and collected lease

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2010, definition of renting of immovable property was amended to include vacant lands given on rent for construction of building on temporary structure at later stage to be used for furtherance of business or commerce. Accordingly, the appellant has been discharging service tax on the lease rentals collected towards vacant land with effect from 01.07.2010. This issue stands already settled in favour of the appellant by Hon ble Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida Vs. Greater Noida Development Authority 2015 (40) STR 46 (All.) wherein it was held that in view of exclusion of vacant land from ambit of immovable property prior to 01.07.2010, it cannot be said to be merely clarificatory and retrospective from 01.06.2007. Further reliance is placed on decision of Hon ble Delhi Tribunal in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. CCE, Customs & S.T. Noida 2015 (39) STR 443 (Tri.-Del.) wherein he Hon ble Tribunal has also held that renting of vacant land is not

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

son, by renting of immovable property or any other service in relation to such renting, for use in the course of or for furtherance of, business or commerce.] Explanation 1. – For the purposes of this sub-clause, immovable property includes – (i) building and part of a building, and the land appurtenant thereto; (ii) land incidental to the use of such building or part of a building; (iii) the common or shared areas and facilities relating thereto; and (iv) in case of a building located in a complex or an industrial estate, all common areas and facilities relating thereto, within such complex or estate, but does not include – (a) vacant land solely used for agriculture, aquaculture, farming, forestry, animal husbandry, mining purposes; (b) vacant land, whether or not having facilities clearly incidental to the use of such vacant land; (c) land used for educational, sports, circus, entertainment and parking purposes; and (d) building used solely for residential purposes and buildings use

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

t a lease of vacant land (for construction of a building or a temporary structure at a later stage to be used for furtherance of business or commerce) is a taxable service only since 1- 7-2010; according to Revenue clause (v) in Explanation 1 merely clarifies the clear and implicit intent of clause (zzzz). xxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxx 15. On the above analysis, renting of vacant land by way of lease or licence (irrespective of the duration or tenure), for construction of a building or a temporary structure for use at a later stage in furtherance of business or commerce is a taxable service only from 1-7-2010, and not so, earlier to this date. Further, the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Greater Noida Development Authority (supra) had also held that there is no liability to pay service tax prior to 1.7.2010 for renting of vacant land. Following the decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the demand cannot sustain. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allow

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (10) TMI 404 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Construction services – Construction of residential complex services – Works Contract Service – Composite contracts or Pure Services – it was noticed that the appellant did not pay service tax on the entire construction activities and also that they have paid service tax under the works contract service on the taxable value realized from customers towards builders’ share of constructed area – period involved in the present case is from October 2004 to March 2009.
–
Held that:- The contracts entered between the appellant and the service recipient is a composite contract which involves both supply of materials as well as rendering of service – The Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. [2018 (9) TMI 1149 – CESTAT CHENNAI] had occasion to analyse the issue regarding demand of service tax under construction of residential complex services, commercial or industrial construction service and construction of complex service. The Tribun

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

For the Respondent : Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, ADC (AR) ORDER PER BENCH Brief facts are that during verification of accounts of the appellants by the Service Tax Commissionerate, Chennai it was noticed that the appellant did not pay service tax on the entire construction activities and also that they have paid service tax under the works contract service on the taxable value realized from customers towards builders share of constructed area. Show cause notice was issued proposing to demand short-paid service tax along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalties. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri G. Natarajan appeared and argued the matter, which can be summarized as under:- 2.1 The appellant has entered into a Deed of Agreement (Joint Development agreement) dated 14.07.2004 with Mrs. N. Vasanthal and Mr. N. Murugappan, who are owners of a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

area of 1,22,428 Sq. Feet, 63888 Sq. Feet would be for the land owners and the remaining 58,540 Sq. Feet would be for the appellant. The differences have been settled between the landowners and appellant by making suitable payments, subsequently. 2.2 As and when the appellant s portion of constructed area was sold by the appellant, appropriate service tax has been paid on the same by the appellant, by opting for composition scheme under works contract service, on the total amount received from the buyers, including the UDS land value. In this connection, a show cause notice No. 546/2010 dated 30.09.2010 has been issued on the appellant, alleging non-payment / short payment of service tax on the basis of various allegations, and demanding a total service tax of ₹ 6,81,44,297. It is alleged that the appellant has rendered commercial or industrial construction service to the landowners, in so far as the 50 % constructed area is being handed over to the landowners. The value of such

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ided by the appellant to the buyers of the appellant s share of constructed area, where the appellant has paid service tax under composition scheme of works contract service. The break-up of the demands is given below. S. No. Details of Demand Period of demand Amount of demand I Demand of service tax on services rendered to land owner, in respect of the commercial project – Navin s Presidium, commercial or industrial construction service (CICS) June 2005 to September 2009 Rs.3,97,29,247 II Demand of service tax on services rendered to buyers from the appellant s portion, on the ground that service tax is payable under commercial or industrial construction service and not under works contract service (composition scheme) – Navin s Presidium July 2007 to September 2009 Rs.2,84,15,050 Total Rs.6,81,44,297 2.3 The construction activity undertaken by the appellant involves both transfer of property in goods and services. The appellant had been paying service tax under WCS in respect of the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

be set aside. 2.5 As only pure service contracts are covered under the definition of CICS as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court, confirmation of the demand under the said service, post 01.06.2017, in respect of the composite contracts undertaken by the appellant is not at all sustainable. In this connection, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. Vs. CCE – 2018-TIOL-2867-CESTAT, Chennai. 2.6 Further, the appellant also relied on the decision of the Hon ble Tribunal in Vasantha Green Projects VS CCE – 2018-TIOL-1611-CESTAT-Hyd wherein the demands in respect of services provided to landowners has been set aside on the ground that the entire amount received from buyers has been subjected to levy of service tax. In the instant case also, the entire amount received from the buyers has been subjected to the levy of service tax in the hands of the appellant, under WCS. He prayed that the impugned order may kindly be set aside and the appeal allowed.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rvices and which are not composite contracts. Further, it was held that after 1.6.2007, demand in respect of composite contracts would fall under works contract service only. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced as under:- 7.8 On the contrary, being composite works contracts, they will necessarily fall within the ambit of works contract service as defined under section 65(105)(zzzza) ibid. It is possibly with this intent in mind that the lawmakers have included in the definition of works contract, erection and commissioning service, commercial or industrial construction service, construction of complex service and in addition turnkey projects including EPC projects within the definition of Works Contract Service. 7.9 At this juncture, it is worthwhile to reproduce excerpts from the Union Finance Minister s budget speech in 2007:- State Governments levy a tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract. The value of services in a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

view is supported by the fact that the method / scheme for discharging service tax on the service portion of composite contract was introduced only in 2007. 7.11 The ld. AR Shri A. Cletus has tried to counter this contention by stating that works contract service is service / activity which would be of a general nature whereas the construction activities defined in Commercial or Industrial Construction Services, Construction of Complex Service and Construction of Residential Complex etc. are of special nature. He took support of the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant – general things do not derogate special things . The counsel for appellants have submitted that as per Section 65A of the Act ibid, classification of service shall be based on the specific entries and the more specific description of service has to be preferred. He invited our attention to CBEC s Circular 128/10/2010 dated 24.8.2010 which is reproduced as under:- The matter has been examined. As regards the classif

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

be taken into account. 7.13 We find sustenance in arriving at this conclusion by a number of decisions of the Tribunal in which it has held as under:- a. In the case of Commissioner, Service Tax, New Delhi Vs. Swadeshi Construction Company – 2018-TIOL-1096-CESTAT-DEL, the Tribunal in para 7 has held as under:- 7. We note that in the present case, the SCN was issued on 27.05.2011. On that date, both the tax entries, namely, Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and Works Contract Service, were available in the Finance Act, 1994. The SCN did mention this in the first para itself. However, the proposal for tax demand was specifically made under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service under Section 65 (105) (zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994. In such situation, we note that it cannot be a case of simple mentioning of wrong provisions of law as submitted by the Revenue. Apparently, the tax liability of composite works contract is to be considered under works contract services onl

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

cally held that all the 52 contracts which has been executed by the appellants are with material. Learned Counsel was correct in bringing to our notice that the said findings of the adjudicating authority that the appellant is eligible for abatement of 67% of the value of the goods is in itself the acceptance of the fact that the contracts were executed with material. It is also on record that the Revenue has not contested these findings of the adjudicating authority before the Tribunal. If that be so, even when the Revenue authorities are accepting the facts that the contracts executed by the appellant are nothing but works contracts, for the period in question, entire case of the Revenue in the show-cause notice stands demolished by the Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra). In the said judgment, their Lordships have very categorically laid down the law that the works contract cannot be vivisected for the confirmation of demand under various other services. On th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

out above, the value of a taxable service is the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service rendered by him. This would unmistakably show that what is referred to in the charging provision is the taxation of service contracts simpliciter and not composite works contracts, such as are contained on the facts of the present cases. It will also be noticed that no attempt to remove the non-service elements from the composite works contracts has been made by any of the aforesaid Sections by deducting from the gross value of the works contract the value of properly in goods transferred in the execution of a works contract. 10. In view of this specific decision and the admitted claim of the appellant that they are not providers of commercial or industrial construction service but of works contract service , no tax is liable on construction contracts executed prior to 1st June, 2007. 11. Insofar as demand for subsequent period till 30th September, 2008 is concerned, it is see

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2007 will get extinguished on account of the law that has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd., (supra), relied upon by the Ld. Counsel. So ordered. 5.2 The Ld. Counsel has been at pains to point out that on-going projects which were only in the nature of works contract prior to 01.04.2007 cannot be brought under different category of Construction Services and CICS subsequently. We find merit in his arguments. The SCN has proposed demand of service tax liability only under these two categories and not under Works Contract service. The demand confirmed in the impugned order under these categories namely under construction service for the period 10.09.2004 to 16.06.2005 under CICS for the period 16.06.2005 to 30.09.2008 cannot also sustain and are therefore set aside. So ordered 5.3 For the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008, the demand confirmed is ₹ 26,88,611/-. We note that the appellant has not contested the liability under works contract for th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

f composite works contract cannot be brought within the fold of commercial or industrial construction service or construction of complex service in the light of the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in Larsen & Toubro (supra) upto 1.6.2007 b. For the period after 1.6.2007, service tax liability under category of commercial or industrial construction service under Section 65(105)(zzzh) ibid, Construction of Complex Service under Section 65(105)(zzzq) will continue to be attracted only if the activities are in the nature of services simpliciter. c. For activities of construction of new building or civil structure or new residential complex etc. involving indivisible composite contract, such services will require to be exigible to service tax liabilities under Works Contract Service as defined under section 65(105)(zzzza) ibid. d. The show cause notices in all these cases prior to 1.6.2007 and subsequent to that date for the periods in dispute, proposing service tax liability on the impu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (10) TMI 403 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Valuation – completion and finishing services/construction services – inclusion of materials consumed in the course of providing the service in assessable value – benefit of abatement under N/N. 1/2006-ST dated 1.3.2006 denied – it is alleged that the appellants bifurcated the value of purchase order into charges for materials and labour charges and they paid service tax only on the labour charges – demand of service tax on the value of materials under the category of commercial or industrial construction service (finished services) – demand under the head Works contract services – Scope of SCN.
–
Demand for the period prior to 1.6.2007 – Held that:- The works contract has come into effect only after 1.6.2007 – The decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 749 – SUPREME COURT] would apply to the period prior to 1.6.2007 wherein it was held that levy under works contract service prior to 1.6.2007 cannot sustain – demand do

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

atachalam, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) ORDER PER BENCH Brief facts are that based on intelligence that the appellants are not paying appropriate service tax on construction activities, the SIR Group of Service Tax Commissionerate, Chennai initiated investigation and collected relevant records from the appellant. It was noticed that they provided completion and finishing services which are classifiable under commercial or industrial construction service with effect from 16.6.2005. Further, it was noticed that they split the gross value of services into material cost and labour charges by issuing separate bills and paid service tax only on labour charges. It appeared that the labour charges works out to approximately 33% of the total value and the assessee has availed abatement as provided under Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 1.3.2006. According to department, the materials are consumed in the course of providing the service and therefore appellants are no

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he labour charges alone. Service tax was demanded on the materials under the category of Commercial and Industrial Construction Service (Finishing Service) by denying exemption under the Notification No.15/2004ST dt.10.09.2004 as amended by Notification No.1/2006 ST dt.10.9.2004. 2.3 The appellants submitted in their reply that they are not availing exemption under Notification No.15/2004ST dt.10.09.2004 as amended by Notification No.1/2006 ST dt.10.9.2004 but only under Notification No.12/2003 – ST dated 20.06.2003. After seeing the reply filed by the appellants the learned Commissioner recorded findings on the applicability of Notification No.12/2003 – ST dated 20.06.2003 in the impugned order which is beyond the scope of show cause notice. The learned Commissioner classified the appellants‟ activities under Works Contract Service and demanded service tax from 16.06.2005 to 31.07.2008 though Works Contract Service was introduced only from 01.06.2007. Therefore the entire order

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

s on which tax is leviable under VAT or CST. As per Rule 2A of Service Tax Determination of Value Rules, 2006 Value of works contract service determined shall be equivalent to the gross amount charged for the works contract less the value of transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of the said works contract . 2.6 The materials sold during the provision of Service need not be included with the value of taxable service. In this case, it is admitted by the learned Commissioner by classifying the service under Works Contract‟ that the activity of appellants involves transfer of property of goods while providing their service, for the reasons mentioned in the earlier paras as they could not be called as consumables. In this case the appellants have shown the material value and the service charges separately. 2.7 The exemption contained in the said Notification No.12/2003 dt.20.6.2003 is available to all services. Further when the appellants avail the said Notification

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

terials in the prescribed returns. Only after 2007 new format of ST3 return is prescribed. In the new format also there is no provision for showing value of materials sold. Only in case of abatement claimed under notifications, the abatement value claimed is to be shown in the ST3 returns. In this case the appellants herein have not claimed any abatement or exemption from the value of taxable service provided by them. The appellants have not included the value of the material as the said materials used could has no relevance to the Service provided and the value of taxable service arrived therein. 2.10 He relied upon the decision in the case of Safety Retreading Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem – 2017 (48) STR 97 (SC) and also the decision of the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 42489/2017 dated 31.10.2017 in the case of Admec Logistics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli. 3. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supported the findings in the impugned order

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

irmed the demand classifying the activity under the category of works contract from 16.6.2005 to 31.3.2008. Needless to say that the works contract has come into effect only after 1.6.2007. The decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. as reported in 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC) would apply to the period prior to 1.6.2007 wherein it was held that levy under works contract service prior to 1.6.2007 cannot sustain. For the period after 1.6.2007, it is seen that though the show cause notice raises the demand under commercial or industrial construction service, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand under works contract service. The Commissioner has thus travelled beyond the show cause notice and the demand after 1.6.2007, for this reason alone, cannot sustain. The Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters and Ors. vide Final Order No. 42436 to 42438/2018 dated 18.9.2018 had occasion to analyse the issue and has held that the demand under commercial or industrial construction servic

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (10) TMI 402 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Construction of commercial or industrial construction service – Workd Contract Service – benefit of Abatement of 67% – pure services or composite contracts – non-discharge of tax appropriately on the construction activities – period involved in the present case is from October 2004 to March 2009 – demand with Interest and penalties.
–
Held that:- The contracts entered between the appellant and the service recipient is a composite contract which involves both supply of materials as well as rendering of service. The Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. [2018 (9) TMI 1149 – CESTAT CHENNAI] had occasion to analyse the issue regarding demand of service tax under construction of residential complex services, commercial or industrial construction service and construction of complex service. The Tribunal has held that prior to 1.6.2007, levy of service tax can be under the above categories only for contracts which are purely for serv

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the demand of service tax under construction of commercial or industrial construction service (residential complex service). 3. Brief facts are that during investigation, it was found that the appellant rendered construction of residential complex service in respect of M/s. Vijaisurya Apartments for the period 2006 – 08 consisting of 62 dwelling units and Vijayisurya Residency which was started in the month of April 2009 consisting of 19 dwelling units. In all these cases, the appellant had entered into construction agreement with clients for construction of flats and executed sale agreement only on UDS land and not for the total built-up constructed area of the flat and as such there is no total sale involved and the appellants have rendered service of construction of flats to the respective clients. They did not discharge appropriate service tax on the construction activities for which show cause notices were issued proposing to demand service tax under commercial or industrial const

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Sep 2011 Dept Appeal for non-imposition of penalty under Sec. 76 Sec. 76 ST/40337/2013 Jan 2010 to Dec 2010 Rs.4,66,097 Rs.200 per day / 2 % pm (Sec. 76) ₹ 4,66,097 (Sec. 78) 4. The ld. Counsel Shri G. Natarajan appeared and argued the matter for the appellants, which can be broadly summarized as under:- 4.1 The above demands of service tax stand confirmed on the appellant under construction of complex service, as defined under Section 65 (105) (zzzh) read with Section 65 (30a) and Section 65 (91a) of the Finance Act, 1994, in respect of certain residential apartment construction activities undertaken by the appellant. The demand has been made after granting abatement of 67 % from value, as the activities involve transfer of property in goods also. 4.2 At the outset, it is submitted that since transfer of property is also involved, the activities are liable to service tax only under works contract service, as per Section 65 (105)(zzzza) of the Act, from 01.06.2007 only and for th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ents, cannot come in aid to levy service tax on composite contracts prior to 01.06.2007, as the validity of a levy cannot depend upon the existence of exemption notifications issued by the executive. The said decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court has been followed in a catena of cases, out of which reliance is placed on the following. Balaji Builders v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2017 (6) GSTL 59 (Tri-Del) Ircon International Ltd v. CCE, Delhi reported in 2017 (5) GSTL (221) (Tri-Del) 4.3 Hence, the demand upto 31.05.2007 under construction of residential complex service is not at all sustainable and liable to be set aside. 4.4 As only pure service contracts are covered under the definition of Construction of residential complex service, confirmation of the demand under the said service, post 01.06.2017, in respect of the composite contracts undertaken by the appellant is not at all sustainable. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following decisions. Real Value Promoters Ltd. V

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ief. 5. The ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy supported the findings in the impugned order. 6. After hearing both sides, it is brought to light that the period involved in the present case is from October 2004 to March 2009. The demand has been raised in the show cause notice under construction of residential complex services. The contracts entered between the appellant and the service recipient is a composite contract which involves both supply of materials as well as rendering of service. The Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. (supra) had occasion to analyse the issue regarding demand of service tax under construction of residential complex services, commercial or industrial construction service and construction of complex service. The Tribunal has held that prior to 1.6.2007, levy of service tax can be under the above categories only for contracts which are purely for services. That after 1.6.2007, the above categories would be applicable only if the contracts are pure

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

in a works contract should attract service tax. Hence, I propose to an optional composition scheme under which service tax will be levied at only 2 per cent of the total value of the words contract . 7.10 The issue was analyzed by the Hon ble Apex Court in Larsen & Toubro case (supra) and held that there can be no levy of service tax on composite contracts (involving both service and supply of goods) prior to 1.6.2007. This read together with the budget speech as above would lead to the strong conclusion that composite contracts were brought within the ambit of levy of service tax only with effect from 1.6.2007 by introduction of Section 65(105)(zzzza) i.e. Works Contract Services. As pointed out by the ld. counsels for appellants, there is no change in the definition of CICS/CCS/RCS after 1.6.2007. Therefore only those contracts which were service simpliciter (not involving supply of goods) would be subject to levy of service tax under CICS / CCS / RCS prior to 1.6.2007 and after

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

assification, with effect from 1-6-2007 when the new service Works Contract service was made effective, classification of aforesaid services would undergo a change in case of long term contracts even though part of the service was classified under the respective taxable service prior to 1-6-2007. This is because works contract describes the nature of the activity more specifically and, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994, it would be the appropriate classification for the part of the service provided after that date. 7.12 Thus, for example, while construction of a new residential complex as a service simpliciter would find a place under section 65(105)(30b) of the Act, the same activity as a composite works contract will require to be brought under section 65(105)(zzzza) Explanation (c). For both these categories for the definition of residential complex, the definition given in section 65(105)(91a) will have to be adopted as discussed above will ha

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

s only as per legal position settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s L&T Limited. Even in the appeal, the Revenue submitted that the respondent were engaged in construction services liable to tax under tax entry Section 65(105) (xxq). The grievance of the Revenue is with reference to commercial nature of the construction undertaken by the respondent and not on the correct classification of taxable activity. b. In the case of Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai – 2018-TIOL-360-CESTAT-MUM, in respect of identical issue for the period from 2005 to 2012, the Tribunal in para 7 has held as under:- 7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the issue falls for consideration is whether the services rendered by the appellant in respect of 52 contracts entered with various Govt. authorities need to be taxed under MMRC/CICS/ECIS or otherwise. It is on record and undisputed that the adjudicating authority has sp

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

On this ground itself, the entire demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority is liable to be set aside and we do so. c. In the case of URC Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem – 2017 (50) STR 147, the Tribunal in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 has held as under:- 9. The Hon ble Supreme Court in re Larsen & Toubro & Ors. has decided thus 24. A close look at the Finance Act, 1994 would show that the five taxable services referred to in the charging Section 65(105) would refer only to service contracts simpliciter and not to composite works contracts. This is clear from the very language of Section 65(105) which defines taxable service as any service provided . All the services referred to in the said sub-clauses are service contracts simpliciter without any other element in them, such as for example, a service contract which is a commissioning and installation, or erection, commissioning and installation contract. Further, under Section 67, as has been poi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

s seen that neither of the two show cause notices adduce to leviability of tax for rendering works contract service . On the contrary, the submission of the appellant that they had been providing works contract service had been rejected by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, even as the services rendered by them are taxable for the period from 1st June, 2007 to 30th September, 2008 the narrow confines of the show cause notices do not permit confirmation of demand of tax on any service other than commercial or industrial construction service . It is already established in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court that the entry under Section 65(105)(zzd) is liable to be invoked only for construction simpliciter. Therefore, there is no scope for vivisection to isolate the service component of the contract. d. In the case of Logos Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise as reported in 2018 (6) TMI 1361, the Tribunal has held as under:- 5.1 The payment upto 0

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

or this period. The only argument brought forth by the Ld. Counsel is that they have discharged an amount of around ₹ 82 lakhs under this category after the visit of the departmental officers and therefore an amount of ₹ 36,88,611/- demanded in the impugned order should be considered as having been discharged. We find merit in his argument and hence the demand of ₹ 26,88,611/- under works contract service for the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008 is required to be considered as having been paid, albeit subsequent to the visit of the officers. However, the interest liability if any that arise on this amount if not paid already will have to be discharged by the appellants. So ordered. 8. In the light of the discussions, findings and conclusions above and in particular, relying on the ratios of the case laws cited supra, we hold as under:- a. The services provided by the appellant in respect of the projects executed by them for the period prior to 1.6.2007 being in the nat

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

impugned services involving composite works contract, under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service or Construction of Complex Service, cannot therefore sustain. In respect of any contract which is a composite contract, service tax cannot be demanded under CICS / CCS for the periods also after 1.6.2007 for the periods in dispute in these appeals. For this very reason, the proceedings in all these appeals cannot sustain. 7. Following the above decision, we are of the considered opinion that the demand of service tax under commercial or industrial construction service (residential complex) cannot sustain after the period 1.6.2007. The levy of service tax prior to 1.6.2007 cannot also sustain by application of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. – 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC). 8. From the discussions made above, we hold that the impugned order cannot sustain and is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Operative

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – KA.NI.-2-1895/XI-9(47)/17 – Dated:- 26-9-2018 – Uttar Pradesh Shasan Sansthagat Vitta, Kar Evam Nibandhan Anubhag-2 NOTIFICATION NO. KA.NI.-2-1895/XI-9(47)/17-U.P. Act-01-2017, Order-(144)-2018 Lucknow : Dated : September 26, 2018 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 128 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 2017), the Governor, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby waives the late fee paid under section 47 of the said Act, by

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (10) TMI 199 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – TMI – Unable to upload Form TRAN-1 – migration to GST Regime – input tax credit – Held that:- Our attention is drawn to Section 172 of the Act which inter alia provides for removal of difficulties which may arise during the implementation of the Act – It appears to us that it would be appropriate that the Central Government issues a general and/or special order under Section 172 of the Act addressing the above issue on general or special basis, taking into account the ground realities – the Petition is adjourned to 10th October 2018. – WRIT PETITION NO. 2086 OF 2018 Dated:- 26-9-2018 – M.S. SANKLECHA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, i/b Mr. Shailendra Singh, for the Petitioners. M

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nstead of ₹ 1,11,05,550/. This the Petitioners have been seeking to correct by approaching the Respondents. However, inspite of the Petitioners best efforts, the Respondents have refused to allow the Petitioners to carry out the necessary amendment to the TRAN-1 already submitted or even accept a fresh TRAN-1. 3. We note that the human errors such as one which is arising in the present Petition are likely to have taken place in other cases also. At times these mistakes in keying in the correct figures would work in favour of the State and at other times in favour of Assessee. According to learned Counsel for both sides, there is no provision in the Act, which allows correction/rectification of such errors. 4. During the course of hear

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Modification of the procedure for interception of conveyances for inspection of goods in movement, and detention, release and confiscation of such goods and conveyances, as clarified in GST Circular No. 05/2018 dated 26.04.2018 issued by this office and notification issued by CBIC No. 49/23/2018-GST dated 21.06.2018. – GST – States – GST Circular No. 8/2018 – Dated:- 26-9-2018 – Rajasthan Government Commercial Tax Department F.17(134) ACCT/GST/2017/3877 Date: 26.09.2018 GST Circular No. 8/2018 All Joint Commissioner (Adm.), Commercial Taxes Department, ……………………………………………… Subject: Modification of the procedure for interception of conveyances for inspection of goods in movement,' and detention, release and confiscation of such goods and conveyances, as clarified in GST Circular No. 05/2018 dated 26.04.2018 issued by this office and notification issued by CBIC

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

es') requires that the person in charge of a conveyance carrying any consignment of goods of value exceeding ₹ 50,000/- should carry a copy of documents viz., invoice/bill of supply/delivery challan/bill of entry and a valid e-way bill in physical or electronic form for verification. In case such person does not carry the mentioned documents, there is no doubt that a contravention of the provisions of the law takes place and the provisions of section 129 and section 130 of the RGST Act are invocable. Further, it may be noted that the non-furnishing of information in Part B of FORM GST EWB-01 amounts to the e-way bill becoming not a valid document for the movement of goods by road as per Explanation (2) to rule 138(3) of the RGST Rules, except in the case where the goods are transported for a distance of upto fifty kilometres from within the State or from the place of business of the transporter to the place of business of the consignor or the consignee, and where goods are tr

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

lia, in the following situations: a) Spelling mistakes in the name of the consignor or the consignee but the GSTIN, wherever applicable, is correct; b) Error in the pin-code but address of the, Consignor and the consignee mentioned is correct, subject to the condition that the error in the PIN code should not have the effect of increasing the validity period of the e-way bill; c) Error in the address of the consignee to the extent that the locality and other details of the consignee are correct; d) Error in one or two digits of the document number mentioned in the e-way bill; e} Error in 4 or 6 digit level of HSN where the first 2 digits of HSN are correct and the rate of tax mentioned is correct; f) Error in one or two digits/characters of the vehicle number. 7. In case of the' above situations, penalty to the tune of ₹ 500/- each under section 125 of the CGST and RGST Act should be imposed (Rs.1000/- under the IGST Act) in FORM GST DRC-07 for every consignment. A record of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – GST Circular No. 9/2018 – Dated:- 26-9-2018 – Rajasthan Government Commercial Tax Department F.17(134) ACCT/GST/2017/3876 Date: 26.09.2018 GST Circular No. 9/2018 All Joint Commissioner (Adm.), Commercial Taxes Department, ……………………………………………… Subject: Transfer of refund cases to the jurisdictional tax authority for issuance of FORM GST RFD-01B. Vide Circular No. 17/17/2017-GST dated 15.11.2017 issued by CBIC, it was stated that in case an administrative order for assigning a taxpayer to either the Central Tax or the State Tax authority was not issued in a State/Union Territory by the Principal Chief Co

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – F.12(89)FD/Tax/2017 – Dated:- 26-9-2018 – Government of Rajasthan Finance (Tax) Department F.12(89)FD/Tax/2017 Dated: 26.09.2018 To, All HoDs (as per list attached) Subject: Notification of Tax Deduction at Source under GST from 01.10.2018. Please refer to this office letters No. F.12(89)FD/Tax/2017 dated 20,09.2017 & 02.11.2017 as well as letter F.12(31)FD/Tax/2018 dated 15.05.2018 wherein it had been directed that all government departments procuring goods and services under a contract exceeding ₹ 2.5 lakhs will be required to deduct tax at source under Section 51 of the GST law. For this purpose every DDO making such a deduction, is required to take a TAN based registration and to file returns as prescribed unde

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (10) TMI 140 – CALCUTTA HIGH COURT – TMI – Vires of time limit prescribed under Rule 117 of the CGST Rule 2017 and Rule 117 of the West Bengal GST Rules, 2017 – Carry forward of Credit under existing laws to GST – petitioner contends that, the time limit prescribed under Rule 117 of the CGST Rule 2017 and Rule 117 of the West Bengal GST Rules, 2017 is ultra vires to the provision of Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Held that:- The issues raised in the writ petition are such that, an opportunity should be afforded to the respondents to file affidavits – Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within two weeks after ensuing Puja Vacation. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within a week thereafter – List the writ petition in the Monthly Co

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (10) TMI 80 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Refund of excise duty paid – Compound levy scheme for SS Patta/ Patti – abatement on pro-rata basis – refund claimed on the ground that they have paid the excise duty for the entire month of November 2016and February 2017 whereas the cold rolling machines operating during those months were dismantled – refund was rejected on the ground that the appellant have not opted for the first time under the compounded levy scheme in both these months and as such the conditions of the impugned notification remains unfulfilled.
–
Whether the refund claim of the proportionate Central excise duty deposited for the non working period of newly added machines is admissible to appellant, or otherwise?
–
Held that:- The appellant had applied for addition of cold rolling machines and the permission were granted by the superintended Jodhpur. It is thereafter that the appellant filed the impugned refund claim for duty deposited for the non working period

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

f Jupiter Industries [2006 (4) TMI 164 – HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR] squarely applies to the appellant wherein it was held that payment of duty after dismantling of machines and discontinuance of production is not contemplated by Rule 96 ZB and 96 ZB(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Sub Rule 2 of Rule 96 ZB lays down the method of calculation of sum payable. It was held that these rules in no way stipulates that any sum at the compounded rate is payable towards duty for the machine which is not in existence with the manufacturer nor does it say that no refund claim can be made with regard to excess payment made – The decision is squarely applicable in the instant case where the appellant had paid the duty for the months of November to February despite that all cold rolling machines were not operating for certain no. of days, during the month of November 2016 to February 2017.
–
The appellant is entitled for the proportionate refund of duty for the days when

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tled. It was mentioned that two no. of machines got dismantled w.e.f. 23.11.2016 to 30.11.2016 and one machine got dismantled and the non operating period thereon was 01.02.2017 to 14.02.2017. 3. The said refund for proportionate excise duty pertaining to the said period was rejected vide the order of original adjudicating authority bearing no. 2090 dated 30.05.2017, on the ground that the appellant have not opted for the first time under the compounded levy scheme in both these months and as such the conditions of the impugned notification remains unfulfilled. The facility of abatement on pro rata basis is therefore not available to the appellant. Being aggrieved an appeal was filed the same has been rejected vide the order under challenge resultantly the present appeal. 4. I have heard both the parties. It is impressed upon on behalf of the appellant that the procedure contained in notification 17/2007-CE dated 01.03.2007 prescribes the duty demand on no. of cold rolling machines man

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of newly added machines is admissible to appellant, or otherwise. For the purpose, the impugned notification is relevant. The same reads as follows: (1) A manufacturer whose application has been granted under paragraph 2 shall pay a sum calculated at the rate specified in this notification, subject to the conditions herein laid down, and such payment shall be in full discharged of his liability for duty leviable on his production of such cold re-rolled stainless pattas/pattis, or aluminum circles during the period for which the said sum has been paid: Provided further that when a manufacturer makes an application for the first time under paragraph 2 for availing of the procedure contained in this notification, the duty liability for the month in which the application is granted shall be calculated on the pro-rata basis of the total number of days in that month and the number of days remaining in the month from the date of such grant:. And para 6 of Notification No. 17/2007-CE dated 01

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

issued under the provisions of Rules 15 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Said rule provides for special procedure for payment of duty on the basis of such factors as may be relevant to production of such goods. This notification gives an option to the manufacturer of SS Patta/ Patti which are subjected to the process of cold rolling, whereby assessee can pay excise duty on the basis of no. of cold rolling machines installed for cold rolling of those goods. 8. Since this notification is issued under Central Excise Rules the provision thereof cannot be construed in the manner which is against Central Excise Act. Rule 3 of Central excise Act 1994 says that the duty is leviable on the manufacture of the excisable goods. Hence, when no cold rolling machine was installed or any of the machine was not operational question of payment of duty including such non-operational/ non-installed machine shall not arise. Accordingly I find that the interpretation as taken by the adjudicating authorities b

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (10) TMI 36 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Business Auxiliary Services” (BAS) / Business Support Service (BSS) – appellants were engaged in Courier activity, later on investigation it emerged that they were collecting certain charges as ‘crossing over charges’, raised on their sub-franchisee agencies located in other parts of Tamil Nadu for the purpose of enabling further movement of documents, which originated from their sub-franchisees’ end.
–
Held that:- It is but evident that the various franchisees spread over Tamil Nadu and the assessees based in Chennai, are operating in the hub-and-spoke business model. The documents from each of these TPC franchisees may be sent to the TPC hub at Chennai wherefrom they will be further sent onwards to various other TPC hubs in other parts of the country for further distribution. This being the case, crossing over charges are being collected only for the intra-movement of courier packages within the hub-and- spoke arrangement, namely with th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e agencies located in other parts of Tamil Nadu for the purpose of enabling further movement of documents, which originated from their sub-franchisees end. It appeared to the department that the activities of the assessees falls under Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) / Business Support Service (BSS). Hence a show cause notice No.68/2008 dt. 03.07.2008 was issued to appellants inter alia, proposing demand of service tax liability on the crossing over charges for the period 10.09.2004 to 30.04.2006 under BAS and for the period 01.05.2005 to 30.09.2007 under BSS along with interest and imposition of penalties. In adjudication, original authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 12,91,668/- for the period 10.09.2004 to 30.04.2006 under BAS and ₹ 16,42,302/- for subsequent period under BSS with interest thereon. Equal penalty was imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Penalty was also imposed under Section 77. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order No.18

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

er by single network. All the transactions are taking place only in the name TPC. In the circumstances, there is no service rendered to any third party and hence, there is no rendering of any Business Supportive Service. Moreover, admittedly, the entire activity is within TPC only. ii) The definition of Business Auxiliary Service cannot be applied in as much as the transaction is between the same network for the completion of the Courier Service and the Service for the self. There is no client and service provider relationship in the present case. Hence service provided by self to self only and the same cannot be exigible to service tax liability. Ld. Advocate placed reliance on Final Order No.42181/2018 dt. 01.08.2018 of CESTAT Chennai in the case of Concord Express Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. iii) The activity of TPC is similar to Co-loader. This Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Concord Express Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CST. (supra) has held that the demand of service tax on the co

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

hat service category of BSS was carved out of BAS only. He placed reliance on the Tribunal decision in DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. CCE & ST Bangalore – 2012 (26) STR 365 (Tri.- Bang.). Ld. AR also submits that the Board s Circular No.341/43/96-TRU dt. 1.11.1996 has no relevance to the present case since that was a clarification in respect of co-loaders. However in the instant case, the assessee were collecting crossing charges from their sub-franchisee agencies located in other parts of Tamil Nadu. He drew our attention to para-6 of the SCN dt. 3.7.2008 giving narration of statement of A. Mohideen Gani, Authorized person of the assessee recorded on 3.10.2007, where he has inter alia stated that crossing over charges are being collected towards logistic support and other support activities provided to the franchisee. For example, a document is booked at Trichy for destination to Mumbai. The said document comes to Chennai and the same is transferred to Mumbai. The charges incurred

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he alternate argument of the Ld. Advocate that activity involved in the present case is a continuous service of courier by single network and the transaction is between the same network for the completion of courier service, hence the service is being given to self. We note that from para-13 of the order of original authority dt. 30.07.2009, that the assessee in their reply to SCN had clarified and confirmed that TPC centers spread across different stations are belonging to one network community called TPC network ; that the charges for such enabling activity is exactly more or less to cover the expenditure involved in such re-routing by the center which is engaging such re-routing and the nomenclature is referred to as crossing charges; that the rate structure has been prescribed amongst the TPC network. It has also been submitted that as the TPC centers are to be considered as single network, they cannot be brought under the definition of client , there is no third party relationship

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

present case the impugned services within the TPC network is nothing but a continuation or culmination of courier services only. It then cannot be alleged that TPC receiving or giving of services within its own network of the assessee will render them liable to service tax levy. In the event, upholding of the demand under BSS by the lower appellate authority cannot be sustained and is therefore set aside. Appeal No.ST/57/2012 of the assessee succeeds and is allowed, with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. 5.3 Coming to the department appeal, for the same reasons discussed herein above, we hold that impugned services cannot also fall under BAS for the period prior to 1.5.2006. We therefore find no merit in department appeal. In consequence Appeal ST/54/2012 is dismissed. 6. To sum up – Assessee appeal ST/57/2012 is allowed Department appeal ST/54/2012 is dismissed. (operative part of the order pronounced in court) – Case laws – Decisions – Judgements – Orders – Tax Management

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – S.O. No. 65 – 51/2018 – State Tax – Dated:- 26-9-2018 – COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT Notification 26th September, 2018 Notification No. 51/2018 – State Tax S.O. No. 65 Dated. 26th September, 2018:- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Government of Jharkhand hereby appoints the 1st day of October, 2018, as the date on which the provisions of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – S.O. No. 63 – 41/2018 – State Tax – Dated:- 26-9-2018 – COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT Notification 26th September, 2018 Notification No. 41/2018 – State Tax S.O. No. 63 – Dated. 26th September, 2018:- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 128 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Government of Jharkhand, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby waives the late fee paid under section 47 of the said Act, by the following classes of taxpayer

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (9) TMI 1765 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – TMI – Validity of VAT assessment after introductions of GST – Assessment after the amendment to the Constitution by virtue of which Article 246A was inserted – According to the petitioners, with the amendment to the Constitution and corresponding status for Collection of Goods & Service Tax having been framed, the Value Added Tax laws would not survive.
–
Notice returnable on 10.10.2018. – R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14930 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14931 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14932 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14934 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14935 of 2018 Dated:- 26-9-2018 – MR AKIL KURESHI AND MR B.N. KARIA, JJ. R

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (9) TMI 1729 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Man Power Recruitment Agency and Supply Service – appellant have deputed the employees to their sister concern or units and collected deputation charges from the latter – Held that:- The scope of service tax liability in respect of the activity of staff to subsidiary / group companies is no longer res integra – The Hon’ble High Court in the case of CST Vs Arvind Mills Ltd. [2014 (4) TMI 132 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT], has held that subsidiary companies cannot be said to be client of holding company and the deputation of employees was only for and in the interest of the company; there is no relation of agency and client.
–
Section 73 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994 – Held that:- In the present case, a SCN has very much been issued and the adjudication thereof has culminated in confirmation of the demand. At such a later stage, if the LAA finds that demand is time-barred, he should only set aside the demand on that ground but cannot advise assessee

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ation charges from them. Department took the view that service tax is required to be paid on such activity under MRSA, hence show cause notice dt. 28.05.2010 was issued inter alia, proposing demand of ₹ 20,42,314/- being service tax amount not discharged by the assessee during 2005-06 & 2006-07 with interest thereon, along with imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77 & 78 ibid. In adjudication, the original authority vide an order dt. 04.10.2010 however confirmed demand to the extent of ₹ 18,23,910/- with interest thereon imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act and also under Section 76 & 78 ibid. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order No.04/2012 dt. 23.01.2012 accepted the submission of the assessee that except one company namely Lapross Engineering Ltd., employees were deputed among group companies, salary was paid through book adjustment, hence there was no relationship of service provider and service recipient and hence

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ee in their Appeal ST/244/2012 have submitted that the impugned order is not clear; that while the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal as time-barred, has however directed to settle the tax under Section 73 (3) of the Act. The department has filed Appeal ST/228/2012 against setting aside part of the demand and setting aside of penalty under MRSA service by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the assessee, Ld. Advocate Ms. Nancy made oral and written submissions which can be summarized as under : i) They have deputed the employees to their sister concern or units and collected deputation charges from the latter. Therefore, the services rendered by them do not fall under the category of Man Power Recruitment Agency and Supply service. ii) The assessee places reliance on the case of Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Arvind Mills Ltd., reported in 2014 (35) S.T.R. 496 (Guj.), wherein it was held that deputation of employees to thei

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ding company and the deputation of employees was only for and in the interest of the company; there is no relation of agency and client. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under : 5. It is true that in the present form, the definition of Manpower Supply Recruitment Agency is wide and would cover within its sweep range of activities provided therein. However, in the present case, such definition would not cover the activity of the respondent as rightly held by the Tribunal. To recall, the respondent in order to reduce his cost of manufacturing, deputed some of its staff to its subsidiaries or group companies for stipulated work or limited period. All throughout the control and supervision remained with the respondent. As pointed out by the respondent, company is not in the business of providing recruitment or supply of manpower. Actual cost incurred by the company in terms of salary, remuneration and perquisites is only reimbursed by the group companies. There is

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

clude any such activity where it is carried out either directly or indirectly supplying recruitment or manpower temporarily or otherwise. However, fundamentally recruitment of the agency being a commercial concern engaged in providing any such service to client would have to be satisfied. In the present case, facts are to the contrary. 6.2 Respectfully following the ratio already laid down, we hold that in respect of employees deputed by the assessee to their group companies we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the demand in respect of employees deputed by the assessee to the group companies. 6.3 In the event, no merit is found in respect of the grievance of the Department regarding setting aside by LAA of the demand under MRSA in respect of services provided by assessee to group companies. In any case, the disputed amount that was before the LAA is only to the tune of ₹ 18,23,910/- and hence department s appeal against such ord

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

see by the department or by the assessee on their own accord. In such a situation, once the assessee pays up the tax liability with interest thereon, no further SCN is required to be issued. However, in the present case, a SCN has very much been issued and the adjudication thereof has culminated in confirmation of the demand. At such a later stage, if the LAA finds that demand is time-barred, he should only set aside the demand on that ground but cannot advise assessee concerned to discharge the disputed amount through Section 73 (3) ibid. While are not able to find any fault with the finding of Commissioner (Appeals) that the said demand is time-barred as the assessee had been audited on more than one occasion earlier, we set aside that portion of the order which opines that the disputed demand could be settled under Section 73 (3) ibid. So ordered. Impugned order to this extent is set aside and assessee s appeal ST/244/2012 is allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Implementation of Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) under GST – Goods and Services Tax – F.No. 8/10(2)/HRD/EMC/2017 – Dated:- 26-9-2018 Circular – Trade Notice – Public Notice – Instructions – Office orders

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – 66/40/2018 – Dated:- 26-9-2018 – Circular No. 66/40/2018-GST F. No. 354/314/2017-TRU Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Tax research Unit **** Room No. 156, North Block, New Delhi, 26th September 2018 To, The Principal Chief Commissioners/ Chief Commissioners/ Principal Commissioners/ Commissioner of Central Tax (All) / The Principal Director Generals/ Director Generals (All) Madam/Sir, Subject: GST on Residential programmes or camps meant for advancement of religion, spirituality or yoga by religious and charitable trusts- reg. Certain representations have been received seeking clarification as regards applicability of GST on residential programmes or camps meant for advancement of relig

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

where the fee charged includes cost of lodging and boarding shall also be exempt as long as the primary and predominant activity, objective and purpose of such residential programmes or camps is advancement of religion, spirituality or yoga. However, if charitable or religious trusts merely or primarily provide accommodation or serve food and drinks against consideration in any form including donation, such activities will be taxable. Similarly, activities such as holding of fitness camps or classes such as those in aerobics, dance, music etc. will be taxable . 3. It is accordingly clarified that taxability of the services of religious and charitable trusts by way of residential programmes or camps meant for advancement of religion, spirit

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – SRO 433 – Dated:- 26-9-2018 – Government of Jammu and Kashmir Finance Department Civil Secretariat, Srinagar Notification Srinagar, the 26th September, 2018 SRO 433 – In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Jammu and Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Act No. V of 2017) and in supersession of the notification SRO 385 Dated 18th September, 2017, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the G

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – SRO 434 – Dated:- 26-9-2018 – Government of Jammu and Kashmir Finance Department Civil Secretariat, Srinagar Notification Srinagar, the 26th September, 2018 SRO 434.- In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Jammu and Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Act No. V of 2017), the Government on the recommendations of the Council, hereby appoint 1st day of October, 2018, as the date on which the provisions of section 52 of the said Ac

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

DGFT – 35/2015-2020 – Dated:- 26-9-2018 – Government of India Ministry of Commerce & Industry Department of Commerce Directorate General of Foreign Trade Udyog Bhawan Notification No. 35/2015-2020 New Delhi, the 26th September, 2018 Subject: Amendments to Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 – Extension of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) and Compensation Cess exemption under Advance Authorisation, EPCG and EOU scheme upto 31.03.2019. S.O. (E) – In exercise of powers conferred by Section 5

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – anuja bhandari – Dated:- 25-9-2018 Last Replied Date:- 30-10-2018 – The taxpayer is registered under GST, in the business of transportation. His truck was damaged in an accident. Truck was purchased pre GST. Insurance Company paid 7 lacs, truck purchase value was 10 lac. Whether GST to be paid on 7 lacs received by truck owner? – Reply By SHIVKUMAR SHARMA – The Reply = No need to Pay GST on Insurance Claim Received By Truck owner for Purchase of Truck befo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Customs – Exemption from IGST extended upto 31.3.2019 to specified goods imported on procured by EOU s, STP Units, EHTP units etc. for specified purposes – TMI Updates – Highlights

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – GST on the services for the right to use minerals – The applicant has misconstrued the entry which in fact casts a liability of tax to be discharged by the recipient on revers

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =