Goods and Services Tax

Goods and Services Tax – Classification of goods – Parts of Fuel Injection Pumps – The “Parts of Fuel Injection Pumps for diesel engines” are classifiable under Tariff Heading 8413 91 90 as per the Cu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Nikhil Mohan Jhanwar – Dated:- 18-9-2018 Last Replied Date:- 18-9-2018 – If you think GST is a Good and Simple Tax , you are mistaken. GST is all about technical glitches, daily amendments, and confusions. More the Government tries to put to rest the confusions, the poorer its implementation becomes. If you think Annual Return is just another return seeking consolidation of data filed in GSTR-3B & GSTR-1 in Financial Year 2017-18, you are again mistaken. Imagine you studied the whole year and all of sudden, during exam time, the syllabus is changed. That s what the Annual Return format is. The Government is liberal enough to seek as much as details they could in 5-page Annual Return Format coupled with 5-page instructions notified on 4th September 2018. If you think you have time till 31st December 2018 to file Annual Return that would be your third mistake, Sir. Because, if I state that you have time till 20th October 2018, would you believe m

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GSTR-3B and other from GSTR-1. Similarly, the way details have been sought, it would be very difficult for the ERP systems to fetch data in the same fashion as demanded in the Annual Return. For example, Exports made with payment of IGST and without payment of IGST is filed in Table 6A of GSTR-1. However, Annual Return Format seeks details in Separate Tables. It would have been easier for taxpayers if most of the details could be auto-populated by GSTN from GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 filed in sequential or appropriate manner. This will surely slog various hours of extra nights for taxpayers and for professionals as well. In the instructions for filing Annual Returns, reference of Table No s of GSTR-1 & GSTR-3B has been mentioned at most of the places. If all details are to be taken from 1 & 3B, would not be it prudent to auto-populate the data from returns directly. In other words, the Annual Return should have been formulated in a way which facilitates auto-population of data in resp

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

om where this part of the world, Annual Return is asking for these details. The Instructions also states to obtain these figures from Table 9B of GSTR-1. If you refer to Table 9B, it comprises of details only in respect of B2B taxable supplies and Exempt, Nil rated & Non-GST Supply. Details of Input tax credit- Real Mess Input tax credit is like a spoiled brat of rich Dad which has all the luxury in-house as it is not less than a hard cash. But when this brat is excessively exploited, he gives you dangerous results. That s what happened with Part III seeking details of ITC in Annual Return. This Part is so confusing that even lawmakers appear to be clueless about their purpose and intention about kind of disclosure required. Table No. 6: Bifurcate details of Input, Capital goods & Input services Table seeks separate bifurcation for inputs, capital goods & input services in respect of Input tax credit. This is beyond my imagination as these details were never part of GSTR-1

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ld have been paid by him as one of the conditions to avail ITC. GSTR-2A is created from GSTR-1 filed by the Supplier. But does it ensure payment of tax by the Supplier? There may be a situation where Supplier has filed GSTR-1 but has not filed GSTR-3B for corresponding supply and thus, not paid tax. Ideally, GSTR-2A is required to be verified whether a tax on these supplies have been paid or not to enable complete compliance of the conditions of availment of input tax credit. Lapse of ITC- Innovative thought This is an interesting thing. The Annual return calculates for you the input credit lapsed in last financial year i.e. 2017-18. It comprises of 3 things: The difference in ITC available as GSTR-2A and ITC actually availed in GSTR-3B filed for the period July 2017 to September 2018 which is further classified into : ITC available but not availed ITC available but ineligible The difference in ITC available on the import of goods and ITC actually availed in GSTR-3B Note: However, no c

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ssional to have an easy life. The task of digging HSN wise details of Inward supply is like repeating the same Semester not because we failed in exams but because syllabus has changes. This will only add to compliances woes of taxpayers. Before parting……… It would not be out of context if this Annual Return format is terms a Surgical Strike by the Government. Two quick recommendation for GST Council: To introduce an online facility wherein details of GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 filed for July, 2018 to March, 2018 is made available on consolidated basis. To mandate filing of Annual return first year only for Taxpayers having Aggregate Turnover of more than 1.5 crs. This would ease compliance burden and increasing costs of small taxpayers About Author: CA. Nikhil M. Jhanwar is practicing Chartered Accountant and Faculty Member of GST by ICAI in Delhi/NCR specializing in GST, UAE VAT, end-to-end start-up formation, compliances & advisory. He has deliberated his views on va

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN – Dated:- 18-9-2018 Last Replied Date:- 20-9-2018 – Late fee Section 47 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( Act for short) provides for the levy of late fee in case of belated filing of returns that are required to be filed under the Act. Section 47(1) provides that any registered person who fails to furnish the details of outward or inward supplies required under section 37 or section 38 or returns required under section 39 or section 45 by the due date shall pay a late fee of one hundred rupees for every day during which such failure continues subject to a maximum amount of five thousand rupees. Section 47(2) provides that any registered person who fails to furnish the return required under section 44 by the due date shall be liable to pay a late fee of one hundred rupees for every day during which such failure continues subject to a maximum of an amount calculated at a quarter per cent of his turnover in the Sta

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

which the tax is payable on reverse charge basis under this Act and inward supplies of goods or services or both taxable under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act or on which integrated goods and services tax is payable under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) , and credit or debit notes received in respect of such supplies during a tax period after the tenth day but on or before the fifteenth day of the month succeeding the tax period in Form GSTR – 2. Return – Form GSTR – 3B Rule 61(5) provides for filing form GSTR – 3B every month since the time limit for furnishing of details in Form GSTR-1 under section 37 and in Form GSTR-2 under section 38 has been extended within 20th of the following month. Return under section 39 Section 39 provides that the following registered person shall file returns in the required form periodically within the due dates as mentioned below- Quarterly return The service providers who opted to pay tax under composition scheme is t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

, tax paid and such other particulars as may be prescribed on or before 20th of the following month. Final Return under section 45 Section 45 provides that every registered person who is required to furnish a return under section 39(1) and whose registration has been cancelled shall furnish a final return within three months of the date of cancellation or date of order of cancellation, whichever is later, in Form GSTR – 10. Annual Return under section 44 Section 44(1) provides that every registered person, other than an Input Service Distributor, a person paying tax under section 51 or section 52, a casual taxable person and a non-resident taxable person, shall furnish an annual return for every financial year electronically in Form GSTR – 9 on or before the thirty-first day of December following the end of such financial year. Section 44(2) provides that every registered person who is required to get his accounts audited in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of section

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ed. Vide Notification No.28 /2017 – Central Tax, dated 01st September, 2017, the Central Government, on the recommendations of the Council, waived the late fee payable, for all registered persons who failed to furnish the return in FORM GSTR-3B for the month of July, 2017 by the due date. Vide Notification No. 50/2017 – Central Tax, dated 24th October, 2017, the Central Government, on the recommendations of the Council, waived the late fee payable for all registered persons who failed to furnish the return in FORM GSTR-3B for the months of August and September, 2017 by the due date. Vide Notification No. 22 /2018 – Central Tax, dated 14.05.2018, the Central Government, on the recommendations of the Council, waived the late fee payable for failure to furnish the return in FORM GSTR-3B by the due date for each of the months from October, 2017 to April, 2018, for the class of registered persons whose declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 was submitted but not filed on the common portal on or bef

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

every day during which such failure continues. Vide Notification No. 73/2017 – Central Tax, dated 29th December, 2017, the Central Government, on the recommendations of the Council, waived the amount of late fee payable, by any registered person for failure to furnish the return in FORM GSTR-4 by the due date, which is in excess of an amount of twenty five rupees for every day during which such failure continues. Where the total amount payable in lieu of central tax in the said return is nil, the amount of late fee payable, by any registered person for failure to furnish the said return by the due date shall stand waived to the extent which is in excess of an amount of ten rupees for every day during which such failure continues. Vide Notification No. 4/2018 – Central Tax 23rd January, 2018, the Central Government, on the recommendations of the Council, waived the amount of late fee payable by any registered person for failure to furnish the details of outward supplies for any month/q

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

waived to the extent which is in excess of an amount of ten rupees for every day during which such failure continues. Vide Notification No. 6/2018 – Central Tax, dated 23rd January, 2018, the Central Government, on the recommendations of the Council, waived the amount of late fee payable by any registered person for failure to furnish the return in FORM GSTR 5A by the due date which is in excess of an amount of twenty-five rupees for every day during which such failure continues. Where the total amount of integrated tax payable in the said return is nil, the amount of late fee payable by such registered person for failure to furnish the said return by the due date shall stand waived to the extent which is in excess of an amount of ten rupees for every day during which such failure continues. Vide Notification No. 7/2018 – Central Tax, dated 23.01.2018, the Central Government, on the recommendations of the Council, waived the amount of late fee payable by any registered person for fail

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

prevent uploading of the returns were cited. The High Court held that this is not a case where the petitioners are espousing the cause of a weaker section of the society who, on account of hardships and handicaps inherently faced by them, is unable to knock the door of justice. The public interest jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court, over a period of time, has been considerably expanded to take within its sweep range of issues not confined to the assertion of rights of weaker sections of the society or the marginalized groups. The petitioners who are themselves active tax consultants and tax practitioners indirectly concerned with the same. There is no reason why such an issue should be examined in a public interest petition when, as noted above, the group of persons whom the statute affects does not suffer from any handicap preventing them from taking up the litigation themselves and pursuing it. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. – Reply By pankaj singla – T

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (12) TMI 707 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 65 (N. P. A. A.) – Profiteering – purchase of flats – benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) had not been passed – refund of appropriate amount alongwith Interest – Whether there was any violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 in this case? – quantum of profiteering.
–
Held that:- Section 171 deals with two situations one relating to the passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax and the second pertaining to the passing on the benefit of the ITC – In the instant case though rationalization of tax had not resulted in the reduction in the tax rate, the benefit of ITC had been extended to all the goods and services which were utilized by any builder which was not available in the pre-GST era. This fact has not been denied by the Respondent – Since Section 171 not only deals with passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax but also deals with passing on the benef

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tely clear that the excess ITC was available to the Respondent the benefit of which he was required to pass on to the Applicants. The Respondent cannot appropriate this benefit as this is a concession given by the Government from it’s own tax revenue to reduce the prices being charged by the builders from the vulnerable section of society which cannot afford high value apartments. The Respondent is not being asked to extend this benefit out of his own account and he is only liable to pass on the benefit of ITC to which he has become entitled by virtue of the grant of ITC on the Construction Service by the Government.
–
Quantum of profiteering – Held that:- The Authority under Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017 orders that the Respondent shall reduce the price to be realized from the buyers of the flats in commensurate with the benefit of ITC received by him as has been detailed above. Since the present investigation is only up to 28.02.2018 any benefit of ITC which shall accr

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

–
Application disposed off. – Case No. 7/2018 Dated:- 18-9-2018 – Mr B. N. Sharma, Chairman, Technical Member And J. C. Chauhan, Technical Member For The Applicant : Shri S. K. Jain, Shri Bharat Bhushan, Sh. Akshat Aggarwal Assistant Commissioner and Sh. Bhupender Goyal Assistant Director (Costs) For The Respondent : Shri Dinesh Sharma Managing Director and Shri J. P. Gaur Chief Finance Officer ORDER 1. The brief facts of the this case are that Under Rule 128 of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, 36 applications were filed before the Haryana State Screening Committee alleging that the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) had not been passed on to the Applicants in respect of the construction service supplied by the Respondent. The Applicants are:- S. No. S/Sh. Email ID 1 Sukhbir Rohilla* sukhbirrohilla001@gmail.com 2 Himanshu Sethi* winiscertain@gmail.com 3 Rajender Kumar* rajender.kumar20865@gmail.com 4 Deepak Kumar* fialok.deepak@gmail.com 5 Gaurav Rohilla, Nites

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

29 Zeeshan Ali Quazi* er.zeeshan99@gmail.com 30 Sunil Kumar Jha* lakshya.skjha@yahoo.com 31 Vikash Gupta* vikash.gupta7878@gmail.com 32 Anoop Kumar anoop_0406@yahoo.com 33 Rajesh Kumar* rajeshkumar.cs06@gmail.com 34 Vikash Garg* sperry.it@gmail.com 35 Jofin Mathew jofinmathew@gmail.com 36 Bharat Bhushan Badesra* bbbadesra@gmail.com *Applicants who have filed more than one application:- 2. The above Applicants had booked flats with the Respondent under the Haryana Affordable Housing Policy 2013 (here-in-after referred to as the Policy), notified by the State of Haryana vide Notification No. PF-27/48921 dated 19.08.2013. They had alleged that before coming in to force of the CGST Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.07.2017, Excise Duty and Value Added Tax (VAT) were being collected from them as Service Tax was exempted, however, after the implementation of the above Act, 12% Goods & Services Tax (GST) was levied on the construction service in place of Excise Duty and VAT w.e.f. 01.07.2017, which wa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

cessary action. The Standing Committee in its meeting held on 07.11.2017 after confirming that prima facie there was evidence of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 171, had forwarded these applications to the Director General of safeguards (DGSG) now redesignated as Director General of Anti-profiteering(DGAP) for detailed investigation. 102 additional applications against the Respondent were also received by the Standing Committee which were also forwarded to the DGAP for investigation. The following are the names of the additional Applicants who had filed applications with the Standing Committee:- S. No. S/Sh. E-mail ID 1 Rohit Yadav rohit.yadav@gmail.com 2 Bharat Bhushan* bbbadesra@gmail.com 3 Deepak Fialok* fialok.deepak@gmail.com 4 Rajender Kumar* rajender.kumar20865@gmail.com 5 Sukhbir Rohilla/Surinder Kumar* sukhbirrohilla001@gmail.com 6 Aarekh Mehrotra* smarty.aarekh@gmail.com 7 Neeraj Dale* neeraj.dale@gmail.com 8 Alok Tyagi* aloktyagi53@gmail.com 9 Kamal Valecha* kama

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

032002@yahoo.com 34 Ankur Chawla aim.ankur@yahoo.co.in 35 Shailendra kumar skumar_025@yahoo.co.in 36 Shalini Bisht shaliniissarbisht@gmail.com 37 Santosh Kumar Agarwal santoshkumar.engg@gmail.com 38 Suresh Kumar kumarsuresh151979@gmail.com 39 Ashish srivastava ashishdra@gmail.com 40 Pradip sarin pradipsarin@yahoo.com 41 Rahul Yadav rahulrao1206@gmail.com 42 Richa Jha/Priyanka Jha richaignou95@gmail.com 43 Prem Prakash prm185@gmail.com 44 Diwakar Singh diwakar_chahar@yahoo.com 45 Samreen Raza samreenraza2000@yahoo.com 46 Rashmi Narayan Kotian jagadeeshan_1981@yahoo.co.in 47 Vivek Chaudhary vivekonline29@rediffmail.com 48 Amit Kakkar amit1kakkar@gmail.com 49 Ashish Kumar Bharti/ Raj Kumar* rajkumar032002@yahoo.com 50 Mohammad Hamid hamind17@gmail.com 51 Lalan Jha lalanjha80@yahoo.com 52 Ratnesh kumar Singh ratnesh6672@gmail.com 53 Vishal Kapoor vishalkapoor1983@gmail.com 54 Amit Kumar amitthakurlic@yahoo.in 55 Jitendra Kumar joyapuru@gmail.com 56 Kunal Malhotra malhotra.kunal91@gmail.com

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

il.com 80 Amit Kumar Thakur amitthakurlic@yahoo.in 81 Deepak Gupta deepacgupta@gmail.com 82 Bansi Lal Mahlawat a_Bansi.Mahlawat@airtel.com 83 Dharam Narayan Tiwari/ Shashi Vir Singh shashivir@yahoo.com 84 Alok Kumar Singh* alokmechboy@gmail.com 85 Mridul Verma mridul_varma@yahoo.co.in 86 Prateek Sharma* prateek.psharma@gmail.com 87 Paramjeet Singh param194@gmail.com 88 Anita Chadha & Sanjeev Chadha* sanjeev_chadha35@yahoo.co.in 89 Monica Gulati mini.angel.22@gmail.com 90 Rakesh Chaudhary kumar5104@gmail.com 91 Pradeep Jangra* pradeepjangra87@gmail.com 92 Ramesh Chander – 93 Rahul Mishra rahul.mishra90@gmail.com 94 Prateek Tiwari yesprateek@gmail.com 95 Himanshu Sethi* winiscertain@gmail.com 96 Alok Singh (Bhim Singh)* alokmechboy@gmail.com 97 Kilanoor Ganeshan Mudallar ganeshanec@gmail.com 98 Deepak Jain deepakjain20@gmail.com 99 Deepak Fialok* fialok.deepak@gmail.com 100 Gagan Nagpal writetogagan@gmail.com 101 Abhishek Kapoor abhishek.kapoorajm@gmail.com 102 Yogesh Kumar yogesh469

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tes of the meeting dated 28.02.2018 had granted extension of 3 months in terms of Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules 2017. The DGAP has also reported that after issue of a number of summons the Respondent vide his letters dated 11.01.2018 & 19.02.18 had submitted various documents such as:- 1. Independent Auditor s Report. 2. Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account and Trial Balance for the period 2016-17. 3. VAT-R1 (Jan-Mar) and CST Form-1 (Jan-Mar) for the period 2016-17. 4. VAT-R1 (Apr-Jun) and CST Form-1 (Apr-Jun) for the period 2017-18. 5. Service Tax Return (ST-3) for the period Oct-Mar, 2016. 6. GSTR-1 Return for the period July, 2017. 7. GSTR-3B Return for the period July, 2017. 8. Two sample copies of demand letters. 9. Purchase invoices of various materials purchased during Apr-Sept., 2017. 10. Annexure-1 (Pre-GST impact of Input Tax Credit on Cost). 11. Annexure-2 (Cost Sheet Performa for Goods/Services). 12. Input Tax Credit (VAT) Ledger Account for the period 2016-17. 13.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of Sale after interest (6+7) 50,89,40,406/- 9 Net Sales Realization 1,21,79,69,823/- 10 Profit (9-8) 70,90,29,416/- 11 Percentage of ITC to Sales Realization (4 as % of 9) 2.37% 6. The report also submits that the Respondent had claimed that the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 were not applicable in as much as there was no reduction in the rate of tax as earlier the Affordable Housing Schemes (AHS) executed under the Affordable Housing Policy 2013 (here-in-after referred to as the Policy) notified by the State of Haryana vide its Notification No. PF-27/48921 dated 19.08.2013 were exempt from the payment of Service Tax and only VAT was leviable @ 5.25%, however after 1.07.2017 an enhanced tax @12% had been imposed in the GST regime. The Respondent had also claimed that in the case of this Scheme the Respondent could charge only a fixed price not exceeding ₹ 4000/- per sq. ft. carpet area plus taxes, as had been provided under the Policy and in the present case, the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

per sq. ft. carpet area which was inclusive of all costs as was prescribed under the Policy. The DGAP has also informed that one of the Applicants viz. Shri Bharat Bhushan Badesara vide his e-mail dated 12.03.2018 had submitted a copy of the Buyer s Agreement executed with the Respondent along with the copies of the demand letters and payment details which have been detailed below:- (Amount in Rs.) S. No. Payment stages Date Basic % Amount Service Tax VAT CGST SGST Total 1 At the time of application 10-04- 2015 5% 103182 3189 5417 0 0 111788 2 within 15 days of allotment 15-09- 2015 20% 412728 14445 21668 0 0 448841 3 Within 6 15-03- 12.50% 257955 0 13543 0 0 271498 months of allotment 2016 4 Within 12 months of allotment 15-09- 2016 12.50% 257955 0 13543 0 0 271498 5 Within 18 months of allotment 15-03- 2017 12.50% 257955 0 13543 0 0 271498 6 Within 24 months of allotment 15-09- 2017 12.50% 257955 0 0 15477 15477 288910 7 Within 30 months of allotment 15-03- 2018 12.50% 257955 0 0 103

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

enefit of ITC were two independent conditions and Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 was attracted if both or either of these two conditions existed. 9 The DGAP has also reported that there was merit in the argument of the Respondent which stated that the exact quantum of ITC could be determined only after the completion of the project but he has maintained that the profiteering was required to be established in a time bound manner by considering the ITC available to the Respondent and the price realized by him from the buyers. 10. In his Report the DGAP has admitted that in the pre-GST era, Construction Service was exempted from Service Tax vide Notifications No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and 9/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016 and the Respondent was not eligible to avail the ITC on the Excise Duty paid on inputs or Service Tax paid on the input services, but the report also admits that post GST the ITC was available on all the goods and services, therefore considering the submissions of the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

AP has also analyzed the issue of profiteering for the pre-GST period from April 2016 to June 2017 when VAT was payable @ 5.25% and the post-GST period from July 2017 to January 2018 when the effective GST rate was 12% w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and 8% w.e.f. 25.01.2018. Based on the data available on record he has arrived at the comparative figures of ITC available/availed during pre-GST period and post-GST period as under:- ITC available Pre-GST ITC Available Post-GST Period FY 2016- 17 FY 201718 (April to June, 2017) Total July, 2017 to January, 2018 February,20 18 July, 2017 to February, 2018 VAT 21557942 11476408 33034350 CGST 3109559 5 5478788 36574383 SGST 3109559 5 5478788 36574383 IGST 1197256 8 1829277 13801845 Total 21557942 11476408 33034350 7416375 8 12786853 86950611 Taxable Turnove r 29249554 29 76935214 30018906 43 7256205 66 482186312 12078068 78 ITC ratio to Taxable Value (%) 0.74 14.92 1.1 10.22 2.65 7.2 Addition al ITC availed (%) 6.1 Tax Rate 5.25% (VAT) 5.25%(VA T) 12%

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

dditional ITC of 3.35% (6.10%-2.75%) of the taxable turnover to the Applicants by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the flats. The DGAP has further reported that there was no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act during the period between 01.07.2017 to 24.01.2018 when the GST was leviable @ 12% but there was violation when the GST was reduced to 8% w.e.f. 25.01.2018 to February, 2018 as the Respondent had not passed on the net benefit of ITC to the Applicants which had accrued to him. He has also reported that the profiteered amount came to ₹ 7,20,398/- which included the profiteered amount @ 3.35% and GST @ 8% on the profiteered amount. He has also reported that the Respondent had profiteered an amount of ₹ 1,67,25,103/- from the other allottees who had not filed complaints and this amount was required to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund as they were not identifiable. 14. After perusal of the DGAP s report the Authority in its mee

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

they had no direct relation with the amount collected from the Applicants as the Payment Plan under the Policy was time bound and not construction linked. The Respondent has also mentioned that the payments by the Applicants were to be made in installments i.e. at the time of application 5% of the cost was to be paid, on allotment 20% was to be paid and subsequently the cost was to be paid in 6 equal half yearly installments each installment being 12.50% of the total value of the apartment. Accordingly he has claimed that ₹ 1,21,79,69,823/- were collected as per the above payment schedule and it had nothing to do with the sales. He has also stated that the amount of ₹ 70,90,29,416/- mentioned as profit was not the profit, as it was the amount of costs either already incurred or which were to be incurred. The Respondent has also claimed that the expenditure on land, license approvals and External Development Charges (EDC) was required to be incurred before start of the cons

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

y ₹ 3,97,12,844/- which was much less than the increase in the price of Steel, hence, the benefit which had accrued due to ITC of GST was set off on account of increase in the price of Steel, which should be taken into consideration before dwelling into the benefit of ITC. 17. Another plea taken by the Respondent is that his sub-contractors were also exempt from Service Tax earlier, but after the implementation of the GST, the sub-contractors had been registered and they had to discharge their tax liabilities, which were being passed on to the Respondent. He has also started that during the period from 1st July, 2017 to 28th February, 2018, sub-contractors were liable to pay ₹ 1,19,14,407/- as GST which was passed on to the Respondent. He has also claimed that this extra amount charged by subcontractors had not been considered as the part of the cost in the post-GST period. 18. The Respondent has also alleged that while he had received 62.50% of the payment due during the p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

xable value should be readjusted and ratio of ITC to taxable value should be recalculated during the pre-GST and post-GST period. b). The cost of construction has increased an account of abnormal price rise of the inputs which should be taken in to account and accordingly set off should be given. c). Set off should also be given on account of the liability of tax which was leviable on the sub-contractors. 20. Out of the 109 Applicants, 14 Applicants appeared during the hearings held on 23.07.2018 & 01.08.2018. While some of the Applicants filed written submissions on 23.07.2018 and 01.08.2018, the other applicants made their submissions through e-mails dated 17.07.2018, 26.07.2018, 31.07.2018, 06.08.2018, 07.08.2018, 08.08.2018 and 30.08.2018. The written and oral submissions made by the Applicants are summarized below:- 21. The Applicants did not agree with the DGAP s report which stated that the profiteering was only to the extent of 3.35%. They claimed that the amount of profite

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he Respondent on account of GST Charged by the sub-contractors couldn t be taken in to account since they were also availing ITC on the purchases made by them resulting in reduction of cost of the material purchased by the subcontractors. They further argued that during pre-GST era Composition Scheme was available in the State of Haryana under which 1% VAT was payable which couldn t be passed on to the Applicants. They also alleged that the Respondent had opted to burden the Applicants by collecting VAT @ 5.25%, which had benefited him. They also claimed that during the same period other builders in the State of Haryana had charged 4.5% VAT which could be substantiated with the demand letters issued to the buyers by such builders. Accordingly the Applicants had claimed that the Respondent had burdened them with extra tax when they were eligible for levy of reduced tax. 24. The Applicants have also pleaded that huge amount of ITC was available to the Respondent which had been availed by

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ffective rate to be returned to the Home Buyers – ₹ 273 per sq. ft. Profiteering in % terms = 6.1%. During the period between 25.01.2018 to 28.02.2018 the actual benefit to the Applicants in % was- ₹ 273/4,000 = 6.825% Re-calibrated rate – ₹ 4,056 (Rs. 3,756 +8% GST) Already billed and collected rate – ₹ 4,320 (including 8% GST) Effective rate to be returned to the Home Buyers – ₹ 264 per sq. ft. Profiteering in % terms = 6.1% Actual benefit to the Applicants in %age – 264/4,000 = 6.6% 27. Accordingly, the Applicants have prayed that appropriate amount may be allowed to be refunded by the Respondent along with interest @ 18% p.a. for the period the extra amount had remained with him to all the buyers irrespective of the number of the Applicants who had filed complaints as all the buyers were identifiable. 28. The Authority had sought certain clarifications based on the submissions made by the Applicants and the Respondent and in reply to the letter dated 1

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

-6.1) =7.51%. The DGAP has admitted that the effective rate of tax had gone down for the Respondent by 4.15% before 01.07.2017, 4.07% during the period between 01.07.2017 to 24.01.2018 and by 0.31% for the period w.e.f. 25.01.2018 onwards. His report also stated that the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 were attracted in respect of both the above periods. He has also stated that earlier the Applicants were paying price of ₹ 4210/- per sq. ft. (Rs. 4000/- + 5.25% VAT). and net increase in the ITC after implementation of GST was 6.1% (7.2%-1.1%), hence, the amount of basic installment charged by the Respondent must first be reduced by 6.1% of ₹ 4000 i.e. by ₹ 244/- and the revised basic installment should be ₹ 4000 – ₹ 244 = ₹ 3756/- per sq. ft. He has further stated that during the period between 30.06.2017 to 24.01.2018, the installment including GST should be ₹ 3756+12% GST= ₹ 4207/-per sq. ft., however, the Respondent had

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

:- 171. (1) Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. (2) The Central Government may, on recommendations of the Council, by notification, constitute an Authority, or empower an existing Authority constituted under any law for the time being in force, to examine whether input tax credits availed by any registered person or the reduction in the tax rate have actually resulted in a commensurate reduction in the price of the goods or services or both supplied by him. (3) The Authority referred to in sub-section (2) shall exercise such powers and discharge such functions as may be prescribed. 171. (1) It is very clear from the reading of Section 171 that it deals with two situations one relating to the passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax and the second pertaining to the passing on the benefit of the ITC. In the instant case though ration

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

submissions made by the Respondent that he was building flats and selling them to the Applicants as per the Policy 2013, n which various parameters have been laid down and one of the conditions as per para 5 (i) of Policy was that the maximum allotment rate per sq. ft. carpet area has been fixed as ₹ 4000/-. Para 5 (i) of the Policy is reproduced below:- (a) Allotment Rate:- The allotment rate for the Apartment units approved under such projects shall be as follows:- Sr No. Development Plan Maximum allotment rate on per sq. ft. carpet area basis Additional recovery against balcony of min 5 ft. clear projection# a. Gurgaon, Faridabad, Panchkula, Pinjore, Kalka ₹ 4000/ – per sq. ft. ₹ 500 per sq. ft. against all balcony area in a flat adding b. Other High and Medium Potential Towns ₹ 3600/ – per sq. ft. upto and limited to 100 sq. ft., as permitted in the approved building plans. c. Low Potential Towns ₹ 3000/ – per sq. ft. Based on the above Policy the Res

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Para 5.3 of the agreement states that, the sale consideration does not include any taxes, surcharge etc. which is payable or levied on this transaction, sale and purchase of this unit. The Allottee(s) agrees and undertakes to pay any fresh incidence thereof that may be applicable on account of any fresh tax, levy, fees, charges, statutory dues or cess whatsoever including Value Added Tax (VAT), G.S.T. Service Tax, etc. on the rates as applicable including any enhancement or increase thereof, even if it is retrospective in effect. The Allottee(s) undertakes to pay such proportionate amount, if any, promptly on demand by the Developer . Therefore the Respondent was obligated to pass on the benefit of ITC in terms of reduction in tax and hence he cannot appropriate the ITC which had become available to him on the GST which had been paid by the Applicants. 32. It is also revealed from the VAT returns filed by the Respondent that he had paid an amount of ₹ 14,91,04,173/- as VAT for a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

use the Policy makes it mandatory on him that he could not charge more than ₹ 4000/- per sq. ft., the price which he had himself offered and there is no provision of price escalation in the above price either in the above Policy or in the Buyer s Agreement. The Respondent vide his submissions dated 01.8.2018 has himself admitted that he had collected 62.50% of the amount due during the pre-GST period but utilized it only to the extent of 25% meaning thereby that the balance amount had been utilized by the Respondent in his business and no interest had been paid by him on this amount to the Applicants. It is also apparent from the returns that when compared to the pre- GST period where 86% of the tax liability was paid in cash after availing ITC, in the post GST period the entire amount of tax liability had been paid through ITC, which shows that the entire 12% GST liability was paid through ITC while 12% GST was being collected by him from the Applicants. Therefore this Authority

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

and all the raw material was available without CST across the country. Since he has claimed that 75% construction had been done in the post-GST era there was all the more scope for reduction in the cost of construction. Moreover as seen from para 2.2 of the Buyer s Agreement The allottee shall pay to the Developer 5% of the total cost at the time of application and shall make payment of 20% at the time of allotment i.e. 25% of total sale consideration at the time of signing of this agreement. The allottee agrees and undertakes to pay 75% balance of the total cost in six equated six monthly installments spread over three years period with no interest falling from the due date of payment (emphasis supplied). Thus every Applicant has paid 5% of the total cost at the time of application, 20% at the time of allotment and 75% balance of the total cost shall be paid in equated six monthly installments spread over three year period. One of the grievances of the Applicants is that 25% of total

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

es many of the inputs were now available at the reduced rates. 35. From the above narration of facts it is absolutely clear that the excess ITC was available to the Respondent the benefit of which he was required to pass on to the Applicants. The Respondent cannot appropriate this benefit as this is a concession given by the Government from it s own tax revenue to reduce the prices being charged by the builders from the vulnerable section of society which cannot afford high value apartments. The Respondent is not being asked to extend this benefit out of his own account and he is only liable to pass on the benefit of ITC to which he has become entitled by virtue of the grant of ITC on the Construction Service by the Government. 36. The second issue which is required is to be settled is that what was the extent of the profiteering. The DGAP had originally reported that the profiteering was nil for the period from July, 2017 to January, 2018 and 3.35% for the period between 26th January,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of Basic Sale Price K=H*6.10% 4,42,62,855 Recalibrated Basic Sale Price L=H-K 68,13,57,711 GST@12% to be collected M=L*12% 8,17,62,925 Total Amount to be collected N=L+M 76,31,20,637 Profiteering Amount to be passed on O=J-N 4,95,74,397 S. No. Particulars Period Total Profiteering Amount (Rs.) 1 Profiteering for all Home Buyers July, 2017 to January, 2018 4,95,74,397 2 Profiteering for Applicants Only February, 2018 13,11,769 3 Profiteering for Other than Applicants February, 2018 3,04,54,665 Total Profiteering 8,13,40,831 37. The DGAP has arrived at the above figures of profiteering based on the turnover for the period between 01.07.2017 to 24.01.2018 and the amount of installments for the period of 25.01.2018 to 28.02.2018. Accordingly, he has arrived at the profiteering amount of ₹ 8,13,40,831/-. However, the Authority has taken the basic principle followed by the DGAP i.e. 6.1% of profiteering and accordingly the amount of profiteering has been calculated for each type of fla

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of profiteering made by him from the individual flat owners are as under:- Type/ Area (Sq. Ft.) No. of Flats GST @12% GST @8% Total Profiteering in Rs. Instalme nt Amount GST Amoun t Instalme nt + Tax Profite ering % Profite ering Amoun t Instalme nt Amount GST Amount Instal ment + Tax Profite ering % Profite ering Amoun t For 1 Flat All Flats A/393.33 102 170529 20463 190992 6.10% 11651 170529 13642.32 184171 6.10% 11234 22885 2334269.16 B/394.91 78 173909 20869 194778 6.10% 11881 173909 13912.72 187822 6.10% 11457 23339 1820409.85 C/398.61 27 174582 20950 195532 6.10% 11927 174582 13966.56 188549 6.10% 11501 23429 632580.419 D/600.42 690 256460 30775 287235 6.10% 17521 256460 20516.8 276977 6.10% 16896 34417 23747683.1 E/603.41 537 257955 30955 288910 6.10% 17623 257955 20636.4 278591 6.10% 16994 34618 18589630.3 F/615.57 179 264035 31684 295719 6.10% 18039 264035 21122.8 285158 6.10% 17395 35433 6342595.96 PROJECT: URBAN HOMES SECTOR-86 GURUGRAM A/382.52 47 170540 20465 191005 6.10%

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

uently shall also be passed on to the buyers by the Respondent. He shall not only pass on the benefit as has been mentioned above to the 109 Applicants who are before us but to all the 2476 buyers as they are identifiable. Respondent is further directed to refund or reduce the amount, to the extent calculated above to each and every buyer at the time of collecting the last installment along with the interest @ 18% per annum to be calculated from the date of the receipt of the excess amount from each buyer, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. 41. It is evident from the above that the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him under the above Policy in contravention of the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus realized more price from them than he was entitled to collect and has also compelled them to pay more GST than that they were required to pay by issuing incorrect tax invoices an

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (11) TMI 832 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – SEZ unit – refund claim – appellants could not produce all the documents necessary to substantiate their claims of refund.
–
Held that:- It is not in dispute that the appellant has not able to fulfilled all the conditions for claiming the refund inasmuch as he has not provided the documentary evidence before the Original Authority as well as the First Appellate Authority to fully justify their refund claim and hence part of their refund claims were rejected – there is no merits in the grounds of appeal which seek to draw a distinction between the procedural requirements and substantial requirement of a notification.
–
Considering the both sides of the arguments and that the appellant is an exporter claiming benefit of the exemption notifications (although they were careless in not producing the documents before the First Appellate Authority and Original Authority), this is a fit case to be remitted back to the Original Authority to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

to Dec 14 206/2016 – Refund 068 to 071- 17-18 7. ST/30147/2018 Oct 15 to Dec 15 205/2016 – Refund 068 to 071- 17-18 8. ST/30148/2018 Jan 15 to Mar 15 09/2016 – ST 062 to 064 – 17-18 9. ST/30149/2018 Apr 15 to Jun 15 10/2016 – ST 062 to 064 – 17-18 10. ST/30150/2018 Jul 15 to Sep 15 11/2016 – ST 062 to 064 – 17-18 All these appeals pertain to the same issue. The appellant is a SEZ unit and they have filed refund claims under various exemption notifications as above. 2. Refund applications were filed by the appellant. The officers verified the claims and found defects and issued defect memos asking them to rectify the defects. In response, the appellants submitted some documents. Still, it was found that the defects were not fully removed and therefore show cause notices were issued to the appellant asking them as to why the refund should not be denied refund for non fulfillment of the conditions. During adjudication, the appellant produced some documents based on which the refund claim

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e documents along with their appeal before this Bench. It is his submission that they have now been able to compile all the documents and bank statements to fully justify each of the refund claims. The details of the refund claims filed the amount sanctioned in the Orders-in-Original and Orders-in-Appeal and the amounts rejected and the reasons given in the grounds of appeals are below: S. No CESTAT Appeal No. Refund Claim Filed date Refund amount claimed Refund Period Order-In-Original No. 442/2016-Refund/ date Refund sanctioned by OIO in Rs. Refund rejected by OIO in Rs. Order-In- Appeal No. /date Refund disallowed in OIA in Rs. Reasons given by 1st Appellate/ Commr (Appeals) Grounds of Appeal 1 ST/31330/ 2017 Refund Claim filed on 29.12.2016 in Form A4 for refund u. Notf.12/2013-S.T. dt. 01.07.2003 1699152 01/2016 to 03/2016 442/2016- Refund, dt. 27.03.2017 1363970 335182 OIA-067-17-18, dt. 22.09.2017 335182 The requirement to produce relevant documents so as to cause verfication of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

which are consumed in SEZ under Notf.12/2013-ST dt. 01.07.2013 1236948 01/2015 to 03/2015 09/2016- S.T. 0 1236948 OIA-062-064-17- 18, dt. 22.09.2017 1236948 The impugned Notf. 12/2013-ST vide para 3 (III) (d) specifies that applicant for refund is required to submit the relevant invoices on the basis of which such refund has been claimed along with proof of payment of service tax paid on such services to service provider. Such requirment to produce invoices has not been satisfied by appellants even in appeal proceedings. This is a mandatory condition to be fulfilled vefore such tax can be refunded to appellants. Appellants also failed to prove payment of tax by them to Service provider. Therefore, Comm'r (Appeals) did not find any infirmity in the decision of the original authority. Procedural requirements and technical requirements are liable to be set aside and substantive provisions need to be complied with. Equal importance cannot be given for both substantive and procedural p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d to the service provider. Thus there is complete failure on the part of the appellants to submit necessary and satisfactory documents to prove receipt of services. They also failed to prove payment of tax by them to service provider. Non compliance with statutory requirements which are mandatory and substantive cannot be brushed as aside as procedural infractions. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the decision of the original authority. Refund is allowed by Comm'r (Appeals) on Consulting Engineering, Commercial Training, Man power recruitment and Event management Services for an amount of ₹ 6180/- in respect of OIO 208/2016, an amount of ₹ 95,299/- in respect of OIO 207/2016 and an amount of ₹ 24720/- in respect of OIO 206/2016. Regarding Non submission of input invoices they are in the process of collating the said invoices and will submit the same during personal hearing. With regard to Non-submission of bank statement evidencing payments to service p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tains to Erection, Testing and Commissioning Service of Internal Electrical Works and cannot be excluded under Construction of Civil Work. (3) In respect of ₹ 3,30,872/- in the first instant appellant had not taken any credit. Appellant submitted that they claimed refund of service tax charged by M/s Tata Consultancy Services ltd, amounting to ₹ 1,21,450/- and With regard to Non-submission of Input Invoices they are in the process of collating the said Invoices and will submit the same during personal hearing. they would be submitting the relevant invoices at the time of personal hearing before Comm'r (Appeals). However, appellants have not produced the same. Therefore, Comm'r (Appeals) did not find any reason to interfere with this part of decision of original authority and rejected refund of ₹ 1,21,450/- 10 ST/30193/ 2018 Refund Claim filed on 30.06.2016 under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notf.27/20 12-CE(NT) dt. 18.06.2012 1.7E+07 07/2015 to 09/2015 149/20

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ims and they were sanctioned refunds in terms of exemption notifications to the extent they could justify their claims. The exercise has been going on for one year and nine months. Hence the impugned orders and the orders of the Original Authority were correct and the appeal may be rejected. It is his further submission that the Hon ble Supreme Court s Constitution Bench in the case of M/s Dilip Kumar and Company Civil Appeal No. 3327/2007, dated 30.07.2018 has held that the provisions of beneficial/exemption notification should be interpreted strictly, and any benefit of doubt should go in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In view of this settled legal position, there is no case for the refund to be sanctioned by allowing the appeals of the appellant because admittedly, they were not able to justify their claims with supporting documents. Therefore, the appeals may be rejected and the impugned orders may be upheld. 5. I have considered the arguments on both sides. It is

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (11) TMI 745 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI – Business Auxiliary Service – Commission on Consignment Sale for the period 2007 to March 2012 – demand of service tax – Held that:- Since the appellants have not collected any Service Tax from the person to whom the services were provided, Cum Tax benefit should be given while calculating the Service Tax liability under this category – Further, the Cenvat Credit on input services used for providing the aforesaid output service is also allowable.
–
Renting of Immovable Property Service – Held that:- The appellants have not collected Service Tax from the tenants and hence, Cum Duty Benefit has to be given while calculating the service tax liability under this category.
–
Transport of Goods by Road Service under Reverse Charge – Held that:- Some of the consignments are covered vide Notification No.34/2004-ST dated 03/12/2004 which grants full exemption in the following two situations:- (i) Where the gross amount charged on all consignmen

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

f remand. – MA(EH)-76964/2018 in Appeal No. ST/75430/2018 – MO/75825/2018 & FO/76662/2018 – Dated:- 18-9-2018 – SHRI P.K.CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Arijit Chakrabarti & Nilotpal Chowdhury, Advocates, for the Appellant (s) Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Suptd. (A. R.) for the Revenue ORDER This appeal was listed before the Single Member Bench on 31/05/2018 for hearing. The Bench directed the registry to list the appeal before the Division Bench. The appellant filed the Miscellaneous Application for early hearing on 12/09/2018 vide MA(EH) 76964/2018. The matter was listed for Early Hearing. After hearing both sides, the Miscellaneous Application for Early Hearing was allowed. Further, with the consent of both sides, the appeal itself was taken up for hearing. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Partnership firm mainly engaged in tailoring and dress making. During the period from 2007-08 to 2011-12, the appellant w

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ut scrutinizing the relevant documents such as bills, ledgers etc. The Ld. Advocate vehemently argued that the Adjudicating Authority has erred by not following the relevant provisions of the statute relating to cum-tax Valuation and exemption/abatement available to the appellant. It is his submission that even the Cenvat Credit of ₹ 4,16,374/-, has not been allowed which is legally available to the appellant on the basis of available documents even though when there was no allegation in this regard in the Show Cause Notice. The Ld. Adv. further argued that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not discussed regarding the claim of Cenvat Credit of ₹ 4,16,374/- in the impugned order though a quantification sheet for the Cenvat Credit as available to the appellant, duly supported by the invoices were placed before the First Appellate Authority. Regarding the invocation of the longer period, it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel that the entire demand is based solely on the bas

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rits deduction from the taxable value. Further, there are number of individual consignments below the Threshold Exemption Limit (Rs.750/Rs.1500) which also merits deduction but have not been considered by the Lower Authority. 6. Further, the benefit of cum-tax quantification of tax liability as available under Section 67 (2) of the Act should have been extended to the appellant assessee. 7. The Ld. DR reiterates the orders of the Lower Authorities. 8. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 9. We find that the entire demand of Service Tax is as under:- SI No. Category of Service Amount of Service Tax including Cess 01. Business Auxiliary Service (Commission on Consignment Sale for the period 2007 to March 2012 7,72,859/- 02. Renting of Immovable Property Service 4,91,543/- 03. Transport of Goods by Road Service under Reverse Charge 1,49,466/- Now, we take up each issue one by one. Regarding the demand under Business Auxiliary Service , we find that the appellant firm had enter

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Road, some of the consignments are covered vide Notification No.34/2004-ST dated 03/12/2004 which grants full exemption in the following two situations:- (i) Where the gross amount charged on all consignments transported in a goods carriage does not exceed ₹ 1500/-. (ii) Where the gross amount charged on individual consignment transported in a goods carriage does not exceed ₹ 750/-. Further, abatement of 75% on freight paid was allowed in the Show Cause Notice. After calculating the Service liability under all the above categories and complying with the observations made by the Bench in the foregoing paragraphs, the demand may be communicated to the appellant assessee. Further, the amount of ₹ 13,87,701/- as paid by the appellant assessee should be appropriated against the demand, so calculated. However, as the issues involved interpretation of statutory provisions, and the fact that the payments have been made for the undisputed amount of Service Tax and the Departme

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GUIDLINES FOR DEDUCTIONS AND DEPOSITS OF TDS BY THE DDO UNDER GST – GST – States – Circular No. 1819045/604 – Dated:- 18-9-2018 – Enclosed Circular No. 65/39/2018-DOR – Circular – Trade Notice – Public Notice – Instructions – Office orders

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (11) TMI 334 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Release of detained goods – petitioner contends that when the authorities detained the goods even the very authorities were unaware of the procedure to be adopted – Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that the authorities have followed the procedure and passed the Ext.P8 order – Held that:- The petitioner can pay the demanded tax and penalty under protest, to got the goods released – petition disposed off. – WP(C).No. 3973 of 2018 Dated:- 18-9-2018 – MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. For The Petitioner : ADV. SRI.M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON For The Respondents : ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER JUDGMENT The petitioner, a dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act), migrated to the regime of Good

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ends that when the authorities detained the goods even the very authorities were unaware of the procedure to be adopted. He drew my attention to the Ext.P4 and contended that even the notice was issued under the old format and, later, the GST counsel issued clarifications. 5. As per the petitioner's assertion, the authorities were unaware the procedure to be followed. The authorities, according to him, ought not have mechanically mulcted penalty on the petitioner. The Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that the authorities have followed the procedure and passed the Ext.P8 order. If the petitioner has any grievance against it, he can file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Act. 4. Under these circumstances, without a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (11) TMI 89 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – Refund of service tax credit – N/N. 41/2012 –ST dated 29.06.2012 – only point of contention is that the Assistant Commissioner has not discharged his duty in properly recording his satisfaction of fulfillment of conditions of the notification while sanctioning the refund – Held that:- There is no allegation that the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions mentioned in the notification. In view of this unusual factual matrix in which one of the conditions of the notification was not fulfilled by the Assistant Commissioner (and not by the assessee), this is a fit case remanded back to the Original Authority to satisfy himself and record his satisfaction regarding the fulfillment of the notification and sanction refund to the extent admissible – appeal allowed by way of remand. – Appeal Nos. ST/30015 & 30016/2018 – A/31203-31204/2018 – Dated:- 18-9-2018 – Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri Ch. Sumanth, Chartered Accountant for

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, shall, after satisfying himself,- (i) that the service tax rebate claim filed in Form A-1 is complete in every respect; (ii) that duly certified documents have been submitted evidencing the payment of service tax on the specified services; (iii) that rebate has not been already received on the shipping bills or bills of export on the basis of procedure prescribed in paragraph 2; and (iv) that the rebate claimed is arithmetically accurate, Refund the service tax paid on the specified service within a period of one month from the receipt of said claim: Provided that where the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, has reason to believe that the claim, or the enclosed documents are not in order or that there is a reason to deny such rebate, he may, after recording the reasons in writing, take action, in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the rules

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he notification. In fact, they fulfilled all the conditions required in the notification and the documents were duly verified by the range officers who sent reports to the Assistant Commissioner based on which the refunds were correctly sanctioned. It is his contention that even if the Assistant Commissioner has not recorded his satisfaction as per para 3(k) of the notification they cannot be put to loss as it is a condition to be fulfilled by the Assistant Commissioner and not by them. 5. Learned Departmental Representative reiterated the Orders-in-Appeal and argues that para 3(k) of the notification mandatorily requires the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner to satisfy himself before sanctioning the refund. The Assistant Commissioner has not discharged his duty in satisfying himself as evident in the Orders-in-Original and hence the Orders-in- Original were correctly set aside by the First Appellate Authority. 6. I have considered the arguments on both sides. The only

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (11) TMI 57 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MADHYA PRADESH – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 107 (A. A. R. – GST) – Levy of GST – Work contract services received from vendors for supply and erection work under various projects – whether clause(vi)(a) of Sr. No. 3 of table of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated the 28th June, 2017 is applicable on the works contract services received by it?
–
Held that:- The Government of Madhya Pradesh is having full control over the applicant M/s. M.P. Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. and the applicant is covered under the definition of Government Entity – The projects are undertaken for construction of electricity distribution lines, sub-stations and other infrastructure which are meant predominately for sell of electricity in urban and/or rural area.
–
The projects under DDUGY, IPDS, ADB, SSTD, Saubhagya Yojna, FSP and all other schemes of governments are carried out for business purpose and the benefit of Concessional Rate of 1

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

7 as amended from time to time and corresponding notifications under and MPGST Act, 2017, the applicable rate of tax is 18% (9% under Central tax and 9% State tax).
–
Ruling:- The Applicant is not entitled for the benefit of concessional rate of GST @12% (6% under Central tax and 6% State tax) for the said projects in terms of Notification No.24/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 21.09.2017 read with Notification No.31/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.10.2017.
–
The applicable rate of tax is 18% (9% under Central tax and 9% State tax). – Case No. 17/2018 Order No. 17/2018 Dated:- 18-9-2018 – RAJIV AGRAWAL AND MANOJ KUMAR CHOUBEY, MEMBER Present on behalf of applicant Shree Anil Kumar, Authorized Representative PROCEEDINGS (Under section 98 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Madhya Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) 1. The present application has been filed u/s 97 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 and MP Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (her

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ices from vendors for supply and erection work under various projects. 3.3. The Applicant cites Applicability of clause (vi)(a) of Sr. No. 3 of table of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated the 28th June, 2017 for applicability of rate of tax on the works contract services received by it. 4. QUESTION RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITY – The applicant wishes to know whether clause(vi)(a) of Sr. No. 3 of table of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated the 28th June, 2017 is applicable on the works contract services received by it. and determination of liability to pay Tax. 5. DEPARTMENT'S VIEW POINT- The concerned officer submitted that the nature of works contract undertaken by the applicant doesn't come under the category for which the notified rate of tax is 12% (6% CGST and 6% SGST) but it will attract 18% (9% CGST and 9% SGST). 6. RECORD OF PERSONAL HEARING-Shree Anil Kumar, Authorized Representative Appeared for personal hearing on 11.09.18 and they reiterate

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

fications is issued by the Government of India to amend for this purpose. The said amendment Notification is as follows – 1) Notification No. – 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate), Dated – 22/08/2017. 2) Notification No. – 24/2017-Central Tax (Rate), Dated – 21/09/2017. 3) Notification No. – 31/2017-Central Tax (Rate), Dated – 13/10/2017. 4) Notification No. – 46/2017-Central Tax (Rate), Dated – 14/11/2017. 5) Notification No. – 01/2018-Central Tax (Rate), Dated – 25/01/2018. 6.6 Vide notification no. 24/2017 – Central Tax (Rate), Dated – 21/09/2017, Government of India by inserting entry no. (vi) notified concessional GST rate of 6% for the construction services provided to Central Government, State Government, Union Territory, a local authority or a governmental authority by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of – a) a civil structure or any other original works meant predominantly for use other t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

t or State Legislature; or ii) established by any Government, with 90per cent. or more participation by way of equity or control, to carry out a function entrusted by the Central Government, State Government, Union Territory or a local authority. . 6.8 In view of above, it is submitted that the provisions referred above issued under the Notification No. 24/2017 – Central Tax (Rate), Dated – 21/09/2017 and Notification No. – 31/2017 – Central Tax (Rate), Dated – 13/10/2017 is applicable on the Company. 7. DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS: 7.1. First of all we must look in the contention that the Applicant is a government entity or not. As per Notification No. 31/2017 – Central Tax (Rate), Dated 13/10/2017 issued under CGST Act, 2017 and corresponding notification under MPGST Act, 2017. Government Entity is defined as under – Government Entity means an authority or a board or any other body including a society, trust, corporation, i) set up by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature; or ii) es

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

opal. 7.5. Thus, based on the above facts, it is concluded that the Government of Madhya Pradesh is having full control over the applicant M/s. M.P. Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. and the applicant is covered under the definition of Government Entity. 7.6. Now it is important to discuss the nature of work undertaken by the applicant. The Applicant is entrusted for various ambitious projects of Central and State Government relating to strengthening of power distribution network and Rural Electrification for public welfare such as Deendayal Upadhyay Gram Jyoti Yojna for Rural Electrification (DDUGJY), Integrated Power Development Scheme (IPDS), Saubhagya Yojna, ADB funded project, Scheme for Strengthening of Transmission and Distribution systems (SSTD) projects, feeder separation project (FSP) etc., the work has been carried out with the help of Contractor and work include both supply of material and erection of the same. 7.7. The projects are undertaken for construction of electri

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

DS, ADB, SSTD, Saubhagya Yojna, FSP and all other schemes of governments are carried out for business purpose and the benefit of Concessional Rate of 12% (6% under Central tax and 6% State tax) as per notification under is not available to the applicant on works pertaining to construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration, which are carried out in respect of projects under DDUGY, IPDS, ADB, SSTD, Saubhagya Yojna, FSP and all other schemes of governments as the same is undertaken for the business purpose. Further, as per Section 2 of CGST Act '2017 and MPGST Act, 2017 defines works contract as a contract for building, construction, fabrication, completion, erection, installation, fitting out, improvement, modification, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration or commissioning of any immovable property wherein transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) is involved in the execu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (10) TMI 1623 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MADHYA PRADESH – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 111 (A. A. R. – GST) – Classification of an item – Militry Malai Mithai – whether classified under the Tariff Heading 2106 as Sweet Meats or under Tariff Heading 0404 as other dairy product consisting of natural milk constituents or under the Tariff Heading 1704 as a Sugar confectionery?
–
Held that:- Applicant’s reservations against Chapter Head 1704 are driven, among other things, by financial grounds. Because, against Chapter Head 1704 they would have to cough up GST @18%. We also sense a similar but tacit approach from the department to maintain the status quo by placing the impugned product under Chapter 17 with an eye on higher rate of tax that is attracts – however, the endeavour of the department should be to decide appropriate classification irrespective of the rate of tax attached to it.
–
Chapter 04 essentially covers dairy products and as per Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 04, the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nery (1704 90 10) or Boiled Sweet (1704 90 20) or Toffee, caramel etc (1704 90 30). Clearly the product is neither a gum nor boiled sweet nor toffee or caramel. That leaves residual entry ‘Others’ (1704 90 90) if at all the impugned product is to brought under the purview of Chapter 17. In other words, there is no specific entry under Chapter 17 which would encompass the impugned product even by a remote chance. Moreover, the residual entry i.e ‘Others’ (1704 90 90) is to take care of other similar products of the same family viz. Sugar Confectionery which do not find specific mention against rest of the sub-headings.
–
The impugned product i.e. ‘Militry Malai Mithai’ is made of Skimmed Milk Powder, Sugar, Whey Powder, Emulsifiers & flavours etc. mixed together in a semi-liquid form (neither semi-solid nor in the form of Jelly) and packed in elongated pouches/sachets and ready for consumption. The ingredients, process and final shape of the impugned product takes itself out of the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ai’ would merit classification as Miscellaneous Edible Product under Chapter Heading 2106 90 99, as ‘Sweetmeat’ and chargeable to GST as applicable.
–
The impugned goods shall be aptly classifiable under Chapter Head 2106 90 99 as ‘Sweetmeats’ and shall be entitled to benefit of Notification No.01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dtd.28.06.2017 (as amended) and corresponding notification under MPGST Act,2017 at present attracting GST @5% Adv. [(2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST) or 5% IGST as the case may be) as envisaged under Serial Number 101 Schedule I to the said Notification.
–
Ruling:- The product ‘Militry Malai Mithai’ as described in the Application will merit classification under Chapter Heading 2106 90 of the GST Tariff as ‘Sweetmeat’ and would be chargeable to GST at applicable rate under the said tariff entry, presently read with Notification No.01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dtd.28.06.2017 (Sr. No. 101 to Schedule l) and corresponding notification under MPGST Act,2017. – Order No. 13/2018

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ours 1.3. The above product is packed into small sachets of around 4 grams each, 58 such sachets are then packed into a large pack used for selling to the distributors and retailers and the end customer would buy the small sachet and consume it after opening the same. 1.4. As per the report of government approved laboratory, the product manufactured by the applicant, having following chemical parameters., i.e.:- a. Protein : 5.12% b. Fat : 34.27% c. Sugar : 45.10% 1.5. The Applicant have further submitted that as per their view the aforementioned product should be treated as sweet meat , classifiable under tariff Heading No.21069099. In support of their view the Applicant have adduced following points: A. The Product is in the nature of sweet meat – 1. We submit that sweet meats include any product which includes sugar as ingredient. That there are no set ingredients for the composition of sweet meats and any sweet product can be called a sweet meat if they are known, sold and consumed

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

further submit that we have got our product tested and verified in an approved laboratory. The findings of the laboratory are enclosed herewith. In the expert opinion of the laboratory testers the product is in the nature of a sweet and is most likely to be a sweet meat. 5. We are also marketing the said product as Mithai. That he name of the product itself is Militry Malai Mithai which is recognised in the market as such. We submit that packing the said product in such small sachets is useful in consuming the product in small quantities, which would be helpful for consumption of the product by children or other people casually. 6. Further, the CBEC, vide its FAQ on classification dated 29.09.2017, clarified that products like halwa, barfi (i.e. Khoa product), laddus, falling under HS Code 2106 are sweet meats and attract 5% GST. We submit that the Board has listed certain commonly known sweets which are similar to them. We submit that our product i.e. Rabdi, is also in the same class

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Hon ble Authority to the case of Globe Confectionery Vs. CCE, Allahabad [2005 (190) ELT 239 (Tri-Del)] = 2005 (7) TMI 194 – CESTAT, NEW DELHI, wherein the Hon ble Tribunal held in Para 4 as follows: The dispute is not whether the item is Rasgulla or Peda. Nor is classification dependent upon composition. Composition is irrelevant, since Note 10 reproduced above states that "products remain classified under 2108" irrespective of the nature of their ingredients. The scheme of the classification is to place all "misthans" or "mithai" under 2108. The terms of the note are "include sweet meats commonly known as misthans or mithai or by any other name". In view of such broad scope of the note, the appellant's claim for classification has to be accepted, because there could be no doubt that the items are sweet meat. Dictionary refers to sweet meat as "food rich in sugar". Thus, despite sugar being the pre-dominant ingredient, in view of th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ry i.e. after paying GST at a higher rate of 18% to avoind any future tax burden on us. Without clarification if we charge a lower rate, we not be able to pass on any unforeseen future tax liability to our consumers since our product is a retail product 17. However we are of a firm opinion that our product is not a sugar confectionery. That the HSN code for sugar confectionery items i.e. heading number 1704 covers Sugar Confectionery (including white chocolate), not containing cocoa . 18. We submit that heading 1704 covers confectionery . That confectionery is a preparation in the form of candies or preserves. Confectionery means products such as candies or other flavoured sweets which are marketed as toffees. That our product is not a confectionery since we are not marketing the same in the form of candy or a toffee. 19. We further that boiled sweets in heading 1704 90 20 includes toffees. Boiled sweets are prepared using sugar syrups that are heated and then cooled so as to take a ha

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ode 1704 vide the aforementioned clarification. Since our product is in fact a liquid preparation and is not in a solid or semi solid form, it cannot be grouped in the same category as other solid forms of confectionery under heading 1704. 22. Hence our product cannot be classified as a confectionery and is also not a boiled sweet or a jelly confectionery which are specified under heading 1704. We therefore submit that our product is not classifiable under any sub heading of heading 1704. D. Classifying our product as a sugar confectionery would be unfair and unjust – 23. It is further submitted that earlier, in the pre-GST regime, VAT on confectionery items was 5% and Central Excise duty was 6%. However, Central Excise duty on dairy products and sweet meats was NIL. Now in the GST regime also the GST on sugar boiled confectionery items is 12%. However, our product cannot be called sugar boiled confectionery. Hence, if our product is classified as other sugar confectionery, it will att

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

be classified under the Tariff Heading 2106 as Sweet Meats or under Tariff Heading 0404 as other dairy product consisting of natural milk constituents or under the Tariff Heading 1704 as a Sugar confectionery.? 3. DEAPRTMENT S VIEW POINT: The CGST & Central Excise Commisionerate has furnished its opinion through the Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Indore. The department has merely opined that since the Applicant had been classifying the impugned product under Chapter Head 1704 as Confectionery, during the pre-GST as well as GST regime, the same should be classified under Chapter Head 1704 as Confectionery item. 4. RECORD OF PERSONAL HEARING: 4.1. Shree Ajay Makhija, Director CA Pradeep Asawa And CA Palkesh Asawa, appeared on behalf of the applicant for Personal Hearing and he reiterated the submissions already made in the application. 5. DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS: 5.1. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the applicant in the application, the pleading

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

er confectionery products ;like Chocolates & toffees etc which are undisputedly classifiable under Chapter 17, and thus this new product when initiated by them, they chose to classify the same under Chapter 17. However, they wish to seek a ruling from the AAR on appropriate classification of the impugned product. 5.3. The Applicant have given detailed description of the product in question along with chemical examination report, obtained by the Applicant on their own, giving the composition of the impugned product. They have also submitted the necessary licence and certificates issued by different Governmental authorities connected with manufacture and sale of food items such as FDA, FSSAI, Department of Legal Metrology etc. However, on going through these licences and certificates, we find that these only give a circumspect description of the impugned goods and that too as declared by the Applicant before respective authorities. We thus do not find these reports/certificates of mu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

things, by financial grounds. Because, against Chapter Head 1704 they would have to cough up GST @18%. We also sense a similar but tacit approach from the department to maintain the status quo by placing the impugned product under Chapter 17 with an eye on higher rate of tax that is attracts. However, we observe that the endeavour of the department should be to decide appropriate classification irrespective of the rate of tax attached to it. To be precise, while deciding classification of any product we have to take a subjective route covering all the aspects related to the product. 5.6. The applicant has, on his own understanding of the issue, pushed forward two alternate classification of the impugned product. One as a Dairy Product covered under Chapter 04 and the other as Sweet Meat covered under Chapter 21. We would like examine each of these alternate classification and also Chapter 17 under which the impugned product is being manufactured/supplied by Applicant at present. 5.7.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

oduct under Chapter 1704, under which the Applicant have been classifying their impugned product till date. We find that the Chapter 17 of the HSN is for Sugar & Sugar Confectionery . While 1701 to 1703 headings relate to Sugars in different forms, the Heading 1704 mentions Sugar Confectionery. Sugar Confectionery has no where been specifically defined under the GST law or for that matter under HSN. However, going by the trade parlance and prevailing practice, the Sugar Confectionery has been classified as under: 1704 Sugar Confectionery (Including white chocolate), not containing cocoa 1704 10 00 – Chewing Gum, whether or not sugar coated 1704 90 – Other: 1704 90 10 Jelly Confectionery 1704 90 20 Boiled Sweets, whether or not filled 1704 90 30 Toffees, Caramels and similar sweets 1704 90 90 Others 5.9. Now, putting the impugned product to test against each of the entries above, we find that the product Militry Malai Mithai cannot be terms as Chewing Gum (1704 10 00) or Jelly C

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

family of Sugar Confectionery in any form. We are thus of a firm view that the impugned product cannot be termed and classified as Sugar Confectionery under Chapter 17 of the GST Tariff. 5.10. Finally we come to examine the impugned product vis-å-vis Chapter 2106. We observe that Chapter 21 essentially covers Miscellaneous Edible Products . Obviously, the term Miscellaneous indicates that this particular chapter would contain all such edible products which are not specifically covered elsewhere under the Tariff. The Chapter Headings further describes various edible preparations such as extracts of Coffee, tea, Yeast, Soups, broths, Sauces etc under Heading 2101 to 2105. Further as is the convention, Heading 2106 has been given to include all those items which are not elsewhere specified. Furthermore, 2106 further sub-divides and classifies various edible items like Protein Concentrates, Pan Masala, Sharbats, Supari, Custard Powder etc. under Sub-headings 21061000 to 21069080 and

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

lassification as Miscellaneous Edible Product under Chapter Heading 2106 90 99, as Sweetmeat and chargeable to GST as applicable. 5.12. Having observed as above, we further hold that the impugned goods shall be aptly classifiable under Chapter Head 2106 90 99 as Sweetmeats and shall be entitled to benefit of Notification No.01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dtd.28.06.2017 (as amended) and corresponding notification under MPGST Act,2017 at present attracting GST @5% Adv. [(2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST) or 5% IGST as the case may be) as envisaged under Serial Number 101 Schedule I to the said Notification. 5.13. We also find it necessary to mention here that the classification decided by this Ruling shall be effective prospectively and this ruling shall not entail any right of the Applicant to claim refund of any tax which they may have paid prior to this Ruling. RULING 6. The Advance Ruling on question posed before the authority is answered as under: 6.1 The product Militry Malai Mithai as described

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – Order No. 4/2018-GST – Dated:- 18-9-2018 – ORDER By the Commissioner of State Tax, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad Dated the 18th September, 2018 Order No. 4/2018-GST No.GSL/RULE/117/B. 20 Subject: Extension of time limit for submitting the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-I under rule 117(1A) of the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 in certain cases In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1A) of rule 117 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 read with section 1

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (10) TMI 1075 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Penalty u/s 76 and 78 of FA – liability of tax duly discharged – Held that:- There is no dispute about the liability of Service Tax of ₹ 41,61,205/- pertaining to the period January, 2013 to March, 2013 which has been confirmed by the Commissioner in the impugned order. Also it is not in dispute that the entire amount of Service Tax along with interest of ₹ 2,13,191/- had been discharged by the respondent.
–
The learned Commissioner recorded his findings where it is held that 'the noticee had paid their entire service tax liability in respect of the impugned SCN by 14.08.2013 i.e. before initiation of investigation by the way of an authorized visit by the officials of the DGCEI to the premises of Gufic on 25.09.2013 which has resulted in the issuance of the said SCN on 21.10.2013. Hence the allegation of intention to evade payment of Service Tax on the part of the noticee does not stick. As such I do not find this to be a fit

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ving that Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He submits that even though the demand is confirmed for the normal period of limitation i.e. January, 2013 to March, 2013 while adjudicating show-cause notice issued on 21.10.2013, but taking into consideration that from 2008 to 2012 the demand being settled by the appellant under VCES Scheme, 2013, the learned Commissioner has confirmed the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is his contention that the learned Commissioner, while confirming the penalty under section 76, failed to appreciate that Service Tax was not paid by the appellant for the period 2008 to 2012, even if, subsequently discharged the same before initiation of proceedings for recovery of the amount. He submits that penalty is rightly imposable under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Learned C.A. for the respondent had submitted that respondent had discharged entire Service Tax liability with intere

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Act, 1994, the learned Commissioner recorded his findings at para 38 as follows:- 38.1. The noticee had paid the entire extent of Service Tax liability before issuance of SCN i.e. 21.10.2013. However the interest for the period January to March 2013 (post VCES) was paid on 25th of July 2015, i.e. much after the issuance of SCN and hence the noticee does not qualify for exemption from penalty under Section 76 (1) of FA, 1994, in as much as, though the Service tax liability was paid before issuance of the SCN, the relevant interest was paid only after a period of almost 2 years. The noticee has also paid the late fees of ₹ 20000/- vide challan dated 25.7.2015, in respect of the late filing of ST3 Returns for the period January to March 2013. 38.2. On perusal of the amended Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 quoted above, it is seen that the cases, in which fraud or collusion or willful mis- statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter V

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ithin the due date. But from the submissions made it is apparent that the said tax so left unpaid was made good by the assessee even before any investigation was initiated by the department, let alone the issue -of demand. Hence the said suppression was without any Intention to evade tax in as much as the relevant tax was paid before the initiation of investigation culminating in the issue of SCN. In keeping with the said facts, the noticee is paid for the period from January to March 2013 under section 76 and that the noticee is liable to pay late fees for the delay in filing returns, as applicable. 38.4 The noticee, as mentioned above, had paid their entire service tax liability in respect of the impugned SCN by 14.08.2013 i.e. before initiation of investigation by the way of an authorized visit by the officials of the DGCEI to the premises of Gufic on 25.09.2013 which has resulted in the issuance of the said SCN on 21.10.2013. Hence the allegation of intention to evade payment of Se

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (10) TMI 823 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Method of Valuation – fabrication of bodies of motor vehicles falling under Chapter heading 8704, for original equipment manufacturers – appellant paid duty on the basis of the cost construction – Revenue was of the view that the activity undertaken by the appellant is in the nature of job work and hence valuation is required to be determined in line with Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 – Held that:- Tribunal in various cases has held that the valuation is required to be determined in terms of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and accordingly differential duty demand has become payable – reliance placed in the case of M/S COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS & BODY BUILDERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE, JABALPUR [2018 (10) TMI 456 – CESTAT NEW DELHI].
–
The adjudicating authority is directed to requantify and restrict the demand to the normal time limit – appeal allowed by way of remand. – Ex. Appeal No. 50990 & 51329 of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

hicles are cleared back to TML on payment of duty. The dispute in the present appeals relate to the valuation adopted by the appellant for payment of duty on such manufactured motor vehicles. The duty was paid by the appellant on the basis of the cost construction, in line with the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujjagar Prints vs. Union of India 1989 (39) ELT 493 (SC). However, Revenue was of the view that the activity undertaken by the appellant is in the nature of job work and hence valuation is required to be determined in line with Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. As per this Rule 10A ibid the Central Excise duty is required to be paid on the value at which the principal manufacturer sells the motor vehicle ultimately. The show cause notices issued on the same were finalised and ultimately the appeals are before the Tribunal. 3. Heard Sh. Rahul Tangri, ld. Advocate for the appellant as well as Sh. B. B. Jain, ld. AR for the Revenue. 4. Ld.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory vs. CCE, AP -2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC), the appellant will be entitled to the demand being restricted to normal time limited. 5. Ld. AR for the Revenue justified the impugned order. 6. The issue of valuation of the motor vehicles manufactured by the appellant, on job work basis on the chassis received after payment of duty from TML, has been settled in various decisions. The Tribunal has held that the valuation is required to be determined in terms of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and accordingly differential duty demand has become payable. In this connection, we reproduce the ratio of the decision in the case of Commercial Engineers & Body Builders (supra). In the final Order dated 2.11.2017, the Tribunal observed as under: 4. After hearing Shri Hemant Bajaj and Dhruv Tiwari, learned advocates for the appellant and Shri H C Saini, learned DR for the department and on perusal of material available on record, it a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – (01-U/2018) No. KGST.CR.01/2017-18 – Dated:- 18-9-2018 – Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka) Vanijya Therige Karyalaya, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru, NOTIFICATION (01-U/2018) No. KGST.CR.01/17-18, Dated: 18.09.2018 Subject: Extension of time limit for submitting the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 under rule 117(1A) Of the Karnataka Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 in certain Cases In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1A) of rule 117 of the Karnataka

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – 1/2018-TNGST-Rc.393/2018/Taxation/A1 – Dated:- 18-9-2018 – Office of the Additional Chief Secretary / Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai -600 005. No. 1/2018-TNGST-Rc.393/2018 /Taxation/A1 Chennai, Friday, September 18, 2018 Purattasi 3, Vilambi, Thiruvalluvar Aandu-2049 ORDER Subject: Extension of time limit for submitting the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 under rule 117(1A) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 in certain cases – Reg. I

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – 29898-FIN-CT1-TAX-0034-2017/FIN-S.R.O. No. 393/2018 – Dated:- 18-9-2018 – FINANCE DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION The 18th September, 2018 S.R.O. No.393/2018- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 164 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Odisha Act 7 of 2017), the State Government, on the recommendations of the Goods and Services Tax Council, do hereby make the following rules further to amend the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:- 1. (1) These rules may be called the Odisha Goods and Services Tax (Tenth Amendment) Rules, 2018. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Odisha Gazette. 2. In the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, after FORM GSTR-9A, the following Form shall be inserted, namely:- FORM GSTR-9C See rule 80(3) PART – A – Reconciliation Statement Pt. I Basic Details 1 Financial Year 2 GSTIN 3A Legal Name < Auto > 3B Trade Name (if any) <Auto > 4 Are you liable to audit under any Act

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Annual Financial Statement but are not permissible under GST (-) K Adjustments on account of supply of goods by SEZ units to DTA Units (-) L Turnover for the period under composition scheme (-) M Adjustments in turnover under section 15 and rules thereunder (+/-) N Adjustments in turnover due to foreign exchange fluctuations (+/-) O Adjustments in turnover due to reasons not listed above (+/-) P Annual turnover after adjustments as above < Auto > Q Turnover as declared in Annual Return (GSTR9) R Un-Reconciled turnover (Q – P) AT1 6 Reasons for Un – Reconciled difference in Annual Gross Turnover A B C Reason 1 << Text >> Reason 2 << Text >> Reason 3 << Text >> 7 Reconciliation of Taxable Turnover A Annual turnover after adjustments (from 5P above) <Auto> B Value of Exempted, Nil Rated, Non-GST supplies, No-Supply turnover C D E F Zero rated supplies without payment of tax Supplies on which tax is to be paid by the recipient on reverse char

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Text >> C Reason 3 << Text >> 11 Additional amount payable but not paid (due to reasons specified under Tables 6,8 and 10 above) To be paid through Cash Description Taxable Value Central tax State tax / UT tax Integrated tax Cess, if applicable 1 2 3 4 5 6 5% 12% 18% 28% 3% 0.25% 0.10% Interest Late Fee Penalty Others (please specify) Pt. Reconciliation of Input Tax Credit (ITC) IV 12 Reconciliation of Net Input Tax Credit (ITC) A ITC availed as per audited Annual Financial Statement for the State/ UT (For multi-GSTIN units under same PAN this should be derived from books of accounts) B ITC booked in earlier Financial Years claimed in current Financial Year (+) C ITC booked in current Financial Year to be claimed in subsequent Financial Years (-) D ITC availed as per audited financial statements or books of account < Auto > E ITC claimed in Annual Return (GSTR9) F Un-reconciled ITC ITC 1 13 Reasons for un-reconciled difference in ITC A B C Reason 1 << Text

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ason 2 << Text >> Reason 3 << Text >> 16 Tax payable on un-reconciled difference in ITC (due to reasons specified in 13 and 15 above) Description Amount Payable Central Tax State/UT Tax Integrated Tax Cess Interest Penalty Pt.V Auditor's recommendation on additional Liability due to non-reconciliation To be paid through Cash Description Value Central tax State tax / UT tax Integrated tax Cess, if applicable 1 2 3 4 5 6 5% 12% 18% 28% 3% 0.25% 0.10% Input Tax Credit Interest Late Fee Penalty Any other amount paid for supplies not included in Annual Return (GSTR 9) Erroneous refund to be paid back Outstanding demands to be settled Other (Pl. specify) Verification: I hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the information given herein above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed there from. **(Signature and stamp/Seal of the Auditor) Place: …………… Name of the signatory …

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

cial Statement shall be declared here. There may be cases where multiple GSTINs (State-wise) registrations exist on the same PAN. This is common for persons / entities with presence over multiple States. Such persons / entities, will have to internally derive their GSTIN-wise turnover and declare the same here. This shall include export turnover (if any). It may be noted that reference to audited Annual Financial Statement includes reference to books of accounts in case of persons / entities having presence over multiple States. 5B Unbilled revenue which was recorded in the books of accounts on the basis of accrual system of accounting in the last financial year and was carried forward to the current financial year shall be declared here. In other words, when GST is payable during the financial year on such revenue (which was recognized earlier), the value of such revenue shall be declared here. (For example, if rupees Ten Crores of unbilled revenue existed for the financial year, 2016

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ement for April 2017 to June 2017 shall be declared here. 5H Unbilled revenue which was recorded in the books of accounts on the basis of accrual system of accounting during the current financial year but GST was not payable on such revenue in the same financial year shall be declared here. 5I Value of all advances for which GST has not been paid but the same has been recognized as revenue in the audited Annual Financial Statement shall be declared here. 5J Aggregate value of credit notes which have been accounted for in the audited Annual Financial Statement but were not admissible under section 34 of the OGST Act shall be declared here. 5K Aggregate value of all goods supplied by SEZs to DTA units for which the DTA units have filed bill of entry shall be declared here. 5L There may be cases where registered persons might have opted out of the composition scheme during the current financial year. Their turnover as per the audited Annual Financial Statement would include turnover both

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e declared here. This turnover may be derived from Sr. No. 5N, 10 and 11 of Annual Return (GSTR 9). 6 Reasons for non-reconciliation between the annual turnover declared in the audited Annual Financial Statement and turnover as declared in the Annual Return (GSTR 9) shall be specified here. 7 The table provides for reconciliation of taxable turnover from the audited annual turnover after adjustments with the taxable turnover declared in annual return (GSTR-9). 7A Annual turnover as derived in Table 5P above would be auto-populated here. 7B Value of exempted, nil rated, non-GST and no-supply turnover shall be declared here. This shall be reported net of credit notes, debit notes and amendments if any. 7C Value of zero rated supplies (including supplies to SEZs) on which tax is not paid shall be declared here. This shall be reported net of credit notes, debit notes and amendments if any. 7D Value of reverse charge supplies on which tax is to be paid by the recipient shall be declared her

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

elled RC , supplies where tax was paid on reverse charge basis by the recipient (i.e. the person for whom reconciliation statement has been prepared) shall be declared. 9P The total amount to be paid as per liability declared in Table 9A to 9O is auto populated here. 9Q The amount payable as declared in Table 9 of the Annual Return (GSTR9) shall be declared here. It should also contain any differential tax paid on Table 10 or 11 of the Annual Return (GSTR9). 10 Reasons for non-reconciliation between payable / liability declared in Table 9P above and the amount payable in Table 9Q shall be specified here. 11 Any amount which is payable due to reasons specified under Table 6, 8 and 10 above shall be declared here. 6. Part IV consists of reconciliation of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The instructions to fill Part IV are as under:- Table No. Instructions 12A ITC availed (after reversals) as per the audited Annual Financial Statement shall be declared here. There may be cases where multiple GSTI

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

as per audited Annual Financial Statement or books of accounts as derived from values declared in Table 12A, 12B and 12C above will be auto-populated here. 12E Net ITC available for utilization as declared in Table 7J of Annual Return (GSTR-9) shall be declared here. 13 Reasons for non-reconciliation of ITC as per audited Annual Financial Statement or books of account (Table 12D) and the net ITC (Table-12E) availed in the Annual Return (GSTR-9) shall be specified here. 14 This Table is for reconciliation of ITC declared in the Annual Return (GSTR-9) against the expenses booked in the audited Annual Financial Statement or books of account. The various sub-heads specified under this table are general expenses in the audited Annual Financial Statement or books of account on which ITC may or may not be available. Further, this is only an indicative list of heads under which expenses are generally booked. Taxpayers may add or delete any of these heads but all heads of expenses on which GST

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

other outstanding demands which is recommended to be settled by the auditor shall be declared in this Table. 8. Towards, the end of the reconciliation statement taxpayers shall be given an option to pay their taxes as recommended by the auditor. PART – B- CERTIFICATION I. Certification in cases where the reconciliation statement (FORM GSTR-9C) is drawn up by the person who had conducted the audit: * I/we have examined the- (a) balance sheet as on ……… (b) the *profit and loss account/income and expenditure account for the period beginning from ………..…to ending on ……., and (c) the cash flow statement for the period beginning from ……..…to ending on ………, -attached herewith, of M/s. …………… (Name), …………………….………… (Address), ..………………&

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

best of *my/our knowledge and belief, were necessary for the purpose of the audit were not provided/partially provided to us. (B) In *my/our opinion, proper books of account *have/have not been kept by the registered person so far as appears from*my/ our examination of the books. (C) I/we certify that the balance sheet, the *profit and loss/income and expenditure account and the cash flow Statement are *in agreement/not in agreement with the books of account maintained at the Principal place of business at ……………………and ** ……………………additional place of business within the State. 4. The documents required to be furnished under section 35 (5) of the OGST Act and Reconciliation Statement required to be furnished under section 44(2) of the OGST Act is annexed herewith in Form No. GSTR-9C. 5. In *my/our opinion and to the best of *my/our information and according to explanations given

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

lip;…………… ……………………………………… **(Signature and stamp/Seal of the Auditor) Place: …………… Name of the signatory ………………… Membership No……………… Date: …………… Full address ……………………… II. Certification in cases where the reconciliation statement (FORM GSTR-9C) is drawn up by a person other than the person who had conducted the audit of the accounts: *I/we report that the audit of the books of accounts and the financial statements of M/s.………………..…………………. (Name and address of the assessee with GSTIN) was conducted by M/s. ………………&h

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the said registered person- *has maintained the books of accounts, records and documents as required by the IGST/OGST/<<>>GST Act, 2017 and the rules/notifications made/issued thereunder *has not maintained the following accounts/records/documents as required by the IGST/OGST/<<>>GST Act, 2017 and the rules/notifications made/issued thereunder: 1. 2. 3. 3. The documents required to be furnished under section 35 (5) of the OGST Act and Reconciliation Statement required to be furnished under section 44(2) of the OGST Act is annexed herewith in Form No.GSTR-9C. 4. In *my/our opinion and to the best of *my/our information and according to examination of books of account including other relevant documents and explanations given to *me/us, the particulars given in the said Form No.9C are true and correct subject to the following observations/qualifications, if any: (a) …………………………….…&he

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – 29894-FIN-CT1-TAX-0043-2017/FIN-S.R.O. No. 392/2018 – Dated:- 18-9-2018 – FINANCE DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION The 18th September, 2018 S.R.O. No.392/2018- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Odisha Act 7 of 2017), the State Government, on the recommendations of the Goods and Services Tax Council, do hereby appoint the 1st day of October, 2018, as the date on which the provisions of Section 52 of the said

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – 29890-FIN-CT1-TAX-0043/2017/FIN-S.R.O. No. 391/2018 – Dated:- 18-9-2018 – FINANCE DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION The 18th September, 2018 S.R.O. No.391/2018- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Odisha Act 7 of 2017) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of Odisha in the Finance Department Notification No. 27477-FIN-CT1-TAX-0043/2017/FIN., dated the 16th September, 2017, published in the Extraordinary issue of the Odisha Gazette No.1527, dated the 16th September, 2017 bearing S.R.O. No. 410/2017, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the State Government, on recommendations of the Goods and Ser

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – 04/2018-GST – Dated:- 18-9-2018 – File No. 12-19/2017-18-EXN-GST-(519)-27801 Government of Himachal Pradesh Excise & Taxation [Department Order No. 04/2018-GST Dated: Shimla- 171009, the 18th Sep., 2018 Subject: Extension of time limit for submitting the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 under rule 117(1A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 in certain cases In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1A) of rule 117 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services T

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – 04/2018-State Tax – Dated:- 18-9-2018 – GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL DIRECTORATE OF COMMERCIAL TAXES 14, BELIAGHATA ROAD, KOLKATA -700015 Order No. : 03/WBGST/PRO/2018 Dated: 18/09/2018 Order No. 04/2018-State Tax Subject: Extension of time limit for submitting the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 under rule 117(1A) of the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 in certain cases In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1A) of rule 117 of the West Bengal Goods and Service

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – 45/2018 – Dated:- 18-9-2018 – GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL DIRECTORATE OF COMMERCIAL TAXES 14, BELIAGHATA ROAD, KOLKATA-700015 TRADE CIRCULAR No. 45/2018 (Circular No. 62/36/2018-GST) DATED: 18.09.2018 Subject: Levy of GST on Priority Sector Lending Certificates (PSLC) Representations have been received requesting to clarify the following: (i) Mechanism for discharge of tax liability on trading of Priority Sector Lending Certificate (PSLC) for the period 1.7.2017 to 27.5.2018. (ii)

= = = = = = = =

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 Circular No. 10/2018-GST (CT/GST-15/2017/99 dated 12nd June, 2018) and Circular No. 11/2018-GST (CT/GST-15/2017/117 dated 22nd June, 2018) – GST – States – 22/2018-GST – Dated:- 18-9-2018 – GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXES, ASSAM :: KAR BHAWAN DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 CIRCULAR NO. 22/2018-GST Dated Dispur the 18th September, 2018 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 Circular No. 10/2018-GST (CT/GST-15/2017/99 dated 12nd June, 2018) and Circular No. 11/2018-GST (CT/GST-15/2017/117 dated 22nd June, 2018) – regarding No. CT/GST-15/2017/187.- Kind attention is invited to Circular No. 10/2018-GST (CT/GST- 15/2017/99 dated 12nd June, 201

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

red to as the Assam GST Rules ) 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 Assam GST 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 Assam GST Rules, except in the case where the goods are transported for a distance of upto fifty kilometres within the State or Union territory to or from the place of business of the transporter to the place of business of the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

or the consignee but the GSTIN, wherever applicable, is correct; b) Error in the pin-code but the 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. 6. In case of the above situations, penalty to the tune of ₹ 500/- each under section 125 of the Assam GST Act and the CGST Act should be imposed (Rs. 1000/- under the IGST Act) in FORM GST DRC-07 for every consignment. A record of all such consignments where proceedings under section 129 of the Assam

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – 21/2018-GST – Dated:- 18-9-2018 – GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXES, ASSAM :: KAR BHAWAN DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 CIRCULAR NO. 21/2018-GST Dated Dispur the 18th September, 2018. Subject : Levy of GST on Priority Sector Lending Certificates (PSLC) – regarding No. CT/GST-15/2017/186.- Representations have been received requesting to clarify the following: (i) Mechanism for discharge of tax liability on trading of Priority Sector Lending Certificate (PSLC) for the pe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – 17/2018-GST – Dated:- 18-9-2018 – GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXES, ASSAM KAR BHAWAN DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 CIRCULAR NO. 17/2018-GST Dated Dispur the 18th September, 2018. Subject : Scope of Principal-agent relationship in the context of Schedule I of the Assam GST Act – regarding. No. CT/GST-15/2017/182.- In terms of Schedule I of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Assam GST Act ), the supply of goods by an agent on behalf of the principal without consideration has been deemed to be a supply. In this connection, various representations have been received regarding the scope and ambit of the principal-agent relationship under GST. In order to clarify some of the issues and to ensure uniformity in the implementation of the provisions of the law across the field formations, the Commissioner, in exercise of its powers conferred under section 168 of the Assam GST Act hereby clarifies the issues in the succeeding par

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ents emerge from the above definition of agent: (a) the term 'agent' is defined in terms of the various activities being carried out by the person concerned in the principal-agent relationship; and (b) the supply or receipt of goods or services has to be undertaken by the agent on behalf of the principal. From this, it can be deduced that the crucial component for covering a person within the ambit of the term agent under the Assam GST Act is corresponding to the representative character identified in the definition of agent under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 5. Further, the two limbs of any supply under GST are consideration and in the course or furtherance of business . Where the consideration is not extant in a transaction, such a transaction does not fall within the ambit of supply. But, in certain scenarios, as elucidated in Schedule I of the Assam GST Act, the key element of consideration is not required to be present for treating certain activities as supply. One such

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tative hat and is supplying or receiving goods on behalf of the principal. Since in the commercial world, there are various factors that might influence this relationship, it would be more prudent that an objective criteria is used to determine whether a particular principal-agent relationship falls within the ambit of the said entry or not. Thus, the key ingredient for determining relationship under GST would be whether the invoice for the further supply of goods on behalf of the principal is being issued by the agent or not. Where the invoice for further supply is being issued by the agent in his name then, any provision of goods from the principal to the agent would fall within the fold of the said entry. However, it may be noted that in cases where the invoice is issued by the agent to the customer in the name of the principal, such agent shall not fall within the ambit of Schedule I of the Assam GST Act. Similarly, where the goods being procured by the agent on behalf of the princ

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

s. XYZ, a banking company, appoints Mr. B (auctioneer) to auction certain goods. The auctioneer arranges for the auction and identifies the potential biddery. The highest bid is accepted and the goods are sold to the highest bidder by M/s. XYZ. The invoice for the supply of the goods is issued by M/S XYZ to the successful bidder. In this scenario, the auctioneer is merely providing the auctioneering services with no role played in the supply of the goods. Even in this scenario, Mr. B is not an agent of M/S XYZ for the supply of goods in terms of Schedule I. Scenario 3 Mr. A, an artist, appoints M/S B (auctioneer) to auction his painting. M/S B arranges for the auction and identifies the potential bidders. The highest bid is accepted and the painting is sold to the highest bidder. The invoice for the supply of the painting is issued by M/S B on the behalf of Mr. A but in his own name and the painting is delivered to the successful bidder. In this scenario, M/S. B is not merely providing

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

son who buys or sells the agricultural produce on behalf of his principal, or facilitates buying and selling of agricultural produce on behalf of his principal and receives, by way of remuneration, a commission or percentage upon the amount involved in such transaction. In cases where the invoice is issued by Mr. B to the buyer, the former is an agent covered under Schedule I. However, in cases where the invoice is issued directly by Mr. A to the buyer, the commission agent (Mr. B) doesn't fall under the category of agent covered under Schedule I. 9. In scenario 1 and scenario 2, Mr. B shall not be liable to obtain registration in terms of clause (vii) of section 24 of the Assam GST Act. He, however, would be liable for registration if his aggregate turnover of supply of taxable services exceeds the threshold specified in sub-section (1) of section 22 of the Assam GST Act. In scenario 3, M/S B shall be liable for compulsory registration in terms of the clause (vii) of section 24 of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =