Goods and Services Tax

M/s. KLM Pack Versus The Commissioner GST & CCE Pondicherry
Central Excise
2019 (3) TMI 515 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 6-3-2019
Appeal No. E/42758/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 40406/2019
Central Excise
Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial)
Shri R. Janardhanan Pillai, Consultant for the Appellant
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
This is the second round of litigation before this Tribunal. Appellant is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of GST & CE (Appeals-I) dated 28.09.2018.
2. Ld. Consultant, Shri R. Janardhanan Pillai appearing for the appellant made an elaborate oral and written submissions, which are recorded as under:-
* He submitted that appellant cleared the goods on payment of duty by availing Cenvat credit in accordance with law. But, after 01.04.2005 they opted for availing the full benefit of exemption under Notification No. 8/2003. He submitted that in terms of Rule 11 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rule

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

vide Final Order No. 1308/2010 dated 28.12.2010. But, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected vide impugned order without addressing main grounds canvassed before it.
* The actual duty liability was Rs. 2,79,578/- against which Rs. 1,15,444/- having already been paid, the SCN should have proposed the demand of the balance alone but, the same having proposed to recover the entire amount of Rs. 2,79,578/- is therefore bad being contrary to Section 11 2B of the Act.
* He submitted that the present impugned order is not sustainable either on the ground of demand being hit by limitation or on the ground of merits. He submitted that the period involved is 01.04.2005, but SCN was issued only on 09.01.2008. The record maintained by the assessee reflects the credit so availed and there is no allegation that duty was not paid when payable, as per law and the assessee has not filed any statutory returns, etc. It is a settled position of law that when statutory returns have been filed properly

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

een expressed:-
a) Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. Vs. CCE1999 (112) ELT 353 (S.C.)
b) Eltek Circuits Vs. CCE2017 (352) ELT 231
c) Sundeep Electrodes Pvt Ltd.2017 (349) ELT 781 (Tri. All.)
d) CCE Vs. Gokuldas2011 (270) ELT 351 (Kar.)
e) Tansi Fabrication Works2018 (17) GSTL 429 (Mad.)
Ld. Consultant submitted that in the present case also there is no allegation that the credit taken was not legal and no allegation of wrong availment of credit. Suppression of fact is not proved as the records maintained by the assessee reflected the transactions made where there should not be any penal action and invocation of extended period of limitation.
3. Per contra, Ld. DR, Shri L. Nandakumar, AC, supported the findings of the lower authorities. He drew my attention to the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) at paragraphs 8-10 to say that remand order dated 28.12.2010 spelt out two specific areas for examination and decision, regarding invocation of extended period and destruction of rejected goods.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ue of Rs. 14,80,017.31 less value of talc …..thereby the duty payable ……on 01.04.2005 works out to only Rs. 2,20,479/- as given below. Out of which we have already paid Rs. 1,15,444/-. So balance amount of duty, if any to be paid by us would be only Rs. 1,05,035.00…..-.”
4.3 The admission as to “balance if any, to be paid” appears to be graceful, which should have been done voluntarily and without waiting for the SCN. But the fact remains that there was short payment of duty as on the date of their reply to SCN. This is sufficient proof of non-payment of duty/withholding/short payment of duty which is paid after SCN and after admitting their liability to pay “balance if any, to be paid”. State is entitled to get what is rightfully due to it, hece a SCN came to be issued in this case demanding duty. The above fact of admission of “balance if any, to be paid” by the appellant has only proved suppression and hence, it is too difficult to accept appellant's proposition that there

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ding their request for destruction of rejected goods, there is no evidence on record placed by the appellant before me….. The appellant has also not made this as a plea before me in their submissions…..”
4.6 The date of appellant's reply, as indicated above is 13.03.2008 whereas the date of impugned order (second round) is 26.06.2018; the appellant apparently neither destroyed, nor reversed and nor has it paid the balance, as admitted by it which is extracted in the above paragraphs. Having not furnished any evidence as required or as expected, even for over 10 years, it cannot blame the revenue when in fact its own acts and omissions are not beyond suspicion.
4.7 Rule 11 (2) prescribes guidelines to be followed in the case of a manufacturer opting for exemption under CENVAT scheme, under Notification No. 8/2003 dated 01.03.2003. In the case on hand, there is an observation by the adjudicating authority that the value of closing stock as on 31.03.2005 as indicated by the appellan

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Chandra Engineers Versus Commissioner, CGST, Delhi-II
Central Excise
2019 (3) TMI 514 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 6-3-2019
Excise Appeal No. E/52018/2018-EX [SM] – Final Order No. 50315/2019
Central Excise
MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present for the Appellant: Mr. Satish Chandra, Prop.
Present for the Respondent: Mr. P. Juneja, DR
ORDER
PER: RACHNA GUPTA
Present is an appeal preferred against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) bearing No.252 dated 18.04.2018. The said order is the adjudication to show cause notice No.30179 dated 08.06.2010, which was issued when during the course of audit, Department observed that the appellant has incurred expenses as carriage inward in the financial year 2007-08 to 2009-10 on which the service tax has been paid from the available inputs credit accounts. Denying goods transport agency to be an output service, that the Department proposed recovery of service tax for Rs. 1,06,782/- for p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

yond the scope of show cause notice is otherwise also liable to be set aside.
2. While rebutting these arguments, It is submitted by the Department that there is no infirmity in the order under challenge, which is based on the Circular dated 23.08.2007 titled as “procedural issues in Service Tax – Circular”. It is impressed upon that the Circular includes the issue relating to availment and utilization of cenvat credit clarifying that since the service provided by a goods transport agent for which the consigner or consignee is made liable to pay Service Tax, it does not become an output service for such consigner or consignee. Therefore, the Service Tax payable by the consigner or consignee on transportation of goods by road cannot be paid through credit accumulated by such consigner or consignee. Appeal is accordingly prayed to be dismissed.
3. After hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion as follows:-
4. The question to be adjudicated in the present appeal is: Whether a manu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

f the adjudicating authority that since GTA do not qualify to be an output service as such is not eligible for Cenvat Credit. Hence payment of Service Tax thereof cannot be made from the accumulated Cenvat Credit is opined as incorrect. Though there are several other proviso attached to this sub-rule (4) but none of those provisos are applicable to the given situation.
5.1 In addition, there is an explanation that cenvat credit cannot be utilized for payment of service tax in respect of services where the person liable to pay tax is the service recipient. But this explanation got incorporated in this Rule vide Notification No.28 dated 20th June, 2012 with effect from 1st July, 2012. The period here is 2007-08 to 2009-10. Hence, the explanation cannot be made retrospectively applicable to the impugned period for which the above condition holds a good law that cenvat credit may be utilized for payment of Service Tax on any output service (including GTA service). Hon'ble High Court of Pu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

SYNERGY FERTICHEM PVT. LTD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
GST
2019 (3) TMI 432 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – [2019] 103 taxmann.com 426 (Gujarat)
GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 6-3-2019
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4730 of 2019
GST
MS HARSHA DEVANI AND MR BHARGAV D. KARIA, JJ.

For The Petitioner (s) : MR UCHIT N SHETH (7336)

For The Respondent (s) : ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP (99)

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)

1. Mr. Uchit Sheth, learned advocate for the petitioners invited the attention of the court to the provisions of sections 129 and 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to point out the procedure which is required to be followed by the respondent autho

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Revenue to Review GST Registration Cancellation; Decision Pending on Six-Month Installment Plan for Outstanding Dues.
Case-Laws
GST
Cancellation of GST registration – non filing of returns of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Detention order quashed due to incorrect lorry number and failure to specify contravention in the order.
Case-Laws
GST
Detention of goods – mistake had crept in, in the mentioning of the lorry number as TN 19 U 7857 instead of TN 19 U 7873 – It is incumbent upon the statutory authority/the Proper Officer to have made mention of the contravention in the field provided in the impugned order for such purpose. This has not been done – The present order of detention cannot be sustained and t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Right time to start preparation of GST Annual return for the financial year 2017-18
By: – Ganeshan Kalyani
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 5-3-2019

Section 44 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('CGST Act') 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 such form and manner as may be prescribed on or before the thirty-first day of December following the end of such financial year.
In view of the above cited provision, a registered person shall furnish annual return for the financial year 2017-18 (consisting of nine months period starting from 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2018) by 31st December 2018. However, due to unavailability of the electronic system in government portal through which the annual return is to be filed the registered pe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

claimed in GSTR-3B in Table 4 (A) (1) to (5) need to be classified into the above three categories and furnished in the annual return. The classification may be carried out based on the name of the supplier of service. The purchase department in an organization can classify a supplier into supplier of goods and supplier of service. The list of such supplier supplying services can be used to classify the credit in to goods or services. Also, the accounting software in an organisation has a unique serial number for supplier of service's account number. The same could be useful to do the classification. Though it seems to be an easy task a considerable time will be required to carry out the task of classification of input tax credit in to inputs, capital goods and input services. Thus, one must start the activity immediately.
* GSTR-2A reconciliation with the input tax credit taken by the registered person in GSTR-3B: The second big task which is going to take considerable time is

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

credit can be claimed in the GSTR-3B of March 2019. The time period is being extended vide Order No.02/2018-Central Tax dated 31st December, 2018.
* HSN (Harmonized System of Nomenclature) summary of outward supplies and inward supplies: This is yet another time taking task.
* Outward supplies: Every registered person would have furnished the HSN summary of the outward supplies in Table 12 of GSTR-1. The same would be readily available to them for disclosing it in annual return. However, it is suggested to registered person to have a relook at the details before furnishing the same in the annual return. It is possible that some HSN may have skipped to be furnished in the GSTR-1 return. Hence, it is necessary to recheck the HSN summary with the outward supplies.
* Inward supplies: secondly, the HSN summary of inward supplies is required to be furnished in point no. 18 of the annual return. It is given in the instruction no. 17 &18 in the Notification No.74/2018 which states that i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

uppler. It is bit challenging to compile such details because in the first year many registered person were opting in and out of the composition scheme.
* Second requirement is regarding deemed supply under section 143. Section 143 of CGST Act, states that a registered person, with due intimation and conditions as prescribed, may send any inputs or capital goods to a job worker without payment of tax and from there to another job worker and so on. However, the said inputs must be received back by the principal within a period of 2 years (1 year up to 31.01.2019) and in case of capital goods within a period of 5 years (3 years up to 31.01.2019). The said time period is increased as mentioned w.e.f. 01.02.2019 vide CGST (Amendment) Act, 2018 which is made effective by Notification No. 02/2019-Central Tax dated 29th January, 2019. If the inputs and capital goods are not received back by the principal within the said time period then it would be deemed that those inputs and capital goods

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

sent initially. Such detail is required to be furnished in point no. 16 of the annual return.
* Particulars of Demands and Refunds: The information as regard total refund claimed, total refund sanctioned, total refund rejected, total refund pending, total demand of taxes, total tax paid as against the demand of taxes and total demand pending is required to be furnished in point 15 of the annual return. The registered person must start compiling such information so as to disclose it in the annual return.
* Details of ITC reversed and ineligible ITC for the financial year: The details of the Input Tax Credit reversed through Table 4(B)(i) & (ii) and ineligible Input Tax Credit furnished in Table 4(D) (1) & (2) of GSTR-3B need to be furnished in the point no. 7 of the annual return. The input tax credit so reversed could be of the GST credit or it can be transitional credit i.e. the credit claim u/s 140 of CGST Act read with rule 117 of the CST Rules, 2017. The reversal of transitiona

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

books of account. This is because the balance sheet, profit and loss account i.e. books of accounts are prepared for a company as a whole. The branch transfer of goods from one branch to another branch does not reduces or increases the stock in a company. Further, the asset transfer from one branch to another branch in another state also need to be consider for the purpose of arriving at the turnover because GST is applicable on the asset transfer. GST is also applicable on notice pay recovery from an employee who does not want to serve full notice period days. In this way the turnover of the annual financial statement to be arrived at in order to match it with the turnover as furnished in the annual return. If there is any difference, the explanation need to be furnished in point no. 6 of GSTR-9C. Similarly the taxable turnover to be arrived at and furnished in point no. 7 of GSTR-9C.
* Reconciliation of taxes paid and additional amount payable: Reconciliation of rate wise liabilit

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tax credit involved and input tax credit taken. There are various ledgers in the books in which the GST part is accounted. Those many ledgers need to be extracted from the accounting software and need to be compared with input tax credit taken in GST-3B. This seems to be simple job but it is sure that if one starts reconciling the depth of the task will be understood. Thus the registered person should immediately start preparation for this requirement.
The instruction given in the GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C is very clear in terms of information to be furnished. The instruction given in the Notification no. 74-2018 to be referred before preparing for the annual return. It can be viewed that before auditor is being called the existing accountant in the company who looks after GST compliance need to carry out the above task. This would cover ninety percent of the annual return task. New return format is expected to come from 1st of April 2019. Thus a registered person must start the annual retu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

MADHAV GOPALDAS SHAH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
GST
2019 (3) TMI 655 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2019 (23) G. S. T. L. 466 (Guj.)
GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 5-3-2019
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1665 of 2019
GST
MR. A.Y. KOGJE, J.
For The Applicant (s) : MR ND NANAVATY, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR CHETAN K PANDYA (1973)
For The Respondent (s) : MR DM DEVNANI, APP And RULE SERVED BY DS (65)
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in connection with File No. CCST/ADENF/FSU-7/MadhavArrest/2018-19/B.4 & AC/U- 6/Arrest/2018-19/B.5811 of the office of the Chief Commissioner of State Tax, Flying Squad Unit-7, Gujarat State Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 69(1) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of off

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

as narrated in the case papers, which can be recorded as under:
” Involvement of Applicant
Mr. Prakashsinh Udavat obtained GST number in the name of Om Enterprise in March, 2018 and bogus bills amounting to Rs. 106.40 crores have been issued till July, 2018. As per the statement of Mr. Prakashsinh, only bogus bills have been issued in this entire case. No actual physical transfer of goods or transaction has been carried out. He has stated in the statement u/s 70 that this scam has been committed by Mr. Hitendra Shah and Madhav Shah. Thus, active involvement of Mr. Madhav Shah and Hitendra Shah has been found in this scam. Hitendra Chandrakant Shah has been arrested on 26.12.2018 and produced before this Ld. Court with production memo vide file no. AC/U-6/ARREST/2018-19/B and presently, accused Hitendra Shah is under judicial custody.
Mr. Hitendra Shah obtained registration no. 24075605012 under the VAT Act as the partner in Pashwanath Engineering. This registration number was

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ashsinh Udavat has obtained other registration number in the name of Avi Enterprise at the same address of the business wherein also bills worth huge amount of 79.15 crores have been issued. There is a full possibility of involvement of Madhav Shah and Hitendra Shah therein also. All the facts can be exposed only at the end of complete investigation.
In the case of Om Enterprise, registration number was obtained on 28/03/2018, and Prakashsinh Udavat, Madhav Shah and Hitendra Shah have generated bogus bills for crores of rupees on the same day. Upon examination of entries of bank accounts, after obtaining registration number and generating billing for crores of rupees on the same day, Rs. 49,44,000/- has been transferred to J. Jitendrakumar & Company by Om Enterprise on 29/03/2018 on the next day. Om Enterprise has not supplied anything to J. Jitendrakumar. It is noteworthy that proprietor of J. Jitendrakumar was Mr. Hitendra Shah. Its registration number was 24080101042 under VAT la

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

these four firms were obtained by Madhav Shah for reversing the entries from S.K. Enterprise to Parshwanath Engineering. Moreover, upon asking Hitendra Shah as to whose proprietary firm this S.K. Enterprise is, he stated that management of this firm was being done by the accused Madhav Shah. Thus, the accused Madhav Shah is doing management of proprietary firm of third person for billing activity. Moreover, in respect of the above-stated four firms, whose bank statements were found from the place of Hitendra Shah, the said Hitendra Shah further accepts that the accused Madhav Shah was doing management of the said four firms. Thus, it is proved from the statement of Hitendra Shah that Madhav Shah was associated with billing of above-stated four firms.
Out of the four bank statements found from the house of Hitendra Shah, one is of Shivay Enterprise. Besides aforesaid cases, direct involvement of accused Madhav Shah has been revealed in case of this businessman. Shri Tushar Rajubhai M

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e number and E-mail ID. The G.S.T. Number of Shivay Enterprise was obtained by two accused persons Hitendra Shah and Madhav Shah on 07/12/2017. And in the aforesaid case, the turnover of sale of Rs. 173.58 crores was mentioned by both these accused persons in the G.S.T.R-1 Statements for the period of total ten months from December-2017 to September-2018. In which the amount of due tax is 21.12 crores. Thus, the loss of Rs. 21.12 crores has been caused to the Government treasury by Madhav Shah in the case of Shivay Enterprise in addition to the previously mentioned cases.
The two probable addresses of Mr. Madhav Shah which have been available are (1) 1, Green City, Bopal and (2) Kirtisagar Apartment. On both these addresses, the inspection of the site was conducted on 21/12/2018. But, during the inspection, the above addresses were not found correct. During the above search, as we contacted Mr. Madhav Shah through mobile, he replied in an evasive manner and did not remain present. M

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

at and present accused namely Madhav Shah in collusion with other persons set up firms in the name of economically backward persons, obtained GST number, misused the said numbers and obtained input credit illegally for invoices of stock worth crores of rupees without actual physical transaction and caused huge loss to government revenues. Wherein, aforementioned three firms namely Om Enterprise, Avi Enterprise and Shivay Enterprise are included. Moreover, accused Madhav Shah has admitted in his statement that he has also committed billing scam in Parshvanath Engineering and S.K. Enterprise besides aforementioned three firms.
Further, accused Madhav Shah has stated detailed facts about commission he had received in lieu of billing scam.”
V) Considering the aforesaid, the role of the applicant appears to be restricted to a limited extent as compared to the co-accused;
VI) Considering the period of incarceration and the maximum sentence that can be imposed;
VII) Learned Addition

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

dabad on executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/= (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;
(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
(c) surrender passport, if any, to the lower Court within a week;
(d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;
(e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once of every English calendar month for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;
(f) furnish the present address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;
8. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breac

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Precision Tech Enterprises Versus Union of India and others
GST
2019 (3) TMI 595 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – TMI
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 5-3-2019
CWP-5842-2019
GST
MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ.
For The Petitioner : Mr. Chetan Jain, Advocate for Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate
ORDER
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL , J (ORAL)
The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for issua

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Puducherry
Central Excise
2019 (3) TMI 513 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 5-3-2019
Appeal No. E/41049/2018 – Final Order No. 40404/2019
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Shri K. Pattabiraman, Auth. Rep. for the Appellant
Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of steel and aluminium materials and are also availing the facility of CENVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs, capital goods and service tax paid on input services. During the course of verification of records, it was noticed that they had availed input service tax credit

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ing, aluminum form monolithic flooring, fencing, laying of gate post etc. were done. These are not in the nature of works contract service but only fall under repair and maintenance service as well as modernization of the factory. Such activities fall within the definition of input service. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 41111 to 41113/2018 dated 16.4.2018 and argued that for the earlier period, the Tribunal on very same set of facts had allowed the credit.
3. The ld. AR Ms. T. Usha Devi supported the findings in the impugned order. She submitted that the definition of input service excludes works contract service. The works done are in the nature of flooring etc. Such works wou

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ks contract service which is in the nature of construction of civil structure, part thereof or laying of foundation or support structure for capital goods. The works undertaken by the appellant does not fall under this category. Further, the inclusion part of the definition allows service in the nature of repair and maintenance as well as modernization of factory / premises. Therefore, I am of the view that the services availed are in the nature of repair and maintenance / modernization and are eligible for credit. In the appellant's own case for the earlier period, the Tribunal has allowed the credit. In such circumstances, there is no ground to disallow the credit. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequenti

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Shri R.K. Gupta, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Indirect Taxes & Customs Versus M/s. Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Sami Labs Ltd. M/s. Viswas Medico,
GST
2019 (3) TMI 371 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – TMI
NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – NAPA
Dated:- 5-3-2019
Case No. 15/2019
GST
SH. B. N. SHARMA, CHAIRMAN, SH. J. C. CHAUHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER, MS. R. BHAGYADEVI, TECHNICAL MEMBER, SH. AMAND SHAH, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Sh. Shri R. K Gupta Applicant No. 1 in person
Smt. Gayatri, Deputy Commissioner and Sh, Manoranjan, Assistant Commissioner; for the Applicant No. 2.
Sh, Khomba Singh, Sh. Prakash Birla, Sh. Prabhat Ranjan and Sh Ashish Jani, Company Representatives, Sh. Sanjeev Saraf, Chartered Accountant, Sh. J. P. Singh and Smt. Shalini Ranjan, Advocates, for the Respondent No. I
None for the Respondent No. 2.
Sh. J. K. Arora, Chartered Accountant & Sh. Harsh Arora for the Respondent No. 3
ORDER
1. This report, dated 22.10.2018, has be

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

sed that the product was marketed by the Respondent No. 1 and manufactured by the Respondent No. 2. The Applicant No. 1 had further informed vide his email dated 10.07.2018 that the above product was purchased by him from the Respondent No. 3. The Applicant No. 1 had also claimed that since the Respondents had increased the MRP of the product after the rate of tax was reduced on it, they had indulged in profiteering in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence appropriate action should be taken against them.
2. The above complaint was examined by the Standing Committee and vide the minutes of its meeting dated 13.04.2018 it had requested the DGAP to initiate investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and collect evidence necessary to determine whether the benefits of reduction in the rate of tax or Input Tax Credit (ITC) had been passed on by the Respondents to their recipients or not.
3. In this connection, the DGAP had called upon

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

quantum of profiteering, if any, on account of increase in the price of the product and indicate the same in their replies to the Notice issued by the DGAP. Further, the Respondents were also given an opportunity to inspect the non-confidential evidences/information received from the complainant on any working day between 23.07.2018 to 25.07.2018. The Respondent No. 3 visited the office of the DGAP on 25.07.2018 to inspect the same. However, the Respondents No. 1 & 2 did not inspect the record. Vide e-mail dated 15.10.2018, the complainant was requested to inspect the non-confidential evidences/replies submitted by the Respondents on 17.10.2018 or 18.10.2018 and he had inspected the non-confidential information submitted by the Respondent No. 1 on 18 10.2018.
5. The DGAP had requested for granting extension in time to complete the investigation up to 08 11 2018 which was allowed by this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the above Rules, vide its order dated 31.07.2018. The present inve

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

%
18%
382
233.08
7. The DGAP has also stated that the Respondent No. 1 was also asked, vide letter dated 25 09.2018, to submit the details regarding GSTN registrations obtained, details of the invoice-wise outward taxable supplies of the above product other than zero rated from 01.07.2017 to 31.07.2018 along with the certified summary of the same, Melaglow Credit Note register for the period from July, 2017 to July, 2018, Melaglow Debit Note register for the period from July, 2017 to July, 2018, Copies of GSTR-1 and GSTR- 3B returns for the State of Delhi, for the period from July, 2017 to July, 2018, copies of two sample sale and purchase invoices of the goods under investigation for the period from July, 2017 to July, 2018. The Respondent No. 1 vide his reply dated 04.10 2018 had submitted the above mentioned details and documents to the DGAP
8. The DGAP has further stated that the Respondent NO 2 had submitted reply to the notice issued by him, vide his letter dated 27.07.2018

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

SH/00013/17-18
25 05.2017
94.23
3
GHP/17-18/00006
28 08.2017
64.58
4
GHP/17-18/00045
11.12.2017
64.58
9. The DGAP has also intimated that he had sent an e-mail to the Respondent No. 2 on 06 09.2018 asking him to submit the copy of the Central Excise invoices, evidencing payment of CED post 06 05 20 Id and the Respondent No. 2 vide his e-mail dated 19.09.2018 had informed that the product was being manufactured for him by from the job worker viz. M/S Helios Pharmaceuticals at its manufacturing facility located in Village Malpur, P.O. Bhud, Baddi, Teh. Nalagarh, Distt.-Solan, Himachal Pradesh- 173205 and the CED was being paid by M/s. Helios Pharmaceuticals. The Respondent No. 2 had also submitted the desired invoices and the documents to the DGAP
10. The DGAP has further intimated that vide his reply dated 27.07.2018, the Respondent No. 3 had submitted that he had purchased the product from M/S Aditya Pharmaceuticals (Distributor of Respondent No. 1) at a price of Rs. 259

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ollowing tax structure was applicable during the pre-GST and post-GST periods in respect of the above product:-
S.No.
Supplier
Tax/Duty
Rate of Taxi Duty
Tax Amount
Remarks
1
M/s. Helios Pharmaceutical Is (Job Worker)
CED
8.13%
29.66
12 5% on 65% of MRP of Rs. 365/-
2
M/s. Sami Labs Ltd (Manufacturer)
CST
2%
1.88
On the Central Excise invoice value of Rs. 94.23
3
M/s. Abbott Healthcare Pvt Ltd.
 
12.50%
292
On the VAT invoice value of Rs. 233 60
 
Total Tax Amount
60.74
 
Pre GST Tax rate
30.06%
Rs. 60 74 as a % of Rs. 202.06 (Rs. 233 60
-Rs. 29.66
-Rs 1.88
Post-GST tax rate
28%
w.e.f. 01.07.2017
12. The DGAP has also intimated that during the investigation, it had been observed that the total tax incidence on the product was 30 (Rs 60.74 tax on the base price of Rs. 202.06) in the pre-GST period, which was reduced to 28% at the time of implementation of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017. He has further intimated that as post-GST implementati

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

202 06 to Rs. 230.90 (average base price for the sales made during the period 01 07 2017 to 31.07.2018). The DGAP has further submitted that since the Respondent No. 1 was a supplier registered under the GST, he was legally bound to pass on the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST to his customers immediately w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and 15.11.2017 however, by increasing the base price of the product and also by increasing the cum-tax price charged from the recipients post GST, the benefit of GST rate reduction was not passed on by the Respondent No. 1 to his customers. Therefore, the DGAP has concluded that in respect of the above product, supplied by the Respondent No. I during the period between 01.07.2017 to 31.07.2018, the amount of profiteering came to Rs. 96,59,716.26/- on account of increase in its base price as had been furnished in Annexure-15 by him.
15. The above Report was received on 25 10.2018 and was considered by the Authority in its sitting held on 30.10.2018 and it was

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

manufactured the above product and he had only procured it from him. The Respondent No. 1 has further stated that the DGAP had done incorrect comparison between the pre-GST and post-GST rates and that the comparison should have been done only between the post-GST rates. The Respondent No. 1 has also claimed that from the date of launch of the product and till 01 03.2017, he had offered Rs. 28/- as discount, which had not been counted by the DGAP The above Respondent was also asked to supply the details of the MRP change at various stages of supply chain along with the date of change of MRP for all the products supplied by him by the Authority.
19. The Respondent No. 1 has filed his first written submissions on 19.11.2018, in which he has denied the allegation of profiteering and submitted that the DGAP's Report was incorrect on facts as well as in law. He has also submitted that the product was based on a phytochemical formula, with de-pigmenting action that lightened the dark spots a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ty, as the product was manufactured at a manufacturing facility in Baddi (availing area based exemption)
0%
12.50%
348
222.72
Pre-GST Period (From 07.05.2016 to March 2017)
Attracted Central Excise Duty
12.5% on abated MRP of 8.125 effective rate
12.50%
348
222.72
Pre-GST Period (March 2017 to June 2017)
Attracted Central Excise Duty
12.5% on abated MRP of 8.125%
12.50%
365
233.60
Post GST Period (from 01.07.2017 to 14.11.2017)
 
0%
28%
415
233.44
Post GST Period (15.11.2017 onwards)
 
0%
18%
382
233.08
20. The Respondent No. 1 has also submitted that Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 was not applicable in the instant case since its scope was restricted to the cases where there was a reduction in the rate of GST and it did not extend to the reduction in the rate of GST as compared to the pre-GST indirect tax rates. The Respondent No I has also submitted that the rates of various taxes/duties leviable during the pre-GST period and the pre-CST price

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e necessary precedent condition was not satisfied, since there was no reduction in “rate of tax” on the product When the GST was introduced w.e f. 01 07 2017 and the “tax” pertained to the tax imposed under the CGST Act, 2017. He has further contended that there could have been no reduction in the rate of GST, when the GST was introduced and brought into force for the first time with effect from 01.07.2017
22. The Respondent No 1 has further submitted that the aforesaid interpretation of the term “rate of tax” on any “supply” of goods or services, was unambiguous with reference to the various provisions of the GST law The terms “rate of tax” and “tax” were not specifically defined under the CGST Act or the State GST Acts and hence, the issue whether the various taxes and duties levied prior to the introduction of the GST were liable to be included within the scope of the term “rate of tax” had to be determined. He has also claimed that Section 9 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Section 5 of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he same could not be extended to cover pre-GST taxes. He has further contended that if the intention of the legislature was to empower the Authority to investigate cases based on the rates of taxes or duties levied prior to the introduction of the GST and the rate of CST levied after introduction of the GST the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST would have been worded accordingly, in the absence of which the Authority did not have the legislative mandate to investigate and compare the GST rates with the rates of taxes or duties levied prior to the introduction of GST. He has further averred that the Section did not make any reference to the taxes levied under the indirect tax enactments in force prior to the introduction of the GST and hence the term reduction in the “rate of tax” on supply of goods or services had to be read in conjunction with the succeeding words “on any supply of goods or services” and could not be read in isolation. The Respondent No. 1 has also argued that whe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ded that the term “rate of tax' was employed in the singular form and hence the term used in Section 171 was “rate of tax”, and not 'rates of taxes' and if the intention of the legislature was to empower the Authority to investigate cases based on the rates of taxes or duties levied prior to the introduction of GST and the rate of GST levied after introduction of the GST, Section 171 would have employed the plural term 'rates of taxes'. He has further pleaded that wherever the legislature intended to refer to the provisions of the erstwhile indirect tax enactments, the term 'existing law' had been used, however, in Section 171 there was no reference to any tax levied under the “existing law”.
25. The Respondent No. 1 has also submitted that the legal maxim contemporanea exposito, which was used by the courts to interpret any ambiguous law was applicable in this case also. The Respondent No. 1 has also argued that the Authority on its website had published its mandate and had also defi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

uction in the rate of GST on any supply of goods or services was passed on by a commensurate reduction in the price. As these rates had been reduced on a number of products it was imperative that the benefit of reduction in the rates was passed on to the consumers and was not pocketed by the suppliers which would amount to unjust enrichment. The Respondent No. 1 has further claimed that he had dutifully reduced the price of the product post reduction in the rate of GST with effect from 15.11.2017 which was clear from the table given below:-
Period
Rate
MRP (Rs.)
01.07.2017 14.11.2017
28%
415
15.11.2017 onwards
18%
382
27. The Respondent No. 1 has also submitted that even if it was assumed that the scope of Section 171 extended to the reduction in the rate of CST as compared to the pre-CST indirect tax rates, it was not applicable in his case since there was no “reduction in rate of tax” with effect from 01.07.2017, rather, there was an increase in the rate of tax w.e.f. 01 07

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

on, the pre-GST rate worked out to be 24.62% and since the rate of GST applicable on the product w.e.f. 01.07.2017 was 28%, there was no reduction in the rate of tax as was clear from the following table:-
Particulars
Effective rate computation as per the DGAP Report
Correct method of effective rate computation
Central Excise Duty
29.66
29.66
CST
1.88
1.88
VAT (upto the stage of Abbott's sale price)
29.2
29.2
VAT (in the distribution chain beyond sale by Abbott i.e. in subsequent sales)
0
11.36
(A) Numerator – Total Tax
60.74
72.10
(B1) Denominator – Abbott's sales price minus taxes
233.60 – 60.74= 202.06

(B2) Denominator – MRP of the product (i.e. Rs. 365/-) minus all applicable taxes

365 – 72.10 = 292.90
Effective tax rate
A/B1 = 60.74/202.06 =
30.06%
A/B2 = 72.10/292.90 –
24.62%
29. The Respondent No. 1 has further submitted that the computation had been done without thorough understanding of the pricing structure of the product and the tax co

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

as the base price at which the goods were sold was Rs. 233.60 during the period up to 30 June 2017 (pre-GST) and Rs. 233 44 during the period from 1 July 2017 (post-GST)
31. The Respondent No. 1 has also claimed that the increase in the MRP was due to increase in the indirect tax rates on account of introduction of GST and due to revision of pricing structure due to withdrawal of the discount which was earlier taken in to account while fixing the MRP Which could not be brought under the purview of Section 171. He has further claimed that the DGAP had ignored that the cause for increase in the MRP was not due to increase in the base price or profiteering but was on account of following factors:-
a. Up to 06 05.2016, i.e. up to the period when CED exemption was applicable, CED was not factored in the selling price since the said duty was exempted
b. With effect from 07.05.2016, when the above exemption was withdrawn the applicable CED rate was 12.5% on 65% of MRP i.e. @8.125%, howev

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

P Pre-GST
MRP @ 28% GST
MRP @ 18% GST
Melaglow Rich 20 gm
365
415
382
Biluma 15 gm
395
435
401
Kojivit Ultra 20 gm
326
357
367
Advan 10
435
470
430
Advan 20
560
590
560
33. In his submissions dated 24.12.2018, the Respondent No. 1 has stated that post CED exemption, he had not passed on the cost of excise to the consumer by way of price increase and charging of the same at the time of the implementation of the GST it had been viewed by the DGAP as increase in the base price although he was entitled to charge the cost of excise duty post May 7, 2016.
34. In his submissions dated 24.12.2018 the Respondent has claimed that after the expiry of the CED exemption w.e.f. 07 05.2016 and upto 30.06.2017, after which the GST had come in to force he had not increased the price of the above product and had increased it w.e.f. 01 07.2017, although he had right to increase the same, however, it had been construed as profiteering made by him which was not his intention. He has

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

indicated that the rate of tax on the product had gone down from 30.06% to 28% after the introduction of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017. He has also intimated that other issues raised by the Respondent had already been covered in the Investigation Report itself.
36. We have carefully considered the material placed before us and all the submissions made by the Respondent No. 1, dated 19.11 2018 and 24.12.2018, and email received by the Authority from the Respondent No. 2, dated 12.12.2018. In the instant case, the Respondent No. 1 has raised mainly three objections. The first objection raised by him states that Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 was not applicable in the instant case since its scope was restricted to the cases where there was reduction in the rate of GST on the supply of the goods or services and a reduction in the rate of GST, did not extend to a reduction in the rate of tax when compared with the pre-GST indirect tax regime rates. In this regard, it would be appropriate to me

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

all be liable for breach of the above provision. It is also clear from the perusal of Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Section 173 of the State GST Acts, 2017 that the Central and the State Acts which imposed CED, CST as well as the VAT have been repealed (Except for Entry 84 of the Union List and Entry 54 of the State List) and the above duty/taxes have been subsumed in the GST and the new rates of GST have been fixed near to the net incidence of the above three taxes which was in force before coming in to effect of the GST, as per the recommendation of the GST Council. Therefore, in case the net effect of the above taxes was more than the rate of CST fixed on 01.07.2017 the same would have to construed as reduction in the rate of tax as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) as the above provision had come in to effect immediately w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and the consequent benefit in the shape of commensurate reduction in the price has to be passed on otherwise it would result in earni

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of tax as he can not be allowed to pocket the amount of reduced tax which should have normally gone to the coffers of the Central/State Governments. Any benefit of reduction in the rate of tax given by the above Governments by sacrificing their own revenue must be passed on to the customers by commensurate reduction in the prices by the suppliers as per the intention of Section 171 and any other interpretation of the same would be illogical and unreasonable.
37. It appears that the Respondent No. 1 is trying to misinterpret the provisions of Section 9 of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017 and Section 5 of the IGST Act, 2017 by stating that the term “tax” as used in the above Sections does not apply on the CED, CST or the VAT as it applies only on the “supply” of goods and services. A bare perusal of Section 7 of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017 shows that “supply” includes “sale” also and as per Section 2 (21) of the IGST Act, 2017 the supply shall have the same meaning as has been assigned to it under

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e Legislatures on comparing the pre and post GST rates and nor the terms 'tax', 'rate of tax' or 'rates of tax' or 'change in the rate of tax' prohibit such comparison, to examine whether the above two benefits have been passed on or not. There is no doubt that the expression reduction in the rate of tax has to be read in conjunction with the words on any supply of goods and services but it can not be interpreted to mean that only reduction in the rate of GST can be considered for invocation of Section 171 (1) and no comparison can be made with the pre-GST rates.
39. The Respondent No. 1 has submitted three case laws i.e. Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose AIR 1952 SC 369 = 1952 (10) TMI 32 – SUPREME COURT, Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of U. P. AIR 1953 SC 394 = 1953 (5) TMI 12 – SUPREME COURT and J. K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills co. Ltd. v. State of U. P. AIR 1961 SC 1170 = 1960 (12) TMI 77 – SUPREME COURT, in his support which pertain to the interpretation of the statutes.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ll settled principle of law is that a legal statute and its provisions occupy a higher position in the order of precedence when it comes to interpretation. The FAQs/lnformation on the Authority's website are merely guiding in nature and have no binding force of a statutory law and hence the above maxim can not be invoked by the Respondent in his support.
41. Also, the legal maxim of contemporanea exposito is applicable in construing ancient statutes, but not for interpreting acts which are comparatively modern. In the legal jurisprudence, the maxim of contemporanea exposito was invented to interpret the provisions of statues made centuries earlier. In English courts, the legal maxim has been used to interpret the laws made in the Victorian times but according to the latest contemporary legal usages assigned o those provisions it has been rarely used. In this respect, the landmark case of J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and another v Union of India and Others, AIR 1988 SC

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

here and is relevant only in construing old statutes Since, CGST/SGST Acts, 2017 were passed by the Parliament/State Legislatures less than 2 years ago, they cannot be termed as old statutes. Moreover, the provisions of Section 171 are not at all ambiguous and are rather very clear in their scope and intent. Therefore, the Respondent No. I's argument of invoking the legal maxim of contemporanea exposito, to arrive at the 'contemporary exposition' of the statute is not tenable and hence no reliance is being placed on the cases cited by him.
42. The Respondent No. 1 in his submission dated 19.11 2018 has contended that there was no reduction in the rate of tax and the DGAP had erred while calculating the effective rate of tax in the pre-GST regime. The Respondent No. 1, in para 41 of his submissions has given a table and argued that the DGAP had not included the VAT charged on the sale of the product in question beyond the sale made by him meaning that the VAT charged in the subsequent

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

.06.2017 which was reduced to 28% after introduction of the GST on the above product vide para 14 of his Report which can be fully relied upon.
43. The Respondent No. 1, in his submission dated 19.11.2018, has said that he had not increased the base price and the DGAP's calculation was factually incorrect as it was based on the wrong assumption that there was reduction in the rate of tax post-GST. He has also claimed that the increase in the MRP by 4.89% was made in March, 2017 due to increase in the rate of GST and the withdrawal of the discount which he was giving due to cessation of the CE exemption. But the Respondent No. I's submissions fall Short Of establishing this fact as it is apparent from the record that he had increased the base price of the product-from Rs. 202 06 (Rs. 233.60 Rs. 29.66 CED-Rs. 1.88 CST) to Rs. 230.90 per unit w.e.f. 01.07 2017 whereas he should not have increased it and supplied the product by charging 28% GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

s losses at the expense of the tax concession given to the customers He has also cited the prices of his competitors to prove that his MRP was the lowest however, the claim made by him cannot be confirmed due to lack of supporting evidence and hence the same cannot be relied upon.
45. The Respondent No. 1 in his submission made to this Authority on 24.12.2018 has specifically admitted that he had resorted to profiteering and agreed to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 96,59,716.26/- along with applicable interest therefore, there is no doubt that he has contravened the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the above Act and is hence, liable for its consequences.
46. It is also revealed from the perusal of the record that the Respondents No. 2 and 3 did not have any role regarding the increase in the base price as well as the MRP of the product as it was solely done by the Respondent No. 1, thus, only he is primarily responsible for the benefit of reduction in the tax rate not having been p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ofiteered amount during the period w.e.f. 01.07.2017 to 31.07.2018, comes to Rs. 96,59,716.26/-. The Respondent No. 1 has also himself agreed to deposit this amount along with the applicable interest, vide his submission dated 24 12 2018 before this Authority.
48. Accordingly, the Respondent No. 1 is directed to reduce the price of above mentioned product as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017, by making commensurate reduction in its price, keeping in view the reduction in the rate of tax w.e.f 01.07.2017 and 15.11 2017 so that the benefit is passed on to the recipients Since the Applicant No. 1 has not produced the invoice vide which he had purchased the above product the amount to be refunded to him can not be determined. However, the Authority places on record its appreciation of the efforts made by him in bringing to notice this case of profiteering and for being present in person through the proceedings. The Respondent No. 1 is also directed to deposit

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

be deposited in the Central Consumer Fund while the balance will be deposited in the State CWFs as shown in the table given below:-
S. No.
State/Union Territory
Total Qty. supplied (in nos.)
Total profiteering (in Rs.)
1
Andhra Pradesh
12,214
2,05,471.4
2
Assam
2,440 42,
42,419.97
3
Bihar
986
16,204.15
4
Chandigarh
1,284
23,408.61
5
Chhattisgarh
2,394
41,846.34
6
Delhi
17,991
3,20,481
7
Goa
1,066
18,659.2
8
Gujarat
13,728
2,42,152.1
9
Haryana
6,288
1,14,459.3
10
Himachal Pradesh
276
4,316.185
11
Jammu & Kashmir
5,857
92,990.59
12
Jharkhand
2,730
48,884.19
13
Karnataka
27,796
4,84,989.6
14
Kerala
16,965
2,46,898.4
15
Madhya Pradesh
6,309
1,16,987.1
16
Maharashtra
53,592
9,41,457.6
17
Manipur
609
11,283.15
18
Meghalaya
228
3,776.91
19
Odisha
7,354
1,28,968.5
20
Pondicherry
264
4,111.775
21
Punjab
8,534
1,53,999.4
22
Rajasthan
7,045
1,22,741.8
23
Tamil Nadu
15,001
2,62,438.2
24
Telangana
16,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

1 07 2018, and the Respondent No. 1 has also not provided the details of every stage MRP change in the value chain along with the date of change of MRP for all the products that was demanded by the Authority during the hearing on 15.11.2018, the DGAP is directed to further investigate the quantum of profiteering on all the products including the present product which the Respondent No. 1 is supplying and thereafter submit his report accordingly.
51. It is also established from the above facts that the above Respondent has issued incorrect invoices while selling the above product to his customers as he had not correctly shown the basic price which he should have legally charged from them. The Respondent has also compelled them to pay additional GST on the increased price through the incorrect tax invoices which would have otherwise resulted in further benefit to the customers which he has failed to pass on. It is also established from the record that the Respondent has deliberately and

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai South
Service Tax
2019 (3) TMI 345 – CESTAT CHENNAI – 2019 (25) G. S. T. L. 308 (Tri. – Chennai)
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 5-3-2019
Appeal No. ST/42708/2018 – Final Order No. 40403/2019
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Shri Nitin Chopra, Advocate for the Appellant
Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in providing various taxable services in the nature of telecommunication service, franchise service, business auxiliary service etc. They were earlier functioning under Large Taxpayer Unit having centralized registration. On verification of records, it was noticed that they had availed input service credit on insurance services during the period from April 2016 to June 2017. According to department, general insurance / insurance auxiliary service are not covered under the definition of input service use

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

intended to cover the risk in errors and omissions in the services provided as well as the product sold. That this has nexus with the output service and therefore is eligible for credit.
2.1 The second type of policy is transit insurance policy. Such policies are taken to cover the risk of accidents or damage during the shipment of the goods while they transit through the railways or trucks or by any other means of transportation. The appellant is to transport the finished goods as well as input such as routers, computers etc. It is highly necessary to cover the risk of any accident or damage during the transit of these goods.
2.2 The third insurance policy is umbrella fixed asset policy. This insurance policy intends to cover the asset / property and to provide insurance against loss of the risk due to fire, theft and weather damages. These insurance policies are not in regard to the benefit of employees and are not covered under the exclusion definition of input services. It is al

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

. It is a form of insurance policy which covers the risk on failure to perform on the part of financial loss caused or shortage in the service provided or the products sold. The Tribunal in the appellant's own case cited supra had analyzed this issue with regard to errors and omission policies and allowed credit. Following the same, I am of the opinion that the disallowance of credit on errors and omission insurance policies is unjustified and requires to be set aside, which I hereby do.
5.1 The second type of insurance policy is the transit insurance policy. The appellant has explained that such insurance policy is taken to cover the risk of accident or damage of the goods such as computers, routers etc. which are transported to the premises of the customer. The ld. AR has argued that place of removal being the appellant's premises, the said credit is not eligible. However, the appellant herein is not a manufacturer but an output service provider and the definition of input service w

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

re GST on amount recovery
Query (Issue) Started By: – Madhavan iyengar Dated:- 4-3-2019 Last Reply Date:- 11-3-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 6 Replies
GST
A company has recovered Certain sums basic amount and interest from vendor these amounts are certain taxes of earlier law which was not paid by the vendor to the company and in companys assessment the ITC of earlier law was disallowed
query is gst applicable on the recovery of basic amount of taxes and the interest
Reply By PAWAN KUMAR:
The Reply:
Dear Sir,
As per my view, the same will be subject to GST. As per valuation section 15 of CGST act, any tax, duty, cess fee and any other charges of any law other than SGST, UTGST, GST(Compensation to states) Act shall be liable to be includible in value of supply of goods or services or both. Interest, late fee , penalty in respect of supply of goods or services shall also be laible to be include in value for charging GST.
Reply By SHARAD ANADA:
The Reply:
Firs

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

it under the existing law and inadmissible transitional credit through Table 4(B)(2) of FORM GSTR-3B. The applicable interest and penalty shall apply on all such reversals which shall be paid through entry in column 9 of Table 6.1 of FORM GST-3B.
6.2 Amended Para 3.
It may be noted that all such liabilities may be discharged by the taxpayers, either voluntarily in FORM GST DRC-03 or may be recovered vide order uploaded in FORM GST DRC-07, and payment against the said order shall be made in FORM GST DRC-03. It is further clarified that the alternative method of reversing the wrongly availed CENVAT credit under the existing law and inadmissible transitional credit through Table 4(B)(2) of FORM GSTR-3B would no longer be available to taxpayers. The applicable interest and penalty shall apply in respect of all such amounts, which shall also be paid in FORM GST DRC-03.
Reply By Madhavan iyengar:
The Reply:
Dear Sirs sharadji and pawanji thanks for the detailed analysis but iam once agai

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Pavan Mahulkar. GST is payable.
Reply By Spudarjunan S:
The Reply:
Dear Sir,
Reply to your Query + explanation provided:-
I'm on the view that there is no supply in this transaction as the same is transaction in money. No requirement to pay GST on the same.
Grounds for opinion :-
W.e.f from 01.02.2019 – Schedule II of CGST Act can't be used for determining the transaction whether it is supply or not. It is only to classify whether the supply is supply of goods or services.
The clause (e) of Sl.no.5 of Schedule II of CGST Act sounds like a residuary clause as it mentions agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act which can be interpreted in a way to cover even transaction in monies. Before classifying a supply under this head a detailed analysis and great care has to be taken.
I'm re-iterating your case in some other manner for better understanding – you made payment to vendor for purchase of 100 units but

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ITC ELEGIBILITY ONLY IF AVAILABLE GSTR-2A
Query (Issue) Started By: – SAFETAB LIFESCIENCE Dated:- 4-3-2019 Last Reply Date:- 14-6-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 7 Replies
GST
Dear Experts,
We have received a letter from GST range seeking clariification for the variation between our GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. Some of the suppliers have not uploaded their bills and every one aware that this difference is due to suppliers non uploading only. But we have pucca GST paid bills.
At this stage, we want to know whether we are eligible to take ITC only if it is displayed in 2A compulsorily and is it mandatory. What we can do if our party is not uploading their bills. Is there any rules or notification are there stating only and only we can take ITC if available in GSTR-2A only.
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Uploading invoices by the supplier is not the basic condition. It is not mandatory. Section 16 of CGST Act does not talk of such condition. Also read the following:
C.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of all invoices.
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani:
The Reply:
The input tax credit taken by the buyer is on self assessment basis. There is no compulsion as of now to match the invoice appearing in GSTR-2A with the details uploaded by the supplier in his GSTR-1. However, as rightly said by Sri Kasturi Sir, the onus of claiming the credit is upon the buyer. Also, both buyer and supplier is jointly and severely responsible for the input tax credit in the sense that if GST is paid by the supplier and the details are uploaded in GST portal the credit becomes eligible to the buyer. The new return format is going to come from 01.04.2019 wherein the credit would be autopopulted in the return which is based on the invoice uploaded by the supplier. After trail month it will be made compulsory that only such credit which is populating in the return would be eligible for the buyer to claim.However, presently there is no such restriction of the buyer to claim credit only if it is appearing in his GSTR-

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ist, I stick to my views.
Reply By Shyam Kedia:
The Reply:
Dear Kasturi sir,
Are you sure that if credits are not available in 2A but the recipient has invoice with him and has a proof that he has paid the considerations along with tax amount to the supplier, then the recipient can claim credit based in the invoice he is having? i ask it more firmly we need to file gst annual returns now before june and this plays a mojor role.
Also will the department be satisfied if the recipient furnishes all invoices with proof of payment to supplier in case any credit is not available in 2A?
Your reply will be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
It is not in dispute that all the invoices are to be uploaded by the supplier in GSTR-1 on the basis of which ITC is reflected in GSTR-2A. You are to pursue your supplier to upload the invoices. The Common Portal System will allow ITC whichever is reflected in GSTR-2A.If the supplier does not upload the invoices

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. Versus CGST, Excise & Customs, BBSR
Customs
2019 (3) TMI 453 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 4-3-2019
MA (EH)-77675-77687/18 & Cus. Appeal Nos.75850-75862/18 – MO/75133-75145/2019 & FO/75233-75245/2019
Customs
SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Shri S. C. Mohanty, Advocate for the Appellant (s)
Shri S. Guha, Asstt. Commr. (AR) for the Revenue
ORDER
Per Shri P. K. Choudhary:
The present Misc. Applications are for early hearing of the Cus. Appeal Nos.75850-75862/18, which have been filed against the Orders-in-Appeal Nos.47-59/CUS/CCP-GST/2017 dt.22.12.2017, passed by Commr. (Appeals) GST, Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar.
2. After carefully considering the reasons as cited in the applications, the early hearing is allowed. With the concurrence of both sides, the appeals itself are taken up for decision.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are e

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

quantity rebate and price discount, which can only be ascertained at the end of the contract period. The above factual aspects are admitted by the authorities below, and therefore, those are not under dispute. Since the quantity rebate/price discount was not known at the time of import, the imported goods were cleared on payment of duty, on the basis value shown by the overseas supplier, in the bill of lading.
6. After completion of the contract period, and as a result of price negotiation between the parties, the quantity rebate/price discounts were determined. Thereafter, the appellant raised debit notes on the foreign suppliers, consequent upon which the differential amount was refunded to the appellant, through the authorised banking channel. This fact is also not under dispute. In all the thirteen cases, the bills of entry were presented, following the self assessment procedure in terms of Section 17 (1) of the customs Act, 1962 and customs duty was accordingly paid on the value

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he duty already paid by the appellant.
8. The Assistant Commissioner, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.) and Priya Blue Industries 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.), had held that since the appellant did not challenge the assessment of bill of entry by filling appeal against the same, Refund Applications are not maintainable. Aggrieved by the adjudication orders of the Assistant Commissioner, the appellant filed appeals before the commissioner (Appeals), which were rejected by the impugned common order, against which the present appeals are filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal.
9. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the refund claim was rejected mainly on the ground that the assessment made by the appellant in the Bill of Entry reached its finality, which they have not challenged.
10. The lower authorities followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

sidered at the time of assessment. Decision taken by the Department for non-consideration of the refund application filed after finalization of assessment and return of the same under the cover of letter dated 24-8-2011, assigning the reason of premature and not maintainable, in our considered opinion, would give rise to the cause of action for filing appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Since, the decision of the adjudicating authority has been conveyed in the letter dated 24- 8-2011, it can be concluded that the said letter is only detriment to the interest of the respondent, against which the appeal was preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal against the said letter having been filed within a period of sixty days from the date of its communication in our opinion, there is no delay in filing appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, we do not find any merits in the contention of Revenue that filing of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is barred b

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ibid, in our view is in conformity with the statutory provisions.
7. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. (supra) cited by Revenue in their grounds of appeal is distinguishable from the facts of the present case inasmuch as the duty in such case was paid by the importer in pursuance of an assessment order and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have ruled that so long as the order of assessment stands, the duty would be payable as per that order of assessment and refund claim is not an appeal proceeding. Contrary is the case in hand, wherein the respondent was not aggrieved by the order of assessment inasmuch as on the basis of information furnished by it in the Bill of Entry, the same was assessed by the Customs Department. Thus, there was no scope on the part of the respondent to file any appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the assessed Bill of Entry. Further, the alternative provided in Section 27 ibid, i.e., 'borne by him' was not the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ich allows him payment of concessional rate of duty merely after filing a Bill of Entry. In fact, such a case is the present case in which there is no assessment order for being challenged in the appeal which is passed under Section 27(1)(i) of the Act because there is no contest or lis and hence no adversarial assessment order.
The Tribunal has referred to the cases of 5. CCE, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (120) E.L.T. 285] and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.). In both these cases, referred to by the Tribunal there was an assessment order which was passed and consequently it was held that where an adjudicating authority passed an order which is appealable and the party did not choose to exercise the statutory right of appeal, it is not open to the party to question the correctness of the order of the adjudicating authority subsequently by filing a claim for refund on the ground that adjudicating authority had

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refunds for Unutilized Cenvat Credit Post-GST Must Be Issued in Cash, Not Credited Back to Account.
Case-Laws
Central Excise
Refund of unutilized amount lying in Cenvat credit account post GS

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST ITC on AMC
Query (Issue) Started By: – Madhavan iyengar Dated:- 2-3-2019 Last Reply Date:- 3-3-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 8 Replies
GST
A Company has received an Invoice for AMC bill for period January 2018 to December 2018 towards maintenance services. Company has made the entire payment in the month of January 2018
Issue: Can the Company avail the entire GST-ITC as mentioned in the AMC in the month of January 2018.
Reply By CASusheel Gupta:
The Reply:
Yes, can be claimed
In case of goods also, we take ITC at the time of inward supply irrespective of actual date of consumption.
Reply By Madhavan iyengar:
The Reply:
but one of the conditions to avail itc in gst law is that the company should have received

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

supposed to come quarterly to check the inverter. But the date and sometime month is also changes as per availability of me and sometime his. Similarly in case of yours can you maintain a log as to when he is giving service in terms of AMC. If yes take credit when service is received . otherwise it can be safely decided that credit can be taken on the receipt of invoice .
Reply By CASusheel Gupta:
The Reply:
Suppose I purchase an AC on 31.03.2018
It am entitled to one AC (goods received), one year warranty (shall be availed in next year) and three free service coupon (shall be availed in next year) .
How to apportion now between these three.
I believe unless the stakes are high, we can take credit on receipt of invoice. At the most a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

E WAY BILL.
Query (Issue) Started By: – HIMANSHU SHRIMALI Dated:- 2-3-2019 Last Reply Date:- 5-3-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 5 Replies
GST
* is E Way Bill required to be generate
if i issue 4 invoice of ₹ 20000/-each (80,000)to same receipeant, same tranporter.?
Whether provision of Rajasthan E Way Bill (intra – state i.e. movement of goods with in Rajasthan) is same as of CGST ?
I tried a lot to get amended E Way Bill provision of Rajasthan GST but failed.
1. is E Way Bill required to be generate by the supplier or recipient :
if i issue 4 invoice of ₹ 20000/-each (80,000) to same recipient, same transporter?
2. Whether provision of Rajasthan E Way Bill (intra – state i.e. movement of goods wit

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d conveyance carries goods more than 50K then transporter is required to generate e way bill if supplies or recepient has not gererated e way bill. Please refer Rule 138(7) of CGST Rule 2017. The same is reproduced here under for your ready reference
7) Where the consignor or the consignee has not generated the e-way bill in FORM GST EWB-01 and the aggregate of the consignment value of goods carried in the conveyance is more than fifty thousand rupees, the transporter, except in case of transportation of goods by railways, air and vessel, shall, in respect of inter-State supply, generate the e-way bill in FORM GST EWB-01 on the basis of invoice or bill of supply or delivery challan, as the case may be, and may also generate a consolidated

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

‘INTERMEDIARY SERVICES’ CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS ‘EXPORT OF SERVICES’
By: – DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 2-3-2019

Intermediary
The term 'intermediary' is defined under section 2(13) of the IGST Act as a broker, an agent, or any other person, by whatever name called, who arranges or facilitates the supply of goods or services or both, or securities, between two or more persons, but does not include a person who supplies such goods or services or both or securities on his own account.
From the above definition it can be inferred that an intermediary can be a broker, an agent or any other person who arranges and facilitates the supply of goods and/or services between two or more persons and who cannot change the nature of supply as provided by the principal.
An intermediary cannot alter the nature or value of the service, the supply of which he facilitates on behalf of his principal, although the principal may authorize the inter

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

as go-between his principal and his principal's customers. Thus, aforesaid activities of the appellant clearly in the nature of arranging or facilitating supply of goods by foreign entity to customers in India, the same is considered to be as intermediary services as defined under section 2(13) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 particularly when he is not supplying goods neither on behalf of the principal or on his own account but the same is supplied by the principal, a foreign entity. Therefore the Appellate Authority held that the contention of the appellant that promotion and marketing services provided by him to such foreign entity on his account, excluded from purview of the definition of 'intermediary service' is not acceptable.
Intermediary services – Export of services?
Section 2(6) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('IGST Act' for short) defines the expression 'export of services' as the supply of services, when-
(i) the supplier of service

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

stinct persons.
Whether the intermediary services amount to export of services? For this question the answer is given in the following case laws-
In re 'Vishakhar Prashant Bhave' – 2018 (12) TMI 227 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA the question for which advance ruling was sought is as to whether the commission received by the applicant in convertible foreign exchange for rendering services as an intermediary between an exporter abroad receiving such services and an Indian importer of an equipment is an 'export of service' falling under section 2(6) of IGST Act and outside the purview of section 13(8)(b) attracting zero rated tax under section 16(1)(a) of IGST Act. The AAR held that since the place of supply of services in this case is in taxable territory, the said intermediary services cannot be treated as export of services under the provisions of GST laws.
In re 'Global Reach Education Services Private Limited' – 2018 (8) TMI 392 – APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULI

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the applicant gets a positive response from the subscriber, they scan the credentials and the business potential of the subscriber to whom it is proposed to market the CRS software. Based on the organizational and workflow analysis of the subscriber and following a back ground check of their prior activities, the applicant logs on a request into the system through the website maintained by Sabre APAC called Subscriber Communication Management System. If the subscriber agrees to use the CRS software, order forms are collected from them to begin the process for activation of the CRS Software. Once the subscriber is registered successful and a Pseudo City Code is allotted in its favor. Once the code is allotted and the setup is activated the applicant's engineers install user interfaces to access the CRS Software in the subscriber's computer systems.
The Authority found that the job of the applicant is to scout for the subscribers in India. The applicant explains and educates the subscri

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Kunte as =
Sir
Nice enlightening article. Can you also please confirm that the Tax on such intermediary Services to a foreign clients needs to charged under CGST+SGST or only IGST?
As per my understanding / interpretation under provisions of Section 8(2) read with Section 12, the Tax is to be paid under IGST.
Is this interpretation correct? Please confirm or correct my interpretation in this respect.
With Regards,
Dated: 4-3-2019
Reply By KASTURI SETHI as =
It is inter-State supply. IGST applicable. Excellent Article by Dr.Govindarajan, Sir.
Dated: 5-3-2019
Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN as =
As mentioned by Shri Sethi IGST applicable. Thanks both of you for your good comments on my article.
Dated: 5-3-2019
Reply By ChandrakantBacharam Ghevade as =
What is state code to be mentioned in invoice
Dated: 30-4-2019
Reply By KASTURI SETHI as =
The code of that State is to be mentioned on the invoice in which State the supplier of intermediary service is located.
Date

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

The Union Minister of Finance and Corporate Affairs, Shri Arun Jaitley releases a Compendium of Instructions on GST Refunds and a Copy of the Operational Manual on Internal Audit
GST
Dated:- 1-3-2019

On the occasion of 43rd Foundation Day of the Indian Civil Accounts Service (ICAS), the Controller General of Accounts (CGA) and his team of senior officers along with the Expenditure Secretary, Shri G.C. Murmu called on the Union Minister of Finance and Corporate Affairs, Shri Arun Ja

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Total GST Revenue collection of 97,247 crore for the month of February 2019
GST
Dated:- 1-3-2019

Total gross GST revenue collected in the month of February, 2019 is ₹ 97,247 crore of which CGST is ₹ 17,626crore, SGST is ₹ 24,192crore, IGST is ₹ 46,953crore (including ₹ 21,384crore collected on imports) and Cess is ₹ 8,476 crore (including ₹ 910crore collected on imports). Total number of GSTR 3B Returns filed for the month of January up to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

TAX IMPLICTIONS ON RE-IMPORT
Query (Issue) Started By: – RAMESH M Dated:- 1-3-2019 Last Reply Date:- 3-3-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 3 Replies
GST
We exported our automobile material with payment of IGST, Due to some techinical issue the exported materials were rejected. we have to RE-IMPORT the above material. If there is any tax implication while RE-IMPORT the same.
We also availed the all export benefits like DBK / MEIS / IGST refund for above export shipments
Shall we repay the availed above export benefits to GOVT ? or any other customs duty shall we pay additionally.
Any suggestions Please…
M.RAMESH
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
All export benefits have to be given back to Govt. and normal procedure

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

supply to Goverment
Query (Issue) Started By: – NILESH PITALE Dated:- 1-3-2019 Last Reply Date:- 5-3-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 2 Replies
GST
Respected Concern Authority
Our Client received Contract of ( Work Design, Fabrication,Supply, Installation,Testing,& Commissioning Heavy Duty Back Rake type Mechanical Screen) from Goverment Authority,
Question No-1: Can we consider it Composit Supply and Changed it 12% , if Not then 18% ?
Question No: 2: If we awarded said contact to Sub -contractor then he will charged us 12% As per Notification No. 1/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.1.2018
Question 3: If As per above notification tax Rate 12% then , I guess Our contact is chargeable at 18%
Please Guide us what we shoul

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Osmosis plant along with its installation, commissioning and operation and maintenance is a single supply.
According to definition of works contract under GST regime, the supply of goods and services are done by the supplier simultaneously which is for immovable property. Hence in works contract supply of goods and services together is compulsory – Thus, based on above facts and concept such contract shall be a single supply and cannot be treated as distinct supplies. Since all the conditions of composite supply are satisfied, it is a composite supply.
The activity proposed to be undertaken is a composite supply of works contract, the rate of tax in given service shall be determined in accordance with the Notification No 11/2017-CT (Rate)

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Exploring CST Reduction or Exemption Benefits Post-GST for High-Speed Diesel in Manufacturing u/s 8(3.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of CST – Benefit of lower CST or exemption from CST post GST – Procurement of high speed diesel oil for manufacturing – the question whether the finished goods would also have to be amongst the six retained goods for the purpose of applying the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Act, need not be answered for the present.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marq

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Doubly taxed service under Service Tax Act & GST Act. Also output of Service Tax on advance payment wrongly taken as input in TRAN 1.
Query (Issue) Started By: – Vaibhav Bhala Dated:- 1-3-2019 Last Reply Date:- 5-3-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 5 Replies
GST
Respected Sir
We have received an advance in pre-GST regime for service tax and we duly paid service tax on it. The services were to be rendered after 01-07-2017 i.e. post-GST induction. As we were unaware of GST provisions at that time we charged GST at the actual time of supply of services and it was duly deposited with Government. Since it was doubly taxed we took credit of earlier service tax paid in TRAN-1.
But now we realized that as per Sec. 142(11)(b) of C

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

REDUCTION IN DISCOUNT IS NOT PROFITEERING: GST
By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 1-3-2019

Can reduction in discount offered by supplier of goods resulting in increase in price amounts to profiteering in contravention of section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 ? The answer is NO, as affirmed by National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA).
In Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering and DGAP, CBIC, New Delhi v. Asian Paints Ltd., Kerala 2019 (1) TMI 21 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY ; , the NAA, vide its Order dated 27.12.2018, has ordered that where base price is increased due to reduction in discount, it does not amount to profiteering as discount is offered from the profit margin whic

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

, taxes etc:
Particulars
Period
Details
Reference
Pre-GST
Post-GST
1.
Product Description
A
Paint (AP Apex Classic WT 10 LT (HSN Code 3209)
2.
Invoice No.
B
13006429
KR1701110400
3.
Invoice Date
C
20.06.2017
09.11.2017
4.
MRP as per Annexure-7 (Rs.)
D
2.610
2,660
5.
Price before discount per unit (Rs.)
E
2,159
1,927
6.
Discount per unit (Rs.)
F
75.57
67.45
7.
Price after discount per unit (Rs.)
G=E-F
2,083.43
1,859.55
8.
Central Excise Duty @12.5% on 70% of MRP (Rs.)
H=(D*70%)*12.5%
228.38
–
9.
Base Price (Excluding duties & taxes) (Rs.)
I=G-H
1,855.05
1,859.55
10.
Tax Rate Charged (%)
J
14.50% VAT
28% GST
11.
Tax Amount (VAT or GST) (Rs.)
K=G*J
302.10
520.67
12.
Tota

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

.24% which was primarily on account of the reduction in the discount and such an increase couldn't qualify as profiteering due to reduction in the tax rate, thus, the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 relating to profiteering were not contravened in the instant case.
The NAA based on DGAP report, invoices etc, examined whether there was any reduction in the GST rate and whether the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax was passed on or not to the recipient as provided under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. It observed that supplier had increased the base price of the product from ₹ 1855.05/- to ₹ 1859.55/- resulting in an increase of ₹ 4.50/-. In this context, it was clear that the post-GST price

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =