Goods and Services Tax

PSN AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI AND THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI
GST
2019 (1) TMI 1022 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2020 (39) G. S. T. L. 140 (Ker.)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 17-1-2019
WP(C) No. 680/2019
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, MR. MATHEW GEORGE
ORDER
Section 15 of the Goods and Services Tax Act speaks of the value of goods and services, besides defining how the value of supply shall be reckoned. It says that the value of supply of goods, services, or both shall be the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ed by the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner, as the dealer of the motor vehicle, acts only as an agent for the State to collect the income tax under Section 206C(1F). And that amount will eventually goes to the vehicle purchaser's credit.
4. In this context, the learned Senior Counsel has drawn my attention to the last portion of Section 15(2)(a), which emphasises “charging of tax, duties, cess or fee by the supplier”. Indeed, recently a constitution Bench of the
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai u M/S. Dilip Kumar & Co. Judgment dated 30.07.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 3327/2007 has held that any ambiguity in taxing provision should be resolved in the State's fare. Yet, in this context, t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Amendment Requires Chartered Accountant Certificate for Certain Deemed Exports Under GST, Including Advance Authorisation Supplies.
Notifications
GST
Notified supplies, when the supply of goo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ITC WRONGLY ENTERED IN 3B
Query (Issue) Started By: – PUNEET NEMA Dated:- 16-1-2019 Last Reply Date:- 19-1-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 2 Replies
GST
ITC WRONGLY ENTERED IN 3B BU

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST ITC for Jul17 to march 18
Query (Issue) Started By: – Madhavan iyengar Dated:- 16-1-2019 Last Reply Date:- 19-1-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 6 Replies
GST
Sirs
A company has not availed ITC of some invoices of services of the period July 17 to March 18,
by virtue of the order 02/2018 issued by CBIC dated 31/12/2018 can this ITC be availed now in Dec 2018
Can RCM Liability of IGST on import of services / local CGST/SGST which was not paid during period July 17 to march 18 be paid now and the ITC of RCM be availed in Dec 2018 after payment.
Reply By SHARAD ANADA:
The Reply:
Yes, you can claim ITC. As per order, registered person can claim "Input Tax Credit" till 31.03.2019.
As per sec 2(63) Input tax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M credit :
RCM not paid on local and imported services during period of july 17 to march 18 ( invoices pertain to the said period) can the RCM be paid now in Dec 2018 and credit of the said ITC on RCM paid in Dec 2018 be taken in 3B return for December 2018 by virtue of the order 02/2018 issued by CBIC dated 31/12/2018
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani:
The Reply:
Sir, you have not paid RCM but would have raised a self invoice in FY 2017-18. If this is so, then ITC can be availed. Otherwise, if you raising a self invoice in current date then RCM is payable now and since self invoice is dated in current date ITC can be claimed considering invoice of FY 2018-19.
Reply By Madhavan iyengar:
The Reply:
sir in the case of rcm the time of supply as p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

RAJESH ACCOUNTANT
Query (Issue) Started By: – rajesh subramanian Dated:- 16-1-2019 Last Reply Date:- 19-1-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 1 Reply
GST
Dear sirs
We are pvt ltd, and hiring manpower from an agency, who is un-registered dealer,
from the said agency we are receiving service like professional consultancy, house keeping, Security, gardener etc and we are debiting the charges to corresponding a/c heads ( ie prossional charges, office maintenance , security charges a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Interest on Un Utilized ITC in a regular/ Tran1
Query (Issue) Started By: – Ravikumar Doddi Dated:- 16-1-2019 Last Reply Date:- 17-1-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 7 Replies
GST
Dear sir,
Is interest is applicable on the unutilized credit of TRAN1 which was disallowed by department or in a regular returns some times we may claim ITC erroneously
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Answer is NO. As per Section 50(3) CGST Act, 2017 output liability will be reduced only after utilisation of ITC, hence in my view no interest is chargeable on unutilized credit whether in TRANS 1 or otherwise.
Reply By Spudarjunan S:
The Reply:
Dear Sir,
Even the GST Council has also proposed in its 31st council meeting held on 22nd December 2018, that interest for late filing of GSTR 3B would be applicable only on the Net payable amount in Cash, and not on the entire Gross tax liability payable for a month. However said proposal is not notified as of yet.
The same contention may be

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

sal of the ITC: As the amendment is retrospective in nature, the amount of Cess credit carry forwarded into GST becomes the transfer of irregular credit and requires to be paid back to the Government. The same may be paid back by way of reversal of CGST credit through Table 4(B)(2) of the GSTR –
3B and intimate the department in writing with a dated acknowledgement. In case there is no sufficient credit this gets reflected into to electronic output register and needs to be paid in cash.
2. Interest liability: The consequential interest liability would vary in different scenarios which are discussed below:
a. When CESS credit carry forwarded into GST but not utilized: As far as interest on input tax credit, the reference shall be made to the section 50(3) of CGST Act, 2017 which specifies that interest is required to be paid by a taxable person at 24% if he claims any undue or excess claim of input tax credit under Section 42(10) and Section 43(10). As these sub-section deals with th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

t of GST liabilities then the same shall be reversed along with interest from the date of utilization to actual date of reversal.
✓ Is there any waiver of the interest liability as the ineligibility was due to retrospective amendment?
It Is very important to note that the 'Cess credit' was eligible upto the enactment however it is becoming ineligible from the past date on the date of enactment, so non-payment of the output liability (to the extent of utilization) will be on the date of enactment, which has to be made good by making the payment and hence the question of interest arises. In general, whenever retrospective amendment was made, it was the practice of the Government to give a saving clause in terms of either waiver of the interest liability or specify the cutoff date from which the interest liability would attract. Unfortunately, no such saving clause is found in the present retrospective amendment made in the section 140, ibid.
Judicially, the Hon'ble Supreme Cour

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

7-Member Group of Ministers (GoM) constituted for boosting the Real Estate Sector under the GST regime by providing a Composition Scheme for Residential Construction Units among others
GST
Dated:- 16-1-2019

In pursuance of decision in the 32nd Meeting of GST Council held on 10th January, 2019 at New Delhi, a Group of Ministers (GoM) for boosting the Real Estate Sector under the GST regime has been constituted.
The 'GoM for boosting Real Estate Sector under the GST regime' shall consist of the following members:
Sl. No.
Name
Designation and State
1
Shri Nitin Patel
Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister, Government of Gujarat
Convener
2
Shri Sudhir Mungantiwar
Hon'ble Finance Minister, Government of Maharashtra
Member
3
Sh

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

to GoM in 32nd Meeting of GST Council held on 10th January, 2019;
(ii) Examine and suggest ways for Composition Scheme or any other Scheme, for boosting Real Estate Sector and suggest Scheme for Transition vis-a-vis introduction of suggested Scheme;
(iii) Examine various aspect of levy of GST on Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and Development Rights in a joint Development Agreement and suitable model;
(iv) Examine legality of inclusion/exclusion of land or any other ingredient, in Composition and suggest Valuation Mechanism;
(v) Examine and suggest any other aspect relevant to boost Real Estate Sector, which may be brought to the notice of GoM.
(vi) The GoM for boosting Real Estate Sector under GST regime may invite officers from

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

HSN code will be use for raise the Debit note against missing operation?
Query (Issue) Started By: – rajnikant bhosale Dated:- 16-1-2019 Last Reply Date:- 19-1-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 2 Replies
GST
Which HSN will use when raising the debit note if SCP/party missing the operation when manufacturing of the material???
in that case we were not reject the material but we want to debit the party , against the provide invoice
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Dear Queri

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

IN RE: THE MOBILE WALLET PVT LTD.
GST
2019 (3) TMI 593 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA – 2019 (22) G. S. T. L. 549 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA – AAR
Dated:- 16-1-2019
GST-ARA-87/2018-19/B-8
GST
Shri B. Timothy, Addl. Commissioner of Central Tax, (Member) And Shri B.V. Borhade, Joint Commissioner of State Tax, (Member)
PROCEEDINGS
(Under section 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017)
1. The present application has been filed under section 97 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act and MGST Act”] by The Mobile Wallet Pvt. Ltd., the applicant, seeking an advance ruling in respect of the following questions:
1) Whether the portion of the Merchant Discount Rate received by the issuing Bank as 'Interchange Fee' is liable to tax under the Goods and Se

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

perating Pre-paid Payment instruments as Business Correspondent (BC) of Federal Bank. As part of BC arrangement, Applicant has launched Co-branded Pre-paid Cards in India with Federal Bank powered by MasterCard.
Definitions: 1) Merchant Discount Rate (MDR):- Rate charged by Acquiring Bank from Merchant on every Card transaction. This is as per agreement between Acquiring Bank and Merchant Establishment. GST is separately charged by Acquiring Bank from Merchant on MDR.
2) Interchange Fee: – Standard Rate as decided by Network as per card type which is payable to issuing bank for each successful transaction. This is charged to acquiring bank.
3) Network – Provides the payment infrastructure. Both issuing and acquiring banks are its Members. (VISA, MasterCard/ Rupay etc.) are referred to as Network.
The nature of transaction arising out of the use of the Debit/Credit /Pre-Paid card is as follows. There are six persons involved in a Debit/ Credit/ Pre-Paid card transaction, namely:
1.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he flow of business transaction can be explained in a detail as under
1) The card holder does a purchase at the merchant establishment (online or offline) and make payment by swiping his/her debit / credit / pre-paid card on Point of Sale (POS) machine placed by Acquiring bank in case of card present transaction or by entering his / her card details in Payment Gateway (PG) provided by Acquiring Bank in case of Card not present transaction. The card holder need to validate the transaction by ATM PIN (in case of Card present) or by OTP on registered mobile in case of Card not present).
In case of Card present transaction, card is swiped on electronic equipment known as Point of Sale' terminal at the Merchant Establishment for charging the card holder for purchase of goods or services. Such terminals are provided by the 'Acquiring Bank' to the Merchant Establishments which enables validation and acceptance of payment by Debit/ Credit/ Pre-Paid card.
In case of Card not pres

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Acquiring bank by the Network (VISA/ MasterCard / Rupay / AMEX)
5.Out of MDR earned by the Acquiring bank in (3) above, Interchange fees is paid by Acquiring Bank to Issuing Bank as per settlement file received from concerned Network i.e. VISA/ MasterCard/ Rupay/ AMEX.
6) Issuing bank accounts for the transaction for recovery from the cardholder and sends the cardholder a monthly statement.
Now in the above process:
1) Issuing Bank, Acquiring Bank and the Network play their respective roles to ensure that a transaction is undertaken between the card holder and the Merchant Establishment. Five parties are directly involved in this transaction.
2.Acquiring Bank makes payment to Merchant Establishment for the goods and services purchased by the cardholder after deducting a fee known as the 'Merchant Discount Fee' and applicable GST on Merchant Discount Fee. The quantum of Merchant Discount Fee is contractually pre-agreed between Acquiring Bank and Merchant Establishment. It

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ng bank: – 1.60% on MASTER Pre-paid Card for online transaction Interchange Fee Sharing- 85%: 15% between Applicant TMW and Issuing Bank
1. Merchant Settlement by Acquirer
Particulars
Rupees
Amount
10000
MDR Rate
1.80%
MDR Amount
180.00
GST (CGST) @9%
16.20
GST (SGST) @9%
16.20
Total Charge
212.40
Net payable to Merchant
9787.60
Acquiring bank to deposit GST (Rs.32.40) with Government after setting off inputs if any.
2. Settlement to Acquiring bank by Issuing Bank as per settlement files received From Network
Particulars
Rupees
Amount
10000
Interchange rate
1.60%
Interchange Amount
160.00
Total Charge
160.00
Net payable to acquiring bank
9840.00
It is evident that issuing bank is not able to charge GST on interchange Fee amount (as forward Charge) hence Acquiring Bank is not able to take GST input credit due to lack of information in settlement files shared by Networks.
Issuing Bank is again depositing GST on Interchange amount of Rs. 160 and paying GST

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

(RCM). In this whole simple process of digital payment of MDR of Rs. 180, Gov. collect tax as under at different levels.
 
CGST
SGST
Acquiring bank to ME
16.20
16.20
Issuing bank to Acquiring bank
12.20
12.20
BC to Issuing bank
10.37
10.37
Total
38.77
38.77
Different practice prevails by the Network in the industry
Before making our submission we would also like to highlight the different practice followed by different network on their platforms. As discussed there are 3 main network prevailing in the field of this digital transactions. Master and Visa work differently than the Indian RUPAY platform. The data provided by the MASTER AND VISA is only about the interchange fee to the Acquiring and the Issuing bank and not anything about GST. Whereas RUPAY provide the interchange FEE along with GST.
Taking our earlier example of Rs. 10000 transaction, we can present the case as per Rupay and Master/Visa Network practice prevailing in the system.
RUPAY CASE
Rs.3

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ly made by a taxable person to a recipient consisting of two or more taxable supplies of goods or services or both, or any combination thereof, which are naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business, one of which is a principal supply:
A supply will be regarded as a composite supply if the following elements are present:
(a) The supply should consist of two or more taxable supplies;
(b) The supplies may be of goods or services or both;
(c) The supplies should be naturally bundled;
(d) They should be supplied in conjunction (event, time or contract) with each other in the ordinary course of business;
(e) One of the supplies should be a principal supply (Principal supply means the predominant supply of goods or services of a composite supply and to which any other supply is ancillary).
The following aspects need to be noted:
The two or more) supplies must appear natural when bundled and presented to the recipient.
* The ancill

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

o its components and classified as separate service for classification. This is a well-accepted principle of classification. The relevant clause of Section 65 (33a) is reproduced below: “(iii) by any person, including an issuing bank and an acquiring bank, to any other person in relation to settlement of any amount transacted through such card.
Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-clause, “acquiring bank” means any banking company, financial institution including nonbanking financial company or any other person, who makes the payment to any person who accepts such card;”
In fact there is one composite supply under GST, provided by the acquiring bank to the merchant establishment for which gross value of consideration is Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) which includes the interchange fee. Hence, the supply of Service of the issuing bank got subsumed into the supply of service of the acquiring bank to make it a composite supply to the merchant establishment. Merchant establishment doe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

same transaction. In this instant case
Acquiring bank is paying GST to Government which he is collected from merchant.
Issuing bank calculating the GST by reverse charge method and paying the GST to Government.
03. CONTENTION – AS PER THE CONCERNED OFFICE
the jurisdictional office has not made any written submissions.
04 HEARING
The preliminary hearing in the matter was held on 04.12.2018 and Sh. Majesh Toshniwal appeared and stated that he was the Manager (Finance) in the applicant company but did not produce the letter of authority for representing the applicant. During Preliminary hearing it was pointed out to him that the questions asked were not in respect of matters or questions mentioned in section 97(2) of GST Act and hence not maintainable under the Advance Ruling provisions. The Applicant has asked for one week time to submit fresh submissions and reframe the questions raised. The departmental officer Shri. S. Pardeshi STO was present. We heard both the sides.
05. O

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

t;
(c) determination of time and value of supply of goods or services or both;
(d) admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid;
(e) determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both;
(f) whether applicant is required to be registered;
(g) whether any particular thing done by the applicant with respect to any goods or services or both amounts to or results in a supply of goods or services or both, within the meaning of that term.
Before we decide the question raised in this application it is essential to find out whether the applicant is the proper person to make this application and whether or not the activities undertaken by the applicant pertains to matters or questions specified in Section 97(2). Applicant has related following question:
Question: 1) Whether the portion of the Merchant Discount Rate received by the issuing Bank as Interchange Fee' is liable to tax under the Goods and Services Tax?
Question: 2) Why diffe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd. Versus GST & CE (Chennai North)
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 1104 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 16-1-2019
ST/42368/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 40116 /2019
Service Tax
Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial)
For the Appellant : Shri Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate
For the Respondent : Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR)
ORDER
The dispute relates to the period July, 2014 to February, 2016. By this appeal the assessee is challenging the penalty levied by the adjudicating authority and confirmed in the impugned order by the Commissioner GST & CE (Appeals), under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Shri Muthuvenkataraman, Ld. Advocate appearing for th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

, LTU, Bangalore Vs. ADECCO Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd.
2. 2017 (349)ELT 133 (Mad.) CCE, Salem Vs. Madras Auminium Co. Ltd.
3. 2013 (288) ELT 161 Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur.
3. Per contra, Ld. AR opposes the arguments put forth by the Ld. Advocate. He submits that only on verification of documents during audit the material fact had come to the notice of the department and hence allegation suppression of facts made them liable to imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Act ibid.
4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and gone through various decisions relied on by the Ld. Advocate. Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 envisages two situations viz. 1. failure to pay service tax and 2. for reasons of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. P.K CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Versus THE COMMISSIONER KERALA STATE GST DEPARTMENT, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE STATE TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT) And THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK PVT. LTD.
GST
2019 (2) TMI 184 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 16-1-2019
WP(C). No. 30883 of 2018
GST
Mr. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu
For the Petitioner : ADV. Mahesh V Menon
For the Respondents : ADV. Sri.P.R. Sreejith,SC, Goods And Services Tax Network, GP Sri Mathew George Vadakkel
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, an assessee under the KVAT Act, faced problems in migrating from one tax regime to another. In that context, it has filed this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:
“i) To direct the respondent

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Hindustan Unilever Limited Versus Union Of India & Ors.
GST
2019 (1) TMI 1368 – DELHI HIGH COURT – TMI
DELHI HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 16-1-2019
W. P. (C) No. 378/2019
GST
MR. SANJIV KHANNA AND MR. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI JJ.
Petitioner Through: Mr. Harish N Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr. C.S Lodha, Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Mr. Aseem Chaturvedi and Ms. Shweta Kabra, Advs.  
Respondents Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG with Mr. Chandra Prakash, Mr. Akash Mohan and Mr. Farman Ali, Advs. for R-1. Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG with Mr. Amit Bansal, Mr. Ravi Prakash,CGSC, Mr. Sahil Sood, Mr. Harshul Choudhary and Mr. Viplav Acharya, Advs. for R-2. Mr. Amit Bansal, Sr. Standing counsel for R-2 to 4.  
O R D E

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d from Dealers and deposited with the Government being demanded again
Rs. 36.25
7
TRAN-2 credit
Rs. 78.97
 
A number of issues and contentions have been raised on each of the seven issues mentioned in the aforesaid chart. We need not elaborate upon and go into the said aspects at this stage since the matter does require consideration and response from the respondents.
Regarding serial no. 6, it is pointed out that an amount of Rs. 36.25 crores has already been deposited with the Government, which fact is not disputed. With regard to serial no. 7, it is the contention of the petitioner that TRAN-2 credit was made available in March, 2018, therefore the impugned order is erroneous. On serial no. 3 i.e. loss in North- East Exemptio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

crores which would be paid on or before 15th March, 2019 and 15th May, 2019 respectively. We have passed the said direction after we have been informed that the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 160 crores. While computing the said figure, we have also taken into account the amounts mentioned in the aforequoted chart.
Subject to the said deposit, no coercive steps would be taken in proceedings pursuant to the impugned order. Penalty proceeding would be kept in abeyance.
However, investigation, as directed, would continue and orders may be passed. It will be open for the petitioner to file an application in the present writ petition or a fresh writ petition in case of an adverse order in such investigation.
Counter-affidavit would be f

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. P.K CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Versus THE COMMISSIONER KERALA STATE GST DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KERALA STATE GST DEPARTMENT, MATTANCHERY, THE STATE TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT), ERNAKULAM AND THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK PVT. LTD.
GST
2019 (1) TMI 1154 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 16-1-2019
WP (C). No. 30883 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : ADV. MAHESH V MENON
For The Respondents : ADV. SRI. P. R. SREEJITH, SC, GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK AND GP SRI MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, an assessee under the KVAT Act, faced problems in migrating from one tax regime to another. In that context, it has filed this

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

LEO LOGISTICS Versus UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE), MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE (GST WING) FINANCE, NEW DELHI, GST COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI, GOODS AND SERVICE TAX NETWORK, NEW DELHI, THE COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/NODAL OFFICER, THRISSUR
GST
2019 (1) TMI 1153 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2019 (22) G. S. T. L. 185 (Ker.)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 16-1-2019
WP(C). No. 54 of 2019
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : ADV. SRI. S. ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM)
For The Respondents : ADV. SRI. P. R. SREEJITH, SC, GOODS AND SERVICES T

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ircular issued by the Government of India for “setting up an IT Grievance Redressal Mechanism to address the grievances of taxpayers due to technical glitches on GST Portal.” Paragraph 5 of the circular outlines the procedure the Nodal Officers is to follow. It reads:
5. Nodal officers and identification of issues
5.1 GSTN, Central and State government would appoint nodal officers in requisite number to address the problem a taxpayer faces due to glitches, if any, in the Common Portal. This would be publicized adequately.
5.2 Taxpayers shall make an application to the field officers or the nodal officers where there was a demonstrable glitch on the Common Portal in relation to an identified issue, due to which the due process as envi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ced this technical glitch and approached this Court. Both the learned counsel submit that this Court on earlier occasions permitted the petitioners to apply to the additional sixth respondent for the issue resolution.
5. So, in this case also, the petitioner may apply to the Nodal Officer. The petitioner applying, the Nodal Officer will look into the issue and facilitate the petitioner's uploading FORM GST TRAN-1, without reference to the time-frame. Ordered so.
6. I may also observe that if the petitioner applies within two weeks after receiving this judgment, the Nodal Officer will consider it and take steps within a week thereafter. If the uploading of FORM GST TRAN-1 is not possible for reasons not attributable to the petitioner, the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

HUSKY INJECTION MOLDING SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INT) PALAKKAD, KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, PALAKKAD AND ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO. 1, KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD
GST
2019 (1) TMI 1152 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 16-1-2019
RP. No. 10 of 2019 IN WP(C). 41535/2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 41535/2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The PETITIONER : ADVS. SRI.RAJESH NAIR AND SRI.JOSEPH PRABAKAR
For The RESPONDENTS : GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a dealer with registration in the State of Tamil Nadu, ha

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

er with its registration in Tamil Nadu. When it wanted to comply with the statutory demand and get the goods released, the respondent authorities insisted that the petitioner should have a temporary registration, remit the amounts using that registration, and then get the goods released. The petitioner is disinclined to follow that procedure. It wants to remit the amounts using its own Tamil Nadu registration and have the goods released. For this alternative, the Government Pleader cites practical difficulties as an answer.
3. Then, the Government pleader took instructions from the authorities, and informed the Court that the petitioner's representative can approach the authorities with a request to remit the amounts. They will gener

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Tirunelveli Versus M/s. Unimech Industries
Central Excise
2019 (1) TMI 1096 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 16-1-2019
Appeal No. E/524/2012 – Final Order No. 40100/2019
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Appellant
Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The above appeal is filed by the department against the order passed by Commissioner who set aside Rs. 34,94,737/- raised in the show cause notice and confirmed the demand of only Rs. 23,14,649/- along with interest and imposed equal penalty.
2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. AR Shri S. Govindarajan supported the grounds of appeal. He submitted that the show cause notice was issued after noting discrepancies in the figures shown in the Profit & Loss account and ERI returns. The respondent was engaged in trading of good

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

was found that the sales invoices in some cases showed higher amount whereas in some cases it did not show any difference to as the value of the goods when purchased from outside. The ld. AR argued that when the respondents have sold the goods at a higher price after purchase, they had modified the goods so as to suit the requirement of their client namely Thermal Power Plants. This activity of value addition amounts to manufacture. The Commissioner has wrongly dropped the demand raised on such enhanced value shown in sales invoices holding that it cannot be presumed that the activity amounts to manufacture. When there is increase in the value, it is strong indication that the respondents have undertaken process of manufacture on the goods purchased. Thus, the demand of duty on the amount corresponding to the enhanced value shown in the sales invoice as raised in the show cause notice ought to have been confirmed.
3. The ld. counsel Shri M.N. Bharathi submitted that the grounds of ap

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ith the predeposit.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The department is aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner who dropped part of the demand of Rs. 34,94,737/-. Though the ld. AR has put forward the argument that the dropping of said demand is not correct when the activity of doing modifications on the products purchased having been admitted by the respondent, there is actually no such ground raised in the appeal filed before this Tribunal. The ground raised in the appeal memorandum is that the Commissioner has not given any finding with regard to limitation or with regard to confirmation of interest and demand.
6. In the impugned order, in paragraphs 13 to 16, the Commissioner has discussed the issue of the difference in the figures reflected in the returns filed by the respondent and the financial statement. The demand in respect of Rs. 34,94,737/- is made only in respect of such amount reflected in the sales invoices wherein the goods have been sold at a higher price by the res

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Coimbatore Enterprises and Holdings Ltd. Versus GST & CE, Coimbatore
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 1039 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 16-1-2019
Appeal No. ST/42246/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 40115/2019
Service Tax
Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial)
Shri A. Gopal Kanakaraj, CA for the Appellant
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
The dispute relates to the period 01.01.2013 to 30.09.2013. By this appeal the assessee is challenging the penalty levied by the adjudicating authority and confirmed in the impugned order by the Commissioner GST & CE (Appeals), under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Shri Gopal Kanakaraj, CA, appearing for the assessee-appellant submitted that the first appellate authority has modified the order of the adjudicating authority to the extent of upholding the invocation of extended period, recovery of late fee and penalties imposed under Section 77

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

. Hence, except delay in filing service tax electronically, no other contravention of any of the provisions of service tax, for which penal action under Section 78 of the Act ibid is unwarranted. Further, appellant voluntarily paid penalty in addition to tax, interest and late fee, which would establish its bonafide actions. He relies on various Tribunal rulings setting aside penalty under Section 78. He relies on the following case laws in support of his contentions:
1. 2017 (4)GSTL 57 (Tri.-Mum.) Raghuvir Motors Agencies PVt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Aurangabad
2. 2018 (14) GSTL 281 (tri.-Del.) R.K. Refreshment & Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur
3. Per contra, Ld. AR opposes the arguments put forth by the appellant. He submits that after initiation of investigation by the department only the appellant paid the service tax along with interest, late fee and filed ST-3 returns and hence penal action for the act of non-compliance of the provisions of Finance Act on the part of the appel

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

etc. and secondly, the provisions of Section 78 stand controlled by Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, ibid. This makes that for every default, penalties under Section 77 and 78 are not automatic.
4.2 In the case on hand, much before the issuance of show cause notice the assessee has got itself registered, paid the taxes along with applicable interest and this also is established by the fact that the same is appropriated in the Order-in-Original. In the SCN as well as the orders of the lower authorities, the Revenue has but for reiterating the wordings in the Sections itself, has not gone beyond that to put on record any reasons on the alleged malafides, fraud or suppression, etc. In the event, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned penalties cannot sustain for which reason, I set aside the impugned order confirming penalty. Consequently, the penalties are directed to be deleted and the appeal stands allowed.
(Operative part of the Order pronounced in the open Court)

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Shri Surya Prakash Loonker, And Director General Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, Versus M/s. Excel Rasayan Pvt. Ltd.,
GST
2019 (1) TMI 807 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – TMI
NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – NAPA
Dated:- 16-1-2019
Case No. 02/2019
GST
SH. B. N. SHARMA, CHAIRMAN, SH. J. C. CHAUHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER, SH. AMAND SHAH, TECHNICAL MEMBER
None for the Applicant No. 1.
Ms. Gayatri, Deputy Commissioner, for the Applicant No. 2.
Sh. Rakesh Upadhyaya, Director and Dr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. The present Report, dated 04.09.2018, has been received on 07.09.2018 from the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that an application dated 22.02.2018 was filed by the Applicant No. 1 before the Standing Committee, constituted under Rule 123 (1) of th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

letters dated 1 1.04.2018 and 19.05.2018 that prior to coming into force of the GST, he was a SSI unit, manufacturing synthetic detergents falling under Chapter 34 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Act, 1944 and that he had been availing SSI exemption and charging VAT @ 12.5 % on the base prices. He had further submitted that on introduction of the GST, 28% tax was levied and since this disturbed his pricing pattern he had reduced the base prices. He had also stated that w.e.f. 15.11 .2017, when the CST rate on his products in question was reduced from 28% to 18%, though the base prices were increased, they were much less than the base prices in the Pre-GST era.
3. The DGAP's report submitted that the Respondent had also filed details of invoice-wise outward taxable supplies (other than zero rated) and State-wise details for all the products from 01.11.2017 to 31.03.2018 along with copies of GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, Audited Balance Sheet and the Sample invoices. The DGAP after exami

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the total amount of profiteering covering the period between 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2018, came out to be Rs. 4,64,849.74, but the Applicant No. 1 was supplied Fortune ADW Detergent 1 kg. at the price of Rs. 186.99 and Fortune Rinse Aid 500 ml. at the price of Rs. 127.49 which were lower than the commensurate cum-tax prices of these products and therefore, the Applicant was not eligible for any refund.
4. The above Report was considered by the Authority in it's meeting held on 11.09.2018 and it was decided to hear the interested parties on 26.09.2018, however no one appeared on behalf of the Respondent & Applicant No. 1. Another Notice dated 03.10.2018 was issued and accordingly hearing was held on 12.10.2018. Sh. Rakesh Upadhyaya, Director and Sh. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Respondent, no one appeared on behalf of the Applicant No. 1, and Ms. Gayatri, Deputy Commissioner appeared on behalf of the DGAP.
5. The Respondent in his written submissions dated 10.10.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tax was enhanced. He has also quoted the Hon'ble Finance Minister stating that the GST rate of 28% was tax neutral and only pertained to those units which were paying 12% Central Excise Duty and VAT @ 12.5%. However, this rate did not apply to him as he was availing exemption under the SSI notification. The above submissions of the Respondent were forwarded to the DGAP for reply who vide his submission dated 22.10.2018 stated that the Respondent has reiterated the earlier submissions and nothing more was to be added by the DGAP. Final price to the consumers, as per the submissions made by the Respondent, is as per the table given below:-
Final rice to the Consumers
Year
Month/Qtr.
ADW
Rinse Aid
ADW
Rinse Aid
VAT 12.5%
GST @ 28%
GST @ 18%
2016
Prior to GST
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
April
220
150
195.50
133.40
24.44
16.68
0
0
0
0
 
October
220
150
195.50
133.40
24.44
16.68
0
0
0
0

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

f the Authority to determine whether any reduction in the rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) has been passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in the prices or not? In the instant case the Respondent has not disputed the fact that there has been reduction in the rate of tax from 28% to 18% with effect from 15th November 2017 vide Notification No. 41/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.1 1 .2017 and has also not disputed the calculation made by the DGAP based on his outward sales data. The DGAP vide Annexure-II of his report has quantified profiteered amount as Rs. 4,64,849/- in which he has taken the actual selling price of Fortune ADW Detergent 1 Kg. i.e. Rs. 220/- and worked out the base price and the commensurate cum-tax price. The base price of the above product before rate reduction on 14.11.2017 was Rs. 171.80 and the Post-GST rate reduction it was Rs. 186.44 which has not been disputed as can be seen from the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

(April to December 2016) to Rs. 117.19 (July to November 2017) and Rs. 127.12 (15.1 1.2017 to March 2018). For this product also he has claimed that though the base price has increased from Rs. 117.19 to Rs. 127.12 after rate reduction in November 2017, the base price had remained less than Rs. 133.40 which was prevalent prior to the introduction of GST. Thus the Respondent has claimed that the consumer had effectively paid the same price or less price which was prevalent in pre GST era. However, this argument of the Respondent does not hold good as not to increase the MRPs when tax rates were increased on account of implementation of the GST, was the business call taken by him and therefore he cannot claim any concession on this ground. The benefits arising due to the GST rate reduction cannot be denied to the consumers just because in the earlier scenario MRPs were not changed to extend some extra benefit to the consumers. It has also been found that the base price of both the above

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rofiteered an amount of Rs. 4,64,849.74 for the period w.e.f. 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2018. However as far as the Applicant No. 1 is concerned he has bought both the above products @ Rs. 186.99 (Fortune ADW Detergent 1 Kg.) and at Rs. 127.49 (Fortune Rinse AID 500 ml.) which are lower than the commensurate cum tax prices. Therefore there is no profiteering in respect of the products purchased by him.
8. From the above discussions, it is clear that the Respondent has admittedly not passed on the benefit of tax reduction since the base prices of the above two products were increased to maintain the same selling prices which were existing before the reduction in the rate of tax. The Respondent, who is a registered manufacturer, is liable to pass on the benefit to the recipients irrespective of the fact whether the base prices are still lower as compared to the pre-GST price or not. Moreover, from the documents submitted to the DGAP by the Respondent it is also established that the base price

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ected to deposit the profiteered amount of Rs. 4,64,849.74 into the Consumer Welfare Fund as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (c) in the ratio of 50:50 in the Central and the State Consumer Welfare Funds, along with interest at the rate of 18% to be calculated from the date of collection of the higher amount till the date of deposit into the Consumer Welfare Fund. Out of the entire profiteered amount of Rs. 4,64,849.74, an amount of Rs. 2,32,424.87 will be deposited into the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and the balance amount shall be deposited into the State Consumer Welfare Fund as per the Table-I given below. The Authority, as per Rule 136 of the CGST Rules, 2017, directs the DGAP and the respective Commissioners of both CGST and SGST to monitor this order by ensuring that the amount profiteered by the Respondent as ordered by the Authority, is deposited in the Consumer Welfare Funds within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order, along with interest failing w

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Haveli
28.37
Grand Total
232424.87
10. It is clear from the narration of the facts stated above that the Respondent has indulged in profiteering in violation of the provisions of  Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and has not passed on the benefit of reduction of tax as per the Notification 41/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 14.11.2017 in respect of the above products to his customers and therefore, he is liable for penalty under Rule 133(3)(d) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the relevant provisions of which state as under:-
“133. x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-xx-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-xx-x
(3) Where the Authority determines that a registered person has not passed on the benefit of the reduction in the rate of tax on the supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices, the
Authority may order –
(a) reduction in prices:
(b) return to the recipient, an amount equivalent to the amount not passed on by the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ovisions, the Respondent had not put forth any submissions on them except stating that he had not profiteered as has been discussed in para 5 above. As it is clear from the facts of the present case that the Respondent was fully aware of the Notification No. 41/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 whereby the rate of GST was reduced from 28% to 18% and he was also fully aware of Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017, whereby he was bound to pass on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax by commensurate reduction in the prices of the products in question, therefore he is liable for penalty. The Respondent has deliberately defied the law on the pretext that he had not increased the prices of his products when the rate of tax was increased to 28% and increased the base prices to maintain the same old selling price prior to reduction of rate of tax from 28% to 18%, by issuing wrong invoices to his recipients. Accordingly, he has committed an offence under section 122 (1) (i) of the abo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Detention order issued for non-compliance with Section 129(4); rectified after objections, no malafide intent found.
Case-Laws
GST
Detention order – non-compliance of the mandate under the provisions of Section 129(4) of the Act – The Proper Officer realizing the lacuna, has proceeded to pass the rectification order after taking into consideration the objections – Hence, no malafides can be attributed to the same.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, ale

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

RECENT AMENDMENTS IN GOODS AND SERVICES TAX RULES, 2017
By: – DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 15-1-2019

Vide Notification No. 74/2018-Central Tax, dated 31.12.2018 the Central Government made the Central Goods and Services Tax (Fourteenth Amendment) Rules, 2018 further to amend the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. These rules, unless otherwise stipulated, came into effect from 31.12.2018.
Grant of registration to persons required to deduct tax at source or to collect tax at source
Rule 12 provides the procedure for grant of registration to the persons required to deduct tax at source or to collect tax at source. The amendment inserted Rule 12(1A) after Rule 12(1). The newly inserted rule provides that a person applying for registration to collect tax in accordance with the provisions of section 52, in a State or Union territory where he does not have a physical presence, shall mention the name of the State or Union territory i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he supplier; or
* his authorized representative
shall not be required in the case of issuance of an electronic invoice in accordance with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Bill of supply
The amendment inserted third proviso to Rule 46. The newly inserted proviso provides that the signature or digital signature of-
* the supplier; or
* his authorized representative
shall not be required in the case of issuance of an electronic invoice in accordance with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Consolidated tax invoice
Rule 54(2) provides that where the supplier of taxable service is an insurer or a banking company or a financial institution, including a non-banking financial company, the said supplier may issue a consolidated tax invoice or any other document in lieu thereof, by whatever name called for the supply of services made during a month at the end of the month, whether issued or made available, physically or electronically whethe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the signature or digital signature of the supplier or his authorized representative shall not be required in the case of issuance of ticket in accordance with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Adjusted total turnover
Rule 89(5) provides that in the case of refund on account of inverted duty structure, refund of input tax credit shall be granted as per the following formula-
Maximum Refund Amount = {(Turnover of inverted rated supply of goods and services) x Net ITC ÷ Adjusted Total Turnover} – tax payable on such inverted rated supply of goods and services.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-rule, the expressions –
(a) Net ITC shall mean input tax credit availed on inputs during the relevant period other than the input tax credit availed for which refund is claimed under sub-rules (4A) or (4B) or both; and
(b) Adjusted Total turnover shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in sub-rule (4).
The amendment substituted clause (b) of Explan

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

words 'or part thereof' after the worlds 'financial year'.
Notice to person and order of revisional authority in case of revision
The amendment inserted Rule 109B. The newly inserted Rule 109B(1) provides that where the Revisional Authority decides to pass an order in revision under section 108 which is likely to affect the person adversely, the Revisional Authority shall serve on him a notice in FORM GST RVN-01 and shall give him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Rule 109B(2) provides that the Revisional Authority shall, along with its order under sub-section (1) of section 108, issue a summary of the order in FORM GST APL-04 clearly indicating the final amount of demand confirmed.
Changes in E-way Bill
The amendment substituted Explanation 1 to rule 138(1). The newly substituted Explanation 1 provides defines the term 'handicrafts'. The term 'handicrafts' is defined as having the meaning as assigned to it in the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, notification No.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

months.
The first proviso to this rule provides that the Commissioner may, on sufficient cause being shown and for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, allow furnishing of the said information in PART A of FORM GST EWB 01, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified by him.
The second proviso to this Rule provides that no order rejecting the request of such person to furnish the information in PART A of FORM GST EWB 01 under the first proviso shall be passed without affording the said person a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The third proviso to this rule provides that the permission granted or rejected by the Commissioner of State tax or Commissioner of Union territory tax shall be deemed to be granted or, as the case may be, rejected by the Commissioner.
The explanation to this Rule defines the term 'Commissioner' as the jurisdictional Commissioner in respect of the persons specified in clauses (a) and (b).
Forms
The amendment inserted the fol

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Seeks to amend notification No. FIN/REV-3/GST/1/08 (Pt-1)/52 dated the 26th October, 2017
FIN/REV-3/GST/1/08(Pt-1)(Vol.1)/18 Dated:- 15-1-2019 Nagaland SGST
GST – States
Nagaland SGST
Nagaland SGST
GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
(REVENUE BRANCH)
F.NO. FIN/REV-3/GST/1/08(Pt-1)(Vol.1)/18
Dated: 15th January, 2019
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 147 of the Nagaland Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (4 of 2017), the State Government, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of Nagaland, Finance Department (Revenue Branch), F.NO.FIN/REV-3/GST/1/08 (Pt-1)/52 dated the 26th October, 2017, namely:-
In the said notific

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mahle Engine Components Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST, C.E. & S.T., Indore
Central Excise
2019 (1) TMI 771 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 15-1-2019
Excise Appeal No. E/53163/2018 [SM] – FINAL ORDER No. 50046/2019
Central Excise
MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present for the Appellant: Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Mr. K. Poddar, DR
ORDER
PER: RACHNA GUPTA
M/s Mahle Engine Components Pvt. Ltd., the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Camshaft and Cylinder Liner. They are also availing the facility of cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and payment of duty on monthly basis as provided under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. During the course of audit of records of the appellants for the period from April 2013 to March 2016 it was observed that appellant have availed cenvat credit of service tax Rs. 5,84,363/- paid on Maintenance Charges recovered by M/s M.P. Audyogic Kendra Vikas Nigam (AKVN) In

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

re eligible input services, as the definition of input service does not mandate that the service should be availed in the factory premises. The reliance is placed on the decision reported as Commr. of C. Ex., Cus. & S.T., Visakhapatnam-I Vs. Facor Alloys Ltd. 2017 (48) STR 491 (Tri.-Hyd.). Further, such services were availed for the business of manufacture of excisable goods and the business was not possible without the use of such services and therefore these services were related to manufacture of goods and therefore eligible input service, maintenance amount being part of the lease rental of the business premises. Since, the lease rental charges of the business premises are eligible input services such services remain the eligible input services. The reliance is placed on the decision reported as Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. C.S.T., Mumbai-I 2016 (46) STR 120 (Tri.-Mum.).
3. From the argument of both the parties, the narrow compass of adjudication appears to be whether Maintenance Charg

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

turing activity of appellant is carried from the premises as are taken on rent. It is apparent from record that the impugned maintenance charges are the part of lease/ rent charges. M/s AKVN i.e. the leaser is also charging the service charges in their lease bills raised for lease amount and maintenance amount. Though the maintenance is for roads, street lights, drainage, etc. i.e. for facilities being provided beyond the manufacturing/ factory premises of appellant but the simultaneous fact is that such services are charged on the basis of per square meter of business premises occupied by the appellant. Hence, were very much the part of lease/ rent of the impugned premises. The lease/ rent charge are the eligible inputs, so are to my opinion the maintenance charges. I draw my support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Karnani Properties case as was relied upon by Tribunal Mumbai in the decision reported as 2016 (46) STR 30 wherein it is held that without maintenance of adjoini

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Seeks to amend notification No. 48/2017 to amend the meaning of Advance Authorisation
01/2019 Dated:- 15-1-2019 Central GST (CGST)
GST
CGST
CGST
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
[CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS]
Notification No. 1/2019-Central Tax
New Delhi, the 15th January, 2019
G.S.R. 33 (E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 147 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Central Government, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue No. 48/2017-Central Tax dated the 18th October, 2017 published in the Gazette

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

RCM-Applicability to a Trader
Query (Issue) Started By: – swamynathan pitchai Dated:- 14-1-2019 Last Reply Date:- 14-1-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 2 Replies
GST
Dear sir
A is the manufacturer at GJ.
B is the End user at TN ordered a product X on A.
B intend to transport X from A's place at GJ to B's project site at MH.
Trading firm C (Only GST registered – sole proprietorship firm) @ KA intend to take this order from B. Since C does not have vehicles C wants to utilise the service of GTA. Hence C introduces a GTA D and offload the order. C is the authorised agent of D to promote their business formally entered an agreement.
C receives the order from B and offload to D
D will raise the bill to C and C w

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Recommendations & decision taken by GST Council in meeting held on 10.01.2019.
By: – Ganeshan Kalyani
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 14-1-2019

New Cess in the State of Kerala:
* Revenue Mobilization for Natural Calamities: GST Council approved Levy of Cess on Intra-State Supply of Goods and Services within the State of Kerala at a rate not exceeding 1% for a period not exceeding 2 years.
Composition Scheme:
Increase in Turnover Limit: The limit of Annual Turnover in the preceding Financial Year for availing Composition Scheme for Goods shall be increased from ₹ 1 crore to ₹ 1.5 crore. This change will be made operational from the 1st of April, 2019.
Compliance Simplification: The compliance under Com

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

axes along with a Simple Declaration.
* The above changes will be made operational from the 1st of April, 2019.
Composition Scheme to Residential Segment and tax on lotteries.
* A seven Member Group of Ministers shall be constituted to examine the proposal of giving a Composition Scheme to Boost the Residential Segment of the Real Estate Sector.
* And a Group of Ministers shall be constituted to examine the GST Rate Structure on Lotteries.
Threshold limit for registration:
Higher Exemption Threshold Limit for Supplier of Goods: There would be two threshold Limits for exemption from Registration and Payment of GST for the suppliers of Goods i.e. ₹ 40 lakhs and ₹ 20 lakhs. States would have an option to decide about on

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =