GST Applies to Energy-Efficient Street Lighting Services with Infrastructure; Not Exempt as “Pure Services” Due to Goods Involvement.

GST Applies to Energy-Efficient Street Lighting Services with Infrastructure; Not Exempt as “Pure Services” Due to Goods Involvement.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of GST – Supply of goods or not – pure services – providing energy efficient street lighting services with infrastructure to BMC – pure service should mean pure unadulterated service not mixed with any other element (in this case without any mixture of goods) – Benefit of exemption is not available.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick n

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bounce Charges Under GST: Considered Supply and Liable to Tax as Penalty or Liquidated Damages.

Bounce Charges Under GST: Considered Supply and Liable to Tax as Penalty or Liquidated Damages.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of GST – penalty/ liquidated damages – supply of service or not – Whether th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

APPELLATE ADVANCE RULINGS IN GST ON SOLAR PLANTS

APPELLATE ADVANCE RULINGS IN GST ON SOLAR PLANTS
By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 21-12-2018

The orders of Appellate Advance Ruling Authority (AAAR) have started pouring in. In this article, to recent Appellate advance rulings on solar power plants and works contracts in relation thereto are discussed.
Appellate advance ruling on works contract and rate of GST (AAR ruling affirmed )
M/s. Fermi Solar Farms Private Ltd. (Appellant) is engaged in operation of renewable energy power plant projects. These typically include operation of solar power plants set up across India for generation and distribution of electricity generated. The appellant is emerging as a leading builder of renewable energy projects.
The Appellant filed an Application for Advance Ruling for seeking clarification basis the draft contracts of the Appellant, in view of the provisions of 'composite supply' and the rate of tax provided for Solar Power Generating Syst

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

and operation of a solar photovoltaic plant which is in the nature of a 'works contract' in terms of clause (119) of Section 2 of the GST Act, and hence, should be taxable at the rate of 18%
* In the absence of any documents, the AAR was not able to deal with the question regarding applicability of concessional rate of tax on parts of solar power generating system in the present proceedings.
* With regard to the question whether benefit of concessional rate of 5% of SPGS and parts thereof would be available to sub-contractors, it was held that no documents were provided and hence this question was not dealt with in the proceedings.
Being aggrieved by the advance ruling, the Appellant preferred the appeal before AAAR belatedly as the AAAR was not constituted. The AAAR condoned the delay.
It was ruled that the agreements tendered in support of this question are for setting up and operation of a solar photovoltaic plant and are in the nature of a 'works contract' in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ant entered into contracts with various Developers who desired to set up and operate solar photovoltaic plants for supply of power generated. In various cases, the Appellant also is a Project developer wherein it is engaged in operation of renewable energy power plant projects.
Typically, a contract is entered into by the Appellant to do end to end setting up of a solar power plant which includes supply of various goods (such as modules, structures, inverter transformer etc.) as well as complete design, engineering and transportation, unloading, storage and site handling, installation and commissioning of all equipments and material, complete project management, civil works/construction related services for setting up of a functional solar power plant.
In the instant case, the contract entered into by the Appellant included end to end activities i.e. supply of various goods and services and hence is for the supply of solar power generating system.
The intent of the contract is that

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

site supply. There is a supply of goods and services. They are naturally bundled in the sense that the goods and services may be required to fulfill the intention of the buyer in giving the contract. The supply of goods and services are provide as a package and the different elements are integral to flow of supply i.e. one or more is removed, the nature of the supply would be affected. Thus, from a reading of the entire contract as well as from the definition of composite supply what can be easily gathered is that the buyer has given a contract for setting up Solar Power Generating Supply to the appellant and therefore, it is single composite supply of goods and services and installation thereof.
The contract for providing the design, procurement, supply, development, testing and commissioning of the plant which includes the supply of both goods and services is a composite supply as per the definition in the Act. There are two taxable supplies- one of goods and the other of services a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

IN RE: ASHOK RUBBER INDUSTRIES

IN RE: ASHOK RUBBER INDUSTRIES
GST
2019 (2) TMI 1007 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS WEST BENGAL – 2019 (21) G. S. T. L. 236 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS WEST BENGAL – AAR
Dated:- 21-12-2018
Case No. 37/2018 – Order No. 26/WBAAR/2018-19
GST
S/Shri Parthasarathi Dey and Sydney D'Silva, Members
Shri Nitin Shah, Authorized Representative, for the Assessee.
ORDER
The Applicant, stated to be a manufacturer of rice polisher made of flexible and elastic rubber, seeks a ruling on classification of the goods. Advance Ruling is admissible under Section 97(2)(a) of the CGST/WBGST Acts, 2017 (hereinafter referred to, collectively, as “the GST Act”).
The Applicant submits that the question raised in the A

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

hibits this Authority from admitting any application where the question raised is already pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of the applicant under any provisions of the GST Act. It does not distinguish between stages or nature of the proceedings. Any action lawfully taken under any provisions of the GST Act is, therefore, to be construed as proceedings under the Act.
It appears from records that the Application was filed online on 22-11-2018, whereas, as the above central authority submits, the proceedings under Section 71 had been initiated on 31-7-2018. The Applicant did not dispute that officials from the concerned authority had visited his places in connection with the investigation, and its subject matter was the same

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCGST, Mumbai South

M/s. Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCGST, Mumbai South
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 510 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 21-12-2018
Appeal No. ST/86636/2018 – A/88167/2018
Service Tax
Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial)
Shri Rajiv Luthia, CA for the appellant
Shri O.M. Shivdikar, AC (AR) for the respondent
ORDER
Denial of cenvat credit on service tax paid against unregistered premises taken on rent is the subject matter of this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case is that appellant is a Private Ltd. Company engaged in manufacturing and providing services as commission agent for principals located outside India against which it receives commission charges in convertible foreign exchange. Appellant availed cenvat credit on service tax paid on input services of renting of immovable property namely premises no. 67 at Atlanta, Nariman Point, Mumbai and premises no. 65. Input credit against premises no. 67 was refused as it was unregistered p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

or reversal of cenvat credit as per Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, it should not have refused credit on renting of premises. Referring to the orders-in-original passed in respect of both the show-cause notices vide annexure 7 and 8, the ld. Counsel for the appellant also argued that principle of equity and fair play demand that the department should stick to its stand and not to jumble up different provisions in demanding duty from both the counts. Referring to judicial decision in the case of CST vs. Pangea 3 Legal Database Systems Pvt. Ltd. and order passed by this Tribunal on 02.08.2018 in respect of the same issue of the appellant for the subsequent period, the ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that credit availed by the appellant against renting of unregistered premises was admissible for which he prays for setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. In response to such submissions, ld. AR for the department has not only supported the reasoning and rational

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

er-in-original concerning reversal of cenvat credit under Rule 6(3)(1), the adjudicating authority vide order dated 23.08.2016 in para 15 has given his finding that the assessee had not submitted any documentary evidence to support the claim that premises no. 67 is not used for providing exempted services or manufacturing activities and ultimately he confirmed the reversal of proportionate credit as demanded in the show-cause. If this is the finding of the adjudicating authority, it is not understood as to how, he being the same person in position passed another order just two days before on 23.08.2016 stating that renting of premises at unit no. 67 has no nexus with the output service which is provided by the assessee from unit no. 65. Admittedly, appellant has reversed the credit basing on Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules in proportion to its dutiable and exempted services. This being the factual position and the documents on record, it cannot be said that appellant is to be penalise

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Omax Autos Ltd., Gurgaon Versus State of Haryana and others

M/s Omax Autos Ltd., Gurgaon Versus State of Haryana and others
GST
2019 (1) TMI 416 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – 2019 (21) G. S. T. L. 148 (P & H)
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 21-12-2018
CWP-37912-2018
GST
MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ.
For The Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Bahl, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate and Mr. Nikhil Sabharwal, Advocate
ORDER
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow its claim for transfer of eligible transitional credit amounting to Rs. 9.83 crores or to decide the representations (Annexure P-11 Colly) moved by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is registered under the GST in the State of Haryana having registration No.GSTN 06AAACO2190C3ZB and is also registered under the Haryana VAT Act, 2003, Central Excise Act, 1944 a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

P-6 Colly) regarding the non-reflection of balance Cenvat Credit carried forword in the last return and for manually submission of GSTR-3B and Trans-I due to GSTN problem, but no response has been received till date. Since the petitioner had a credit of Rs. 1.68 crores on account of invoices raised by the vendors/service providers during July, 2017 for input/input services provided prior to 1.7.2017, the Form Tran-I originally filed by the petitioner on 25.8.2017 was revised on 27.12.2017 and the revised Tran-I (Annexure P-8) was submitted vide e-mail dated 27.12.2017 (Annexure P-7) upon which respondent No.1 assigned ARN as AA061217021933E. The petitioner also furnished details of total Cenvat Credit of Rs. 9.83 crores. As the ITC was not being reflected while punching other parts of Form Tran-1, the petitioner was unable to claim the ITC under the GST Act. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs vide circular dated 3.4.2018 (Annexure P-9) notified an IT Grievance Redressal Me

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nd the IT Redressal Committee constituted for that purpose. In view of the circular dated 3.4.2018 (Annexure P-9) and the order (Annexure P-10) passed by this Court, the petitioner vide letters dated 21.5.2018, 3.8.2018 and 16.8.2018 (Annexure P-11 Colly) to respondent No.6 for redressal of its grievances, but to no effect.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has moved the representations dated 21.5.2018, 3.8.2018 and 16.8.2018 (Annexure P-11 Colly) before respondent No.6, but no action has so far been taken thereon.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.6 to forward the representations dated 21.5.2018, 3.8.2018 and 16.8.2018 (Annexure P-11 Colly) to the IT Redressal Committee concerned within next fifteen days after verification by the GSTN

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. PORT LAND IMPEX Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO. V, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX COMPLEX, KENATHUPARAMBU, KERALA

M/s. PORT LAND IMPEX Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO. V, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX COMPLEX, KENATHUPARAMBU, KERALA
GST
2019 (1) TMI 24 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 21-12-2018
WP (C). No. 42261 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : ADV. SRI. M. S. SAJEEV KUMAR
For The Respondent : DR THUSHARA JAMES, GP
JUDGMENT
The petitioner imported car accessories from China, cleared the goods through Chennai Port, and transported them to Ernakulam, based on the Ext.P4 e-way bill and Ext.P7 invoice. The vehicle and the goods were detained by the respondent authorities as per the Ext.P5 proceedings, and demanded penalty under Ext.P6. Aggrie

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

HUSKY INJENCTION 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, P

HUSKY INJENCTION 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, ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, SQUAD NO. 1, KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD
GST
2019 (1) TMI 23 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 21-12-2018
WP (C). No. 41535 of 2018
GST
MR. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : ADVS. SRI. RAJESH NAIR AND SRI. JOSEPH PRABAKAR
For The Respondent : GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, an assessee under the GST Act in Tamil Nadu, sent goods across to the State. The Assistant State Tax Officer int

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

can accept the tax and penalty as demanded by them (subject to the right of the petitioner to challenge the same) from the petitioner only through the registered GST Portal of the petitioner.
(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or directions, directing the respondent to release the goods to the petitioner as per the conditions as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.
2. This case, as the Government Pleader submits, is covered by a Division Bench's judgment in Renji Lal Damodaran v. State Tax Officer Judgment dated 06.08.2018 in W.A. No.1640 of 2018. But before I consider that aspect, I must note the peculiarity of this case. The petitioner-Company is a dealer with its registration in Tamil Nadu. When it w

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Nirman Estate Developers Private Limited Versus Union of India and ors.

Nirman Estate Developers Private Limited Versus Union of India and ors.
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1442 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – TMI
BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 21-12-2018
WRIT PETITION NO. 3357 OF 2018
GST
AKIL KURESHI AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
Mr. Abhishek Rastogi with Mr. Ankit Shah with Ms. Rashmi Deshpande i/by M/s. Khaitan & Co. for the Petitioner.
Mr. V.A. Sonpal, Special counsel for Respondent No.3.  
P.C.:
1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges Notification No.4 of 2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25th January, 2018 and Notification No.4 of 2018-State Tax (Rate) dated 25th January, 2018. The basic grievance of the Petitioner is that the notifications seek to bring the tax an acti

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Shafi Khan Khokhar Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Shafi Khan Khokhar Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1354 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 513 (Bom.)
BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 21-12-2018
WRIT PETITION NO. 2951 OF 2018
GST
AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
Mr. Anand Mishra i/by Mr. A.M.Saraogi for the Petitioner
Mr. Amit Shastri, AGP for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly a/w Mr. J.B. Mishra for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3  
P.C.:
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge an enquiry initiated by respondent No. 2 – The Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise (AE) Mumbai. This by issuing summons to him dated 28.9.2018 under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 70 of th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

etitioner has taken registration under the CGST Act 2017 & Finance Act, 1994 (service tax) in Mumbai. Thus, having taken registration, he is subject to the jurisdiction of Mumbai authorities in respect of the business which he has carried out within jurisdiction of the authority. It is the case of the petitioner that primarily his business is at Jaipur. This, however, would not determine the issue of whether or not respondent No. 2 has jurisdiction. This is more particularly so as Section 25 of the CGST Act 2017 provides for a separate registration in respect of each state. Once registration has been taken in Mumbai and some services have been rendered in Mumbai, then the petitioner is subject to the jurisdiction of Mumbai Authorities. Thus

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Adlabs Entertainment Limited Versus Union of India

Adlabs Entertainment Limited Versus Union of India
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1353 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – 2019 (27) G. S. T. L. 351 (Bom.)
BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 21-12-2018
WRIT PETITION NO. 3027 OF 2018
GST
AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
Mr. Abhishek Rastogi a/w Mr. Ankit Shah, Ms. Rashmi Deshpande i/by Khaitan & Co for the Petitioner
Mr. S.P. Bharti for Respondent No. 5
Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly a/w Mr. J.B. Mishra for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2  
P.C.:
1. Petitioner, a limited company, has set up a theme park and water park at Khalapur, Maharashtra by making sizable capital investment. As a part of the tourism policy of the State Government, the petitioner was o

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he petitioner would now have to pay tax @ 18% of GST at par with other entities. According to the petitioner, this made the petitioner's business totally unviable. The petitioner had borrowed funds from banks and financial institutions for making capital investment which the petitioner was unable to repay on time.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted incentive under the state tourism policy. The petitioner was unable to recover even its capital investment because the entire tax structure changed with the advent of GST. Under similar circumstances, the State of Rajasthan has issued notification granting partial relief to the similar industries. Learned counsel states that even the State of Utta

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re: Pew Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

In Re: Pew Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1277 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS WEST BENGAL – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 660 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS WEST BENGAL – AAR
Dated:- 21-12-2018
29/WBAAR/2018-19 Case No. 27 of 2018
GST
SYDNEY D'SILVA AND PARTHASARATHI DEY MEMBER
Applicant's representative heard: Sri Sandeep Choraria, Advocate Sri Akshat Agarwal, Advocate
1. The Applicant, stated to have received a tender from the Indian Railways (hereinafter referred to as “the Contractee”) for retro-fitment of Twin Pipe Air Brake Systems on wagons, seeks a Ruling as to whether such activity under contract is to be treated as Composite Contract or Works Contract, and If it is determined to be a Composite Contact, whether the Principal Supply will be the supply of the Twin Pipe Air Brake Systems or the supply of services of fitting these goods to the wagons, and what should be the appropriate classification of the supply and rate of tax.
Advance

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

do on-site inspection of fabrication and assembly at various stages of the work in progress and also the final inspection of the complete wagon before issuance of the completion/inspection certificate for each wagon. The Applicant shall provide the necessary facilities for the inspection.
Scrap generated during fabrication and assembly work shall be retained by the Contractee.
3. The Applicant argues that the contract is a single indivisible contract for a Composite Supply, where the supply of goods (i.e. the twin pipe air brake systems) is the Principal Supply constituting about 90% of the contract value, and, hence, should be treated as the predominant element of the supply.
The service of fitting the brake to the wagon, the Applicant submits, is ancillary to the supply of these goods.
4. The contract is for retro-fitment of twin pipe air brake system on wagons. Retro-fitment of twin pipe air brake system involves supply of goods, the air brake system, and supply of service for

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

y. No payment is made separately for the supply of goods. Also, the provision for on account payment based on progress of work indicates that the supply of goods is inseparably linked with the supply of service. Mere delivery of the Twin Pipe Air Brake Systems is not sufficient discharge of contractual obligation. Work is measured based on its assembling and fitting on the wagon. In fact, the contract is not only for supply of the air brake system, but also for its retro-fitment. It is, therefore, evident that the two supplies, as far as the terms of this contract, are naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business.
6. In the context of the contract, the supply of the service of fitting the Twin Pipe Air Brake Systems to the wagon cannot be made unless the goods have already been supplied. The supply of services of the fitting is, therefore, dependent upon and ancillary to supply of the Twin Pipe Air Brake Systems. Predominant supply is, therefore, of the Twin Pipe Air Brake Sys

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

y of Twin Pipe Air Brake Systems.
8. Twin Pipe Air Brake System is classifiable under Tariff Head 8607 21 00 [Parts of Railway….Air Brakes and part thereof] which is taxable @ 5% under Serial No. 241 of Schedule I of Notification No. 01/2017 – CT (Rate) dated 28/06/2017 with no benefit of refund of the unutilized input tax credit (as per TRU Clarification issued under F.No.354/1/2018-TRU dated 25/01/2018).
In view of the foregoing we rule as under
RULING
The Applicant's contract for retro-fitment of Twin Pipe Air Brake System on Railway Wagons is to be treated as Composite Supply, where the Twin Pipe Air Brake System is the Principal Supply.
Twin Pipe Air Brake System is classifiable under Tariff Head 8607 21 00 and is taxable @ 5% [in terms of Serial No. 241 of Schedule I of Notification No. 01/2017 – CT (Rate) dated 28/06/2017] with no refund of the unutilized input tax credit [as clarified in TRU Clarification issued under F.No.354/1/2018-TRU dated 25/01/2018].
This Ruling i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re: Swapna Printing Works Private Limited

In Re: Swapna Printing Works Private Limited
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1227 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 663 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL – AAR
Dated:- 21-12-2018
28/WBAAR/2018-19 Case No. 26 of 2018
GST
SYDNEY D'SILVA AND PARTHASARATHI DEY MEMBER
Applicant's Representative: Indranil Das, CA
1. The Applicant, stated to be engaged primarily in the business of printing, seeks a ruling on whether activities undertaken by procuring orders from a foreign party to print religious texts and thereafter deliver them to various places in India can be classified as “supply of goods” or “supply of services”.
The Applicant also seeks a Ruling as to whether this activity can be classified as “export”.
Advance Ruling is admissible on the first question under section 97(2)(a) of the CGST/ WBGST Acts, 2017 (hereinafter referred to, collectively, as “the GST Act”).
The definition of “export” however, falls under sect

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

inting and binding Bibles. The version of the Bible is specified by the customer under the Evangelistic version of the text.
Under the Berne Convention copyright is granted to the author on the creation of work, but in the case of religious texts copyrights are granted to editions if they are unique or are translations. In the United Kingdom, the King James' Version of the Bible is covered by a Crown Copyright.
The Gideons International uses the King James' version of the Bible and distributes various editions of the same. The versions the Applicant prints for The Gideons International mention the name of the organization and establish their rights on those versions.
3. It is clear from the above that the rights of the content of the printed matter do not lie with the Applicant. At best it can be said that the Applicant is providing a composite supply wherein the supply of printing a content, rights of which lie with another and thus debarring all likelihood of transfer of title fro

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ing is found to the contrary, will be leviable to GST @ 12% under Serial No. 27(i) of Notification No 11/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended by Notification No 31/2017-CT(Rate) dated 13.10.2017.
5. The Applicant submits photocopies of purchase orders received from The Gideons International (PO18449 dated 23/02/2018 and PO18765 dated 31/08/2018), and Tax Invoice No. 29/08/2018 dated 29/08/2016, as a prototype of such invoices. The analysis of the transactions is, therefore, based on the Applicant's written submission and the above-mentioned purchase orders and prototypes of tax invoices.
It appears from the purchase orders that printed copies of the Bible are required to be delivered to the recipient's branch in India. This apart, as evident from the tax invoice and from the Applicant's written submission, persons specified by the recipient and located in India also take delivery on behalf of The Gideons International. Such persons, who receive the supply on belalf of the reci

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

IGST Act.
Furthermore, both the purchase orders and the tax invoice are in INR. Although the Applicant argues that the consideration is being received in US dollars, he has not clarified nor produced any evidence of how payment for purchase orders in INR and tax invoice raised in INR are made in foreign currency. It raises doubt about violation of condition under clause (d) of Section 2(6) of the IGST Act as well.
The Applicant, therefore, is making domestic supplies, on which he is liable to pay GST.
In view of the foregoing, we rule as under
RULING
The Applicant's activity of printing the Bible under the specific orders received from The Gideons International is a supply of service classifiable under SAC 9989.
The above service is supplied to the recipient located in India and the consideration is apparently received in INR. The Applicant is, therefore, liable to pay GST under the appropriate Act on such supplies.
This Ruling is valid subject to the provisions under Section 10

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re: RITES Limited

In Re: RITES Limited
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1226 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 657 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL – AAR
Dated:- 21-12-2018
27/WBAAR/2018-19 Case No. 28 of 2018
GST
SYDNEY D'SILVA AND PARTHASARATHI DEY MEMBER
Applicant's representative heard:  Shri Anmol Gupta, CA
1. The Applicant, stated to be a Consulting Engineer rendering services related to engineering consultancy and monitoring agency to a large number of projects, both of the Government and of the Private Sector, seeks a ruling on whether the rate of GST for the construction of railway siding will be under Sl. No 3(v)(a) or Sl No 3(xiii) of Notification no 11/2017-CT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (and analogous notification issued under the WBGST Act), as amended, as applicable (hereinafter referred to as “the Rate Notification”) under the CGST/WBGST Acts, 2017 (hereinafter referred to, collectively, as “the GST Act”).
Advance Ruli

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

for passing the bills of the vendors and contractors after necessary scrutiny, and making the payments from a specially designated escrow account in which DVC deposits the requisite amount, and deduction of statutory taxes and deposit of the same, issuance of tax deduction certificates etc.
3. In support of his submissions, the Applicant has provided a copy of the agreement with DVC. It is an agreement to undertake Engineering and Construction Management Service for construction of Railway Infrastructure including commissioning of the railway system and advance procurement of railway section and P. way materials. The Construction Management includes procurement of Rails and PSC sleepers with fittings, points and crossings, track fitting etc, construction of railway formation and bridges and procurement of stone ballast as per specifications of the Indian Railways, laying of new P. way with Points and Crossings, procurement and installation of electrical equipment etc. Apart from track

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of original works pertaining to railways, including monorail and metro, is taxable @ 12%. Original work, as defined under para 2(zs) of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28/06/2017, means all new construction involving (i) all types of additions and alterations to abandoned or damaged structures on land that are required to make them workable, and (ii) erection, commissioning or installation of plant, machinery or equipment or structures, whether pre-fabricated or otherwise.
The term “railways” is not defined in the GST Act. It, however, is defined under section 2(31) of the Railways Act, 1989, meaning “a railway, or any portion of a railway, for the public carriage of passengers or goods, and includes
(a) All lands within the fences or other boundary marks indicating the limits of the land appurtenant to a railway;
(b) All lines of rails, sidings, or yards, or branches used for the purpose of, or in connection with, a railway;
(c) All electric traction equipment, power supp

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

en, but covers, Government Railway under section 2(20) and Non-Government Railway under section 2(25) of the Act. It, therefore, includes scope for railways under both Government and private administrations.
5. It is evident from the above discussion that the scope of work, as outlined in the Applicant's agreement with DVC, is that of works contract, as defined under section 2(119) of the GST Act, fit to be called an 'original work' within the meaning ascribed to the term in para 2(zs) of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28/06/2017, and pertains to 'railways', provided it is meant for public carriage of passengers or goods.
6. Whether the phrase “public carriage of passenger or goods” prevents a private siding from being included in the definition of 'railways' has repeatedly come up for judicial scrutiny. The courts generally held that the phrase 'public carriage of passengers or goods' cannot be construed in such manner as to exclude from the ambit of 'railways' the sidings

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

y meaning that may add more exclusion than specifically provided under section 2(31)(ii) of the Railways Act, 1989.
DVC – a public sector undertaking – is the owner of the railway siding being built. It is meant for carriage of coal and oil fuel to RTPS. The purpose of the carriage of goods is, therefore, not recreation, but producing public goods like electricity. It is, therefore, not excluded under section 2(31)(ii) of the Railways Act, 1989.
The construction of the private siding that the Applicant refers to, therefore, pertains to 'railways'.
In view of the foregoing, we rule as under
RULING
Construction of a private railway siding for carriage of coal and oil fuel to Raghunathpur TPS, as described in the agreement between the Applicant and DVC, is a composite supply of works contract taxable @ 12% under Serial No 3(v)(a) of Notification no 11/2017-CT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
This Ruling is valid subject to the provisions under Section 103(2) until and unless declared void un

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

SHRI SHIRDI SAI TRAVELS Versus CCT, CE&ST, MEDCHAL GST

SHRI SHIRDI SAI TRAVELS Versus CCT, CE&ST, MEDCHAL GST
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 1189 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 21-12-2018
APPEAL No. ST/31173/2018 – A/31589/2018
Service Tax
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Shri M.V.S. Sridhar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent /AR for the Respondent.
ORDER
Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS-MD- AP2-0058-18-19-ST, dated 30.08.2018.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding the amount of tax to be paid on the services rendered by the appellant to SEZ Unit.
4. Appellant herein, during the period in question from 01.04.2011 to 30.06.2012 rendered the services of Tour Operator Services/Rent-a-cab service to EI Dupont Services India Pvt. Ltd. The said EI Dupont Services India Limited was an unit situated and functioned as an SEZ and are enti

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nded interest. The first appellate authority also dismissed the appeal only on the ground that SEZ unit M/s EI Dupont had not filed the declaration required under notification No. 9/2009-ST to the authorised authorities and the same was not produced before the authorities.
5. On perusal of records, I find that the services is rendered by appellant to SEZ unit and the said SEZ unit is authorised to receive the services without payment of service tax. The provisions of Section 51 of the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 mandates that the provisions of SEZ Act shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any act. The provisions of Section 26 of SEZ Act mandates for exemption of service tax, draw backs and concessions to developer. On holistic reading, the services rendered to an SEZ unit are not taxable, is the settled law. In my view, there being no dispute that the services rendered by the appellant to an unit in SEZ who was supposed to follow the provisions of t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ication No. 9/2009- S.T., dated 3-3-2009 for the services provided inside SEZ. Before this amendment also, exemption was available to the service recipient by way of refund by the service recipient subject to certain conditions. In this regard, appellant has relied upon the judgment of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. CCE & ST (LTU), Mumbai (supra), under which it was held that even if a service provider was not required to pay duty as per the amended provisions of Notification No. 9/2009-S.T. but paid for some reasons then the service provider was entitled to refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On the same analogy when services supplied to SEZ are considered as services provided inside a SEZ unit, there is no Service Tax liability on such deemed export as held by CESTAT in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad [(T.-Bang.)].
6.The appellant has further relied upon the judgment of Intas Pharma Ltd. v. CST, Ahmedabad (supra) holding that in vie

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of Service Tax, remitted by taxable service providers in relation to the taxable services provided to a unit in a SEZ. On this harmonious construction, the immunity to Service Tax provided under Section 7 or 26 of the 2005 Act cannot be so Interpreted as to be eclipsed the procedural prescriptions of Notification No. 9/2009 or 15/2009. These notifications are calibrated to enable recipients of taxable services (exempt from liability to tax under the provisions of the 2005 Act), to claim refund of the Service Tax, wherever assessed and collected by Revenue or remitted otherwise by the taxable service provider, inadvertently. Considered in the light of this analysis, the substituted provisions, of clause/sub-paragraph 'C' of Notification No. 15/2009 cannot be inferred to have imposed any disability on the recipient of services consumed wholly within the SEZ, from seeking refund of Service Tax remitted on such transactions, by the providers of such services.”
It is also relevant to quot

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

PRECISION ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS MANUFACTURING COMPANY Versus CCT, SECUNDERABAD GST

PRECISION ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS MANUFACTURING COMPANY Versus CCT, SECUNDERABAD GST
Central Excise
2018 (12) TMI 1177 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 21-12-2018
APPEAL No. E/30418/2018 – A/31590/2018
Central Excise
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Shri P. Venkata Prasad, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant.
Shri A.V.L.N. Chary, Superintendent /AR for the Respondent.
ORDER
Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS-SC- AP2-0173-17-18-ST, dated 09.01.2018.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The relevant facts that arise for consideration, after filtering out unnecessary details are appellants are manufacturers of Wire Wound Resistors and Potentiometers; were availing the CENVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs, capital goods and input services as per the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; during an audit it was noticed that appellants had availed irregular CENVA

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

llate authority also held the same view.
4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I find that identical issue came up before the Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Imperial Auto Industries [2017-TIOL-2446-CESTAT-CHD]. The entire judgment of the Tribunal is reproduced.
“The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles parts. During the course of scrutiny of the records, it was observed that the respondent availed credit on courier/freight services used for delivery/transportation of the goods from port of export to foreign buyers premises. Thereafter, the show cause notice issued to deny the credit to the respondent. The adjudication took place and the demand was confirmed along with interest and penalty was also imposed. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the goods have been sold by the appellant on Delivered Duty Paid (DDP) basis

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Cx dt.28.2.2015 and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Khanna Industrial Pipes Pv.Ltd.-2016 (43) STR 209 (Tri.-Mum.).
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the contention of the learned AR an submits that the case of Khanna Industrial Pipes Pv. Ltd. is not relevant to the facts of the present case as in that case, the assessee took the credit on business support service, namely, terminal handling charges and documentation charges. In the said case, it is not coming out whether the goods have been delivered to the destination of the buyer or not and delivered the goods upto the premises of the buyers. The ownership remains with the seller or not. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. She further submits that in the case of Ambuja Cements (Supra), the Hon'ble High Court has relied on the CBEC circular No.999/6/2015-Cx dt.28.2.2015 wherein it has been stated that if the cost of service has been included by the asses

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ding over of the goods to the carrier/transporter for further delivery of the goods to the buyer, with the seller not reserving the right of disposal of the goods, would lead to passing on of the property in goods from the seller to the buyer and it is the factory gate or the warehouse or the depot of the manufacturer which would be the place of removal since it is here that the goods are handed over to the transporter for the purpose of transmission to the buyer. It is in this backdrop that the eligibility to Cenvat Credit on related input services has to be determined.
7. It is clarified in the above circular that if the seller does not reserve its right for delivery of the goods then destination in the case is the port of export is place of removal of the goods. The same is not in the case in hand. In fact, the respondent has sold the goods on Delivered Duty Paid basis which means that the seller bear all the cost and risks involved in bringing the goods to the place of destinatio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST on Sales Incentive

GST on Sales Incentive
Query (Issue) Started By: – Raja Sekhar Dated:- 20-12-2018 Last Reply Date:- 21-12-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 2 Replies
GST
I am Distributor of Engine oils, i received Sales inventive amount through Cheque, is gst applicable on sales incentive, if yes what is the section and rule ,rate of tax and HSN Code
Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN:
The Reply:
If incentive/discount is agreed to between by the seller and the buyer in writing it is exempted.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input credit on Capital goods and Furniture & Fixture & Repair of Building & others

Input credit on Capital goods and Furniture & Fixture & Repair of Building & others
Query (Issue) Started By: – Sanjoy Das Dated:- 20-12-2018 Last Reply Date:- 23-12-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 5 Replies
GST
Pls clarify the input credit is available under GST of below mentioned queries :
a. Repairing of Office building / Guest house/ Employees building.
b. Painting of office building / Guest House/ Employees Building
c. Furniture & Fixture used in office purpose.
d. Furniture & Fixture used for employee benefit purpose.
Regards
Sanjoy Das
Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN:
The Reply:
In my view, if the said expenses are met for furtherance of business, then input tax credit is allowed.
Reply By KASTURI SETHI

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

basic requirements for running the business.It is not possible to run business without these goods and services. One has to read carefully legal definition of 'Plant & Machinery,' 'Business' ''in the course of business' and ''furtherance of business'. If any capital goods or services falls in the exclusion clause, ITC will not be allowed even though fitted in the definition of above terms. Definitions of Plant & Machinery and business have been provided in GST Acts but no definition has been given for "in the course of business" and "furtherance of business". Legal definitions can be resorted to for these. After a lot of deliberations, I am of the view that the party can prove the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

NON – PASSING OF ITC BENEFIT IS PROFITEERING UNDER GST

NON – PASSING OF ITC BENEFIT IS PROFITEERING UNDER GST
By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 20-12-2018

In yet another complaint against M/s Theco India Pvt. Ltd. for contravention of section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 on anti-profiteering measures, the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) vide its Order dated 28.11.2018 has ordered that the company had wrongly charged higher price without reducing the base price to the extent of Counter- Veiling Duty (CVD) @ 12.5 percent in pre-GST regime and ITC being allowed under GST regime on IGST paid on products. It also directed for imposition of penalty and directed further investigation by the DGAP to cover all products supplied by the company to unearth and quantify the benefit which it might have failed to pass on to the customers.
Brief Facts
In Crown Express Dental Lab, Ranchi & DGAP, Delhi v. Theco India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai 2018 (12) TMI 135 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY ; a comp

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ice (C=A+B)
59,06,000/-
Freight (D= 2% of 'C' above)
1,18,120/-
Price (including Freight = C+D)
60,24,120
Plus CST (2%)
Further, tax invoice dated 06.09.2015 (in GST regime) revealed as under:
Description
Price (in Rs.)
Lava Mill CNC 240 and accessories (A)
45,55,320/-
Lava Materials approved Sintering Furnace D664 (B)
14,68,800/-
Total price (C=A+B)
60,24,120/-
IGST (18%)
10,84,342/-
Price (including Tax)
71,08,462/-
Company Submissions
The company denied the allegations in complaint and submitted that:
* In GST regime, Custom Duty was reduced to 7.5% and its benefit was given to buyer.
* ITC can be claimed by buyer and it is wrong to claim that not price had increased.
* An additional discount was offered to offset any adverse GST impact, as such product was sold for the first time.
* It had imported goods under GST regime and had not claimed any transitional credit thereon.
* There had been an increase in taxable value of machine w.e.f. January

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

have formed part of the cost of the above items.
However, import was made on 31.08.2018 in GST period when CVD and SAD were subsumed in IGST and entire amount of IGST @ 18% paid on import was eligible for Input Tax Credit (ITC). DGAP opined that company should have reduced the base price to the extent of the CVD that was no longer to be paid as well as to the extent of the IGST, the credit of which was available to it.
Thus, it was proved that the base price of the above items had remained the same, i.e., ₹ 60,24,120/- as per the quotation dated 28.11.2016 and the base price was not reduced to the extent of CVD that was not to be paid after the implementation of the GST.
Further, since the import had taken place post GST, company was not required to pay CVD and therefore taxable value should have been reduced commensurately. The amount of profiteering done by the supplier company was ₹ 478085.
NAA Findings
NAA observed that though company had argued for supply of add

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

id in order to neutralise the impact of ITC which was available to the company. The NAA therefore, concluded that amount profiteered by the supplier for two machines was ₹ 4,78,085.
It profiteered at the expense of buyer and had violated provisions of section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and thus also rendered itself liable to penal action in line with the provisions of section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017 apart from its liability to refund the profiteered amount along with the applicable interest in terms of the provisions of the CGST Rules, 2017.
It is clear from the facts that the company was fully aware of the GST provisions and availability of ITC on account of IGST charged on import of goods. It was also fully aware of the provisions of section 171 of the CGST Act whereby it was bound to pass on the benefit arising due to ITC availability on import of the said product. However, it had deliberately acted in defiance of the above law and hence he is guilty of the conduct which is

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d quantify the benefit that the company has failed to pass on to his customers.
The outcome of NAA order is thus,
* Establishment of profiteering to the extent of ₹ 4,78,085 in terms of section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017
* Liable to be penalized in term of section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017
* Direction to reduce the sale price of the said items immediately, commensurate to the reduction in the price due to ITC of erstwhile chargeable CVD which is now available in the form of IGST and pass on this benefit to his customers.
* Direction to refund an amount of ₹ 4,78,085/- along with interest @ 18% to the complainant from the date when this amount was realised by it till the date of refund within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the order failing which the same shall be recovered by the DGAP as per the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and shall be refunded as has been directed in the order.
* For levy of penalty u/s 122 of the CGST Act, 2017, keeping in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Key Initiatives for Industrial Development Post GST and Demonetisation

Key Initiatives for Industrial Development Post GST and Demonetisation
News and Press Release
Dated:- 20-12-2018

Government is continuously taking steps to facilitate industrial development in the country though no specific year-wise targets for industrial development are assigned. Key initiatives include Make in India under which thrust sectors have been identified to provide a push to manufacturing and Start-up India to strengthen the start-up ecosystem. The Ease of Doing Business initiative aims to create a conducive environment by streamlining existing regulations and processes and eliminating unnecessary requirements and procedures.
Foreign Direct Investment policy and procedures have been simplified and liberalised prog

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GIFT UNDER SALE SCHEME

GIFT UNDER SALE SCHEME
Query (Issue) Started By: – mohan sehgal Dated:- 20-12-2018 Last Reply Date:- 21-12-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 8 Replies
GST
We have floated a Quarterly scheme to our dealers ……. On an aggregate purchase of our goods amounting to ₹ 6 lakhs per quarter;we will conduct a lucky draw amongst our dealers ;who are eligible(bought goods worth ₹ 6 Lakhs) and award a Two Wheeler as a Prize to the lucky winner among the eligible dealers.
Would we able to book ITC on The GST paid on the TWO WHEELER Price..given as a gift to the dealer who has bought the fixed amount of goods within the stipulated period of time.Please note that this gift is directly related to the invoiced amount of goods

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

39; and how it is applicable under GST Acts.
Reply By mohan sehgal:
The Reply:
The gift is being given against an agreement on record…
As far as I understand if an obligation attached to an agreement of sale is attached…the commodity loses its identity as a "GIFT" and no denial of ITC can arise under section 17(5) in such cases.
The dealer is entitled to the commodity described as a GIFT,only when achieves the sale target within the stipulated period..
Sir,Please elaborate.THANKS
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
If it is so, it has to be examined afresh in view of your views.
Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN:
The Reply:
No. You yourself admitted it is a gift. It is not an obligation of future contingencies.
Repl

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

P P Leno Bags reclassified under GST Tariff Heading 3923 29 90 instead of 63053300.

P P Leno Bags reclassified under GST Tariff Heading 3923 29 90 instead of 63053300.
Case-Laws
GST
Classification of goods – P P Leno Bags – whether classified under Tariff code 63053300 or ot

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Claim ITC on IGST Paid Under 'Bill to Ship to' Model: Applicant Entitled to Benefits.

Claim ITC on IGST Paid Under 'Bill to Ship to' Model: Applicant Entitled to Benefits.
Case-Laws
GST
Input tax credit – Whether ITC of IGST paid on bill to ship to’ model admissible to the a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Transport Service Provider Must Apply 18% GST on Food and Transportation Charges for Training Institute.

Transport Service Provider Must Apply 18% GST on Food and Transportation Charges for Training Institute.
Case-Laws
GST
Where the applicant provides transport services to a training institute for carting food from one building to another for service/sale and the applicant charges a separate transport charges, the applicant needs to discharge GST on the gross amount (cost of Food + cost of Transportation) at the rate of 18% GST.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotati

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Office and Industrial Canteen Food Services Taxed at 5% GST When Not Linked to Specific Events or Occasions.

Office and Industrial Canteen Food Services Taxed at 5% GST When Not Linked to Specific Events or Occasions.
Case-Laws
GST
The activity of supply of food in canteens of office, factory, hospi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =