Goods and Services Tax

Fertin Pharma Research & Development Versus Commissioner of CGST, Navi Mumbai
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 1043 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 18-1-2019
APPEAL NO: ST/87376/2018 – A/85131/2019
Service Tax
Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial)
Appellant: Shri D.H. Nadkarni, Advocate
Respondent: Shri S.B. Mane, Assistant Commissioner (A.R.)
ORDER
The present appeal has been filed from the impugned order dated 18.04.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), Raigad, by which the ld. Commissioner rejected the appeal filed by the appellant and held that technical testing and analysis services provided by the appellant cannot be termed as export of service and therefore refund claim of unutilized Cenvat credit of Rs. 4,31,384/- under Rule 5 of CCR, utilized in respect of this service for the period from January 2016 to March 2016 is not admissible.
2. The brief facts of the Appeal are that the Appellant is engaged in the activity of res

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for Rs. 4,31,384/-, but the same was rejected by both the authorities below on the ground that technical testing and analysis services provided by the Appellant cannot be termed as export of service.
3. The Learned Authorised Representative on behalf of revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant. The ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that in Appellants' own case on similar facts, for the period from April, 2013 to June, 2013 this Tribunal has allowed the Appeal filed by the Appellant, which is tilted as M/s Fertin Pharma Research & Development vs. Commissioner of S.T., Mumbai-VII reported in 2017(6) GST 475(T). I have gone through the same and find the same to be on the identical issue. The relevant extract of the said decision is as under:
” xxx
xxx
xxx
3. After careful consideration of the facts of the case and the submissions of both sides, it ap

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

also i.e. from January, 2014 to December, 2015 this Tribunal in another decision in Appellants' own case involving identical issue vide order no. A/87552-87557/2018 dated 28.09.2018, titled as Fertin Pharma Research & Development Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of CGST, Navi Mumbai decided the issue in favour of the Appellant. He also produced the copy of the said order for my perusal. While going through the same, I find that the aforesaid decision also squarely covers the issue involved in the present appeal. The relevant extract of the said order is as under:
” xxx
xxx
xxx.
6. Heard both sides and perused the records. Undisputedly, the appellant had purchased the goods from the overseas company, on which they discharged appropriate customs duty on its import into India. Necessary tests are carried out by them on the said goods in India and after analysis the relevant report was submitted to the overseas Denmark company. In the process of providing the said output service, that is, “Te

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nd decisions that exports are not taxable and, with the most palpable manifestation of export of invisibles being the receipt of convertible foreign exchange from a recipient of service located outside the country, that services are taxable at the destination, the scope of Rule 4 must necessarily be scrutinized to ascertain if there was, indeed, legislative intent to deny acknowledgement as exporter to a certain category of service providers that were so privileged tell them. There is no dispute that the recipient of service is located outside India and that the consideration is received in foreign convertible currency. Yet, Revenue insists that performance of service is in India. A service is not necessarily a single, discrete, identifiable activity; on the contrary, it is a series of invisibles that cater to the needs of a recipient; it is upon the consumption of the service by the recipient that service is deemed to have become taxable. This has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme C

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e which is possessed by the recipient. Hence, even if some of the activities are carried out in India, by no stretch can it be asserted that the fulfilment of the activity is in India. Therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that the location of the actual performance of the service is outside India and, even with the special and specific provision of Rule 4 of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, the performance of service being rendered outside India would render it to be an export.
14. In this context, the legislative intent of incorporating a special and specific provision in Rule 4 may yield further insights. The special provision, which may be seen as an exception to the general Rule 3, deals with services in respect of goods as well as those provided to individuals. Not unnaturally, the services that require the physical presence of the person is taxed where the consumer receives the service and not at his location which as per Rule 2(i)(iv) would be his usual place of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

hat have been framed by the Central Government make it absolutely clear that taxable service provided from outside India is liable to service-tax. In the example given by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is no question on the service of haircut having been received in India.'
The intent in Rule 4 to remedy out some specific situations that would, otherwise, have enabled escapement from tax or leviability to tax where Rule 3 of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 may not serve to confer jurisdiction becomes increasingly obvious.
15.Accordingly, we can infer that the location of performance of service in respect of goods is not an abstract, absolute expression for fastening tax liability on services that involve goods in some way; for that, Rule 3 would have sufficed. A contingency that is not amenable to Rule 3 has been foreseen and remedied by Rule 4 and in the process, the sovereign jurisdiction to tax is asseted. It is, therefore, not by the specific word or p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

n goods, Rule 4(1) of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 would appear, by elimination of possibilities, to relate to goods that require some activity to be performed without altering its form. The exemplification in the Education Guide referred supra renders it pellucid. Certification is an important facet of trade and such certification, if undertaken in India, will not be able to escape tax by reference to location of the entity which entrusted the activity to the service provider in India. This is merely one situation but it should suffice for us to enunciate that Rule 4(1) is intended to resorted when services are rendered on goods without altering its form that in which it was made available to the service provider. This is the harmonious construct that can be placed on the applicability of Rule 4 in the context of tax on services and the general principle that taxes are not exported with services or goods.
17. The goods supplied to the respondent, minor though the propo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

said case, the Place of Provision of Service Rules,2012 was not considered. This Tribunal while interpreting the provisions of new Rules, that is, Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 followed the ratio laid down in the said case in reiterating the basic principle of levy of service tax and observed that it is a consumption-based levy, accordingly, the technical and consultancy service, commences from the stage of undertaking the test on the goods procured and the service is completed on delivery of the test report/certificate to the overseas client. I do not find any reason to deviate from the aforesaid observation of this Tribunal. Further, the judgements referred by the learned A.R for the revenue, in my opinion, are not relevant to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as in the said judgement the issue raised was levy of service tax on procurement of FDA certificate for the goods to be sold in the respective country. In the result, following the aforesaid precedent, I do n

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED Versus CGST-DELHI III
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 979 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – 2019 (24) G. S. T. L. 37 (Tri. – Del.) , [2019] 68 G S.T.R. 313 (CESTAT – New Delhi)
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 18-1-2019
Appeal No. ST/52815/2016-CUS [DB] – FINAL ORDER NO. 50064/2019
Service Tax
Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Shri C.L. Mahar, Member (Technical)
Shri Somesh Arora, A.S. Hasija, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri Amresh Jain, AR for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Anil Choudhary:
1. The issue in this Appeal is whether service tax have rightly been levied on 'Development Fee', collected by the appellant, from the passengers at IGI Airport.
2. M/s Delhi International Airport Limited w.e.f 10.04.2017 (hereinafter Appellant) has filed the present appeal against the Order-In-Original No. DLI-SVTAX-003-COM-56-15-16 dated 12.07.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-III (Adjudicating Authority). Vide the impugned order

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ting, upgrading, modernizing, financing and managing IGI Airport and to perform services and activities constituting Aeronautical and Non-Aeronautical services (excluding the Reserved Activities) at the IGI Airport.
4. As per the OMDA the appellant has been granted the exclusive right in respect of IGI Airport inter alia to develop, finance, design, construct, modernize, operate, maintain, use and regulate the use by third parties of the airport and to enjoy complete and uninterrupted possession and control of the airport site and the existing assets for a period of 30 years (with an option to extend it by another 30 years).
5. As per the terms of OMDA, the appellant was granted the right to determine, demand, collect, retain and appropriate charges from the users of Airport which will be in the nature of aeronautical charges, charges for non-aeronautical services and Passenger Service Fee. The aeronautical charges are levied by the appellant at IGI Airport for provision of Aeronauti

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he “ad hoc” approval granted was subject to submission of final project cost estimates. The said approval; for levy of DF was allowed based on appellant's request to bridge funding gap of the project cost through DF. The appellant vide its letter dated 09.03.2009 intimated the Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi that levy of DF is in the nature of statutory levy to fund a public purpose and not towards rendition of any service per se. That the DF is not in connection with provision of taxable service, and hence not subject of levy of Service Tax.
7. The adjudicating Authority adjudicated the aforementioned Show Cause Notices vide the common impugned order wherein demand of Rs. 262,06,24,787/- was confirmed under Proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance act, 1994. An amount of Rs. 130,17,48,797/- already deposited by the appellant under protest, was appropriated, interest under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 demanded and penalties under Section 78 and 76 of the Act ibid, were imposed. H

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

g)
iii. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Cochin International Airport Ltd-2009 (16) STR 401 (Ker)
10. Learned DR supported the impugned order contending that in the impugned order the appellant as well as the passengers did not entertain the idea that they were collecting or paying a tax when transacting in the development fee and thereby seeking to counter the plea on behalf of the appellant, that this levy should have the status of a tax.
11. We find that identical issue has been dealt with by the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. Vs Commr. Of ST-I, Mumbai-2017 (51) STR 280 (Tri-Mumbai) as under:-
“8. The tax authorized to be collected as per Section 65(105)(zzm) of Finance Act, 1994 after 1st July, 2010 is on service :
“to any person, by airport authority or any other person, in any airport or a civil enclave”
for the period prior to that was :
“to any person, by airports authority or any person authorized by it, in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nger during the period of levy of 'development fee.' These are basic facilities that is inherent in the civil aviation sector in which the appellant, a non-public sector entity, is a recent entrant.
10.Civil aviation sector in India was, for long, under the monopoly of the Government of India with carriage effected by two corporations established by Acts of Parliament and the 'ground facilities' under the control of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Air carriage was de-nationalised first and, in keeping with the evolving trend of autonomy for infrastructure sector, management of airports were consolidated under a single authority with the enactment of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. Later on, airport operators were brought into the legislative framework by incorporation of leasing mechanism. The appellant is one such.
11.Owing to this transition from being a departmental undertaking of the Government to an authority with consequent financial independence but at the same ti

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ts of the Authority.
12.Section 22 of the Act enables the airport authority to charge users of its facilities. We have noted supra that this provision was never invoked for passengers and payments were restricted to and only upon exercise of option to procure food and non-food articles from licencees situated in the airport premises. On the other hand, the levy under Section 22A of the Act did not afford the privilege of exercise of an option by the passenger and enforced, without consent of the passenger, through the airlines on the basis of passenger data furnished by them on a fortnightly basis. The amounts so collected were placed in an escrow account owing to the restricted scope of expenditure being specifically enumerated in Section 22A of the Act. There is, therefore, a substantive difference between a charge under Section 22 and levy under Section 22A. It could well be said that charge under Section 22 if visited upon a passenger would be a consideration for a service. Such

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

purpose. We cannot agree with this contention because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the very same decision has directed that the amount so collected should necessarily be used only for the purpose intended in Section 22A of the Act. In that context, the attempt by Revenue to cite intention of the two parties by reference to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. supra as germane to delinking it from tax is rendered irrelevant.
15.The decision of the Tribunal in Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Kochi-2007 (7) STR 468 (Tri-Bang) affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala- 2009 (16) STR 401 (Ker) and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court-2010 (17) STR J79 (SC) has again clarified that the 'development fee' is not linked to provision of service and hence not liable to service tax. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala had observed thus :
“… … … Even though Airport is also rendering services to the passengers like restaurants, air-conditioning, facility for fo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of taxable services for charging service tax says that the value of service shall be gross amount charged by the service provider for the service provided to the recipient. Since collection of users fee is not for any specific service rendered by them, but is a flat rate of charge to one category of passengers namely, outgoing international passengers, it cannot be said that the amount so collected is by way of service charge. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal rightly held that no service tax is payable for the users fee collected by the respondent. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.”
12. We in complete agreement with the conclusion arrived at hold that the ratio of the above said judgment squarely covers the case in hand. We find no reason or occasion to differ with the same. In view of the above and the definition of 'airport services' in Section 65(105) (zzm), we hold that service tax is not chargeable on Development Fee. Accordingly we find that the impugned order is not

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Retailer Allegedly Profiteers by Not Passing GST Rate Cuts to Consumers, Violating Section 171 Provisions.
Case-Laws
GST
Profiteering – benefit of reduction in the GST rate not passed – base price of goods also increased – Respondent has violated the provisions of section 171 in as much as the prices have remained the same inspite of reduction in the tax rate. His plea that the base prices were drastically lowered when GST came in effect cannot absolve him from not passing on the benefi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

gst rate on Nagar Parishad Entry Fees Collection
Query (Issue) Started By: – sunil borse Dated:- 17-1-2019 Last Reply Date:- 19-1-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 2 Replies
GST
gst r

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Group of Ministers (GoM) constituted on issues relating to lottery
GST
Dated:- 17-1-2019

In pursuance of decision in the 32nd Meeting of GST Council held on 10th January, 2019 at New Delhi, a Group of Ministers (GoM) on issues relating to lottery has been constituted.
The 'GoM for Lottery' shall consist of the following:
Sl. No.
Name
Designation and State
1
Shri Sudhir Mungantiwar
Finance Minister, Government of Maharashtra
Convener
2
Dr. T.M. Thomas Isaac
Finance Minister, Government of Kerala
Member
3
Dr. Amit Mitra
Finance Minister, Government of West Bengal
Member
4
Dr. Himanta Biswa Sarma
Finance Minister, Government of Assam
Member
5
Shri Mauvin Godinho
Minister of Panchayat, Governmen

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Valuation – Concept of Pure Agent Defined
By: – CA Akash Phophalia
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 17-1-2019

Introduction
Revenue laws are often called as incomplete without valuation. Tax is always charged on some basic value and guiding principles to calculate such value is enumerated in the concerned law itself. In fact come times courts had held inapplicability of taxation in case where valuation is failed. In this article the author aims to discuss includibility of expenses incurred during the course of provision of services in the value of services under GST law in the light of a recent AAR ruling held by West Bengal in the case of Premier Vigilance and Security Pvt Ltd 2018 (11) TMI 337 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL
Legal Provisions
The valuation principles are enumerated in Section 15 of the CGST Act 2017. The governing provision of Section 15 is further preceded by the rules stated at Rule 28 to Rule 35 in CGST Rules 2017. According to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ddition to the services he supplies on his own account.
Explanation – For the purposes of this rule, the expression ―pure agent‖ means a person who-
(a) enters into a contractual agreement with the recipient of supply to act as his pure agent to incur expenditure or costs in the course of supply of goods or services or both;
(b) neither intends to hold nor holds any title to the goods or services or both so procured or supplied as pure agent of the recipient of supply;
(c) does not use for his own interest such goods or services so procured; and
(d) receives only the actual amount incurred to procure such goods or services in addition to the amount received for supply he provides on his own account.”
Illustration. Corporate services firm A is engaged to handle the legal work pertaining to the incorporation of Company B. Other than its service fees, A also recovers from B, registration fee and approval fee for the name of the company paid to the Registrar of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

application that it owed the vehicles and the toll is charged for providing the services by way of access to a road or bridge. The company being the owner of the vehicles was the recipient of the services provisioned on payment of toll, which was compulsorily levied on the vehicles. The expenses so incurred were, therefore, cost of the services provided to the banks reimbursement of such cost was no disbursement, but merely the recovery of a portion of the value of supply made to banks.
Conclusion
In view of the legal provisions cited and the facts mentioned above it was held that the company was not acting in the capacity of a 'pure agent 'of the bank while paying toll charges were cost incurred, so that his vehicles can access roads/bridges to provided security services to the recipients.
Toll charges paid are not, therefore to be excluded from the value of supply Rule 33. GST shall, therefore be payable at the applicable rate on the entire value of the supply including toll char

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

MESSRS MONO STEEL (INDIA) LTD. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
GST
2019 (2) TMI 827 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2019 (22) G. S. T. L. 184 (Guj.)
GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 17-1-2019
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 618 of 2019
GST
MS HARSHA DEVANI AND DR A. P. THAKER, JJ.
For The Petitioner (s) : AMAL PARESH DAVE (8961) AND MR PARESH M DAVE (260)
For The Petitioner (s) : MR PARESH M DAVE(260)-G/425/1986 And ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99)
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
1. Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that for recovery of a sum of rupees three crore and odd, six bank accounts of the petitioner have been provisionally attached by issuing notices

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Haryana Chambers of Commerce And Industries Versus Union of India And ors.
GST
2019 (1) TMI 1215 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – TMI
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 17-1-2019
CWP-31710-2018 (O&M)
GST
MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ.
For The Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate
For The Respondents : Mr. Saurabh Goel, Advocate
ORDER
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.
Prayer in the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

EDAYAR METALS Versus UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE), NEW DELHI, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE (GST WING), FINANCE (REV. 1) DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI, GST COUNCIL, NEW DELHI, GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK, NEW DELHI, THE COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THE NODEL OFFICER FOR STATE GST, KERALA, THE NODEL OFFICER, CENTRAL GST, GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., THE STATE TAX OFFICER, PARAVUR AND THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM,
GST
2019 (1) TMI 1080 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 17-1-2019
WP (C). No. 41783 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner(s) : ADV. SRI

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader, besides perusing the record.
3. There is a circular 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 wa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

lutions for resolution of the problem. ”
(italics supplied)
4. Not only the petitioner but also many other people faced 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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =