Deadline Extended for FORM GST ITC-04 Declarations: Submit by December 31, 2018 for July 2017 to September 2018 Period.
Notifications
GST
Time limit for making the declaration in FORM GST ITC
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ITC 04 FILING
Query (Issue) Started By: – SUNDAR R Dated:- 26-10-2018 Last Reply Date:- 27-10-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 2 Replies
GST
WE ARE SENDING THE RAW MATERIALS TO JOB WORKER FOR THE PROCESSING FINISHING GOODS, AFTER PROCESSING WE ARE RECEIVED THE FINISHED GOODS. IN ITC 04 TABLE 04 WE ARE UPDATED RAW MATERIALS SENT TO JOBWORKER. HOW CAN WE UPDATE RAW MATERIALS RECEIVED FROM JOBWORKER IN TABLE 5
Reply By SHIVKUMAR SHARMA:
The Reply:
If goods not received in the S
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST Applies to Liquidated Damages as Service Supply, Regardless of Contract Terms; Taxation Based on Transaction Nature.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of GST – Liquidated damages – Supply or not – point of taxation – tolerate an act – though in the agreement they may be giving this consideration, other names such as 'damages' or 'compensation' as thought proper by them, but these different nomenclatures in their Agreement would in no way change the actual nature of monetary “consideration” which w
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Restaurant Cleared of Profiteering Allegations After Adjusting Prices Due to GST and ITC Changes; Case Dismissed.
Case-Laws
GST
Profiteering – restaurant service – failure to pass the benefit of reduced rate of GST – Respondent had increased the average base price by 12.14% to neutralize the denial of ITC of 11.80% and such increase is commensurate with the increase in the cost of the product on account of denial of ITC. – Application dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Seeks to provide taxpayers whose registration has been cancelled on or before the 30th September, 2018 time to furnish final Return in for GSTR 10 till 31st Dec,2018
FIN/REV-3/GST/1/08(Pt-1)(Vol.1)/297 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Nagaland SGST
GST – States
Nagaland SGST
Nagaland SGST
GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
(REVENUE BRANCH)
F.NO.FIN/REV-3/GST/1/08(Pt-1)(Vol.1)/297
Dated: 26th October, 2018
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Nagala
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Seeks to extends the time limit for furnishing the declaration in FORM GST ITC-04 for the period July.2017 to Sept,2018 till 31st Dec,2018
CT/LEG/GST-NT/12/17/966 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Nagaland SGST
GST – States
Nagaland SGST
Nagaland SGST
GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES
NAGALAND: DIMAPUR
Dated Dimapur, the 26th October, 2018
NOTIFICATION- 22/2018
In pursuance of section 168 of the Nagaland Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) and sub-ru
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Seeks to provide taxpayers whose registration has been cancelled on or before the 30th September, 2018 time to furnish final return in FORM GSTR-10 till 31st December, 2018
58/2018 – State Tax Dated:- 26-10-2018 Sikkim SGST
GST – States
Sikkim SGST
Sikkim SGST
GOVERNMENT OF SIKKIM
FINANCE, REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT
COMMERCIAL TAXES DIVISION
GANGTOK
No. 58/2018 – State Tax
Dated: 26th October, 2018
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
IGST Export Refunds – extension in SB005 alternate mechanism and revised processing in certain cases including disbursal of compensation Cess
PUBLIC NOTICE NO.- 44/2018 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Trade Notice
Customs
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
CUSTOM HOUSE: PORT AREA: VISAKHAPATNAM – 530 035
F. No. P3/06/2017-Stats (AM).Pt. II
Date: 26.10.2018
PUBLIC NOTICE NO.- 44/2018
Subject: IGST Export Refunds – extension in SB005 alternate mechanism and revised processing in certain cases including disbursal of compensation Cess – reg.
Attention of all exporters, customs brokers, members of general trade, and all other stakeholders is invited to refer this office's Public Notice Nos. 09/2018 dated 26.02.2018, 15/2018 dated 25.03.2018 and 24/2018 07.06.2018 wherein an alternative mechanism with officer interface to resolve invoice mismatches (SB005 error) was provided for the shipping bills filed till 30.06.2018. [Board's Circular No. 05/2018-Customs dated 23.02.2018
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ess, committed the same mistake due to which their IGST refunds are stuck and requested for extension of date. Issue has been examined and it has been observed that exporters are committing same mistakes again and again in spite of several sensitisation/outreach programmes. However, giving high priority to the interests of exporters, it has been decided by the Board to extend the rectification facility to Shipping Bills filed up to 15.11.2018. However, it has been reiterated that the exporters shall have to take care to ensure the details of invoice, such as invoice number, IGST paid etc. under GSTR 1 and shipping bill match with each other since the same transaction is being reported under GST laws and Customs Act.
4 It may be noted that SBs which have not been scrolled due to the IGST paid amount erroneously declared as 'NA' are already being handled through officer interface as per Board's Circular 08/2018 – Customs dated 23.03.2018. However, no such provision was hitherto availabl
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
icer interface based and is similar to the procedure for processing certain SB005 refund claims refer Circular No 05/2018- Customs dated 23.02.2018. This facility would be available only for cases where Shipping Bills have been filed till 15.11.2018. However, exporters need to be cautious while filing details in Shipping Bill as a similar facility may not be available in future for the same mistake for referred shipping bill. Also, Customs Officers while processing claims using officer interface should exercise due diligence so that mistakes are not repeated again.
7 In order to claim the differential amount, the exporter is required to submit a duly filled and signed Revised Refund Request (RRR) annexed to this circular to the designated AC/DC A scanned copy of the RRR may also be mailed to dedicated email address of Customs locations from where exports took place. The designated/concerned AC/DC will then proceed to sanction the revised amount after due verification through the optio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Rectification of EGM errors (SB002 or SB006), SB005, SB001 & SB003 and filing of claim for IGST Refund on export of goods under Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017
Public Notice No. 98/12018 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Trade Notice
Customs
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR CARGO COMPLEX) NSCBI AIRPORT, DUM DUM, KOLKATA- 700 052
F.No.S41(Misc)-64/2017 CCX(Pt.)
Dated: 26/10/2018
Public Notice No. 98/12018
Subject : Rectification of EGM errors (SB002 or SB006), SB005, SB001 & SB003 and filing of claim for IGST Refund on export of goods under Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017 reg.
Attention of all the exporters, their authorised representatives, Customs Brokers, Airlines, Freight Forwarders, Export Promotion Councils and all members of Trade are invited to Public Notices Nos.08/2018 dated 06.02.2018, 12/2018 dated 19.02.2018, 50/2018 dated 31.05.2018, 54/2018 dated 08.06.2018 and 73/2018 dated 20.07.2018. Reference is also invited to Boards Circular No.05/2018-Custom
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
NSCBI Airport for issues related to EGM errors.
5. A list of exporters and Shipping Bills having 'Invoice mismatch errors' (S13005) is enclosed herewith as Annexure-B.
6. The exporters who have not yet submitted their documents as per Circular No. 05/2018-Customs dated 23.02.2018 and No.08/2018-Customs 23.03.2018, are once again advised to submit self-certified copies of relevant GSTR1/Table6A, GSTR3B and Concordance Table indicating mapping between GST invoices and corresponding Shipping Bill invoices in support of the refund claim. Moreover, as per Circular 15/2018-Customs dated 06.06.2018, and 22/2018-Cus. Dated 18/07/2018 Board has decided to extent the facility of “Officer Interface” to Shipping Bills filed up to 30.06.2018.
7. Solutions have also been advised for IGST refunds held up on account of SB003 error. This errors occurs when there is a mismatch between GSTIN entity mentioned in the S/Bill and the one filing GSTR-1/GSTR3b. Nos. of S/Bills having error code '
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
1 49926.74
203012739 NOVELTY EMBRINE/EXP/190
18-09-2017 288000.5 13714.31
67244.8
289329
Invoice Val IGST Amou Invoic IGST Response Code
0
0 SB002,SB006
0
0 SB002,SB006
8069.38
0
0 SB002,SB006
185
0
0 SB002,SB006
Document 2
ANNEXURE-B
(Error Code SB 005)
Sl.
S/B No. S/B Date
IEC
Exporters Name
IGST Amount
No.
bs.
1
9234886 12-10-2017
288007638 A DAMIANO & CO
17361
2
3929454 02-04-2018
510081967
3
3952854 03-04-2018
4
9285271 13-10-2017
5
3255657 04-03-2018
AGILE EXIM (P) LTMITED
510081967 AGILE EXIM (P) LTMITED
2310001325 ALCON WIRELESS PVT LTD
214019080 ALOKE KUMAR JAIPURIA
142046.1
201354.7
45509.4
24185.7
ARN-N-ITA HANDLOOM EXPORT
6
1049411 21-11-2017
299005399 COMPANY.
1019.83
ARN-N-ITA HANDLOOM EXPORT
7
1178148 28-11-2017
299005399 COMPANY.
2811.4
8
9
23
19
20
21
22
1426132 08-12-2017
5383399 06-06-2018
10
8810065 21-09-2017
11 5400556 07-06-2018
12 5597462 15-06-2018
13
5588444 15-06-2018
14 5804358 26-06-2018
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
137999 07-10-2017
209000970 EXQUISITE PACKAGING PRIVATE LIMITED
6424.47
288049306
GKB RX LENS PVT LTD
39423.55
28
2042223 06-01-2018
288049306
3499003082
GKB RX LENS PVT LTD
34632.06
GLOBAL EXPORTECH
15357.6
29
3308284 06-03-2018
211014532 GOVIND SARAF HUF
135561.4
30
4823879 12-05-2018
211014532
GOVIND SARAF HUF
214306.2
31
5616956 18-06-2018
288005384
GOVIND STEEL COMPANY LTD
864
32
35
36
2500899 29-01-2018
33 2531421 31-01-2018
34 9526835 27-10-2017
1807985 27-12-2017
2531313 31-01-2018
209004347
GREEN PACKAGING INDUSTRIES PVT LTD
8236
209004347
2396000365
GREEN PACKAGING INDUSTRIES PVT LTD
GREEN WAVES PRIVATE LIMITED
2839
38070
2396000365 GREEN WAVES PRIVATE LIMITED
95670
217507760
GREENMANGO KRAFT
1514.4
37
5721896 22-06-2018
217507760
GREENMANGO KRAFT
2000.38
38 5912899 30-06-2018
39 7923341 10-08-2017
40 8512117 07-09-2017
217507760
GREENMANGO KRAFT
2426.4
214021467
208000097
HARRYBABU CREATIONS LLP
HIND AGENCIES
3
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
52
53
54
55
56
5619970 18-06-2018
5786466 25-06-2018
9228799 11-10-2017
9228750 11-10-2017
9378859 18-10-2017
57 9687852 03-11-2017
58 5219457 30-05-2018
205031498
408031557
408031557
2194000976 JMT AUTO LIMITED
2194000976 JMT AUTO LIMITED
2194000976 JMT AUTO LIMITED
2194000976 JMT AUTO LIMITED
2194000976 JMT AUTO LIMITED
HOLOGRAPHIC ORIGINATION AND
MACHINERIES LIMITED,
INTAN EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED
INTAN EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED
1991.23
959011
396681
87801.91
26717.94
10231.42
83652.63
13081.04
JUMAC MANUFACTURING PRIVATE
61
62
59 4902542 17-05-2018
60 2333866 21-01-2018
2175927 12-01-2018
3661512 22-03-2018
288025482
LIMITED
10659.6
5213003231
KRISHA EXPORT COMPANY
31953.84
211007552
KRISHNA JYOTI PVT LTD.
109406.9
2196000426
63
64
65
66
67
4102777 10-04-2018 207011281
3806830 27-03-2018 213030241
1106044 24-11-2017 ABFFM7896N
8383750 01-09-2017 812002881
8473555 06-09-2017 812002881
KROSS MANUFACTURERS (1) PVT.LTD.,
MACH POWER POI
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
80
81
82
83
84
5258274 31-05-2018
5406641 07-06-2018
5569344 14-06-2018
4723013 08-05-2018
5587596 15-06-2018
208014691 RBA FERRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED
208014691 RBA FERRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED
208014691 RBA FERRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED
36284
15141.84
47479.21
213009188
213009188
85
5599191 16-06-2018
213009188
86
9278390 13-10-2017
203017170
87
1287068 01-12-2017
288003179
ROYAL TOUCH OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED
ROYAL TOUCH OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED
ROYAL TOUCH OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED
RSB EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,
RTS POWER CORPORATION LTD.
3786
19097
1035
67154.92
86812.76
RUBBER REGENERATING AND PROCESSING
88
89
3880752 30-03-2018
90
2814165 12-02-2018
91
4921390 17-05-2018
92
93
94
9686807 03-11-2017
4632777 04-05-2018
5640835 19-06-2018
95
4075505 08-04-2018
5442276 08-06-2018 AAWFR0449L
2108000488 RUNGTA ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES,
207018740 SL PACKAGING PRIVATE LIMITED
207018740 SL PACKAGING PRIVATE LIMITED
2315000
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
41129 26-05-2018
115 5500819 12-06-2018
4606970 03-05-2018
2113001837 SOURAV KUMAR
15882.59
SOURAV KUMAR
7191.11
302038345 STAR SILK EXPORTS PVT. LTD.
302038345 STAR SILK EXPORTS PVT. LTD.
295005637 STEEL PRODUCTS LTD.
295005637 STEEL PRODUCTS LTD.
2288000023 STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LTD.
2288000023 STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LTD.
7074.54
6924.6
8145
6923
3553.2
1037.4
SUPREME & COMPANY PRIVATE LTD.
THE INDIANA TRADERS
41162.94
10557.68
1260
4836
5623.68
2249.52
240884.5
107694.3
240191.1
VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD
53969.99
VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD
31279.38
VOGUE N HYDE PVT LTD
10907
Total
6782210
Document 5
ANNEXURE C
Erays ist dakils (SB008)
SB No.
SB Date
IEC
Exporte Invoice Number
Invoice Date Invoice Value G: IGST Amount G Invoic IGST A Respons(Sl. No.
1464305
11-12-2017
1134640 24-11-2017
MICAL/2607/17-18
11-12-2017
60221283.87 1751053.87
0
0 SB001
1
MICAL/2600/17-18
24-11-2017
43262061.19
1257726.18
0
0 SB001
2
3642942 21-03-2018
MICAL/2628/17-
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
0
0 SB001
15
8065120 18-08-2017
6552059 09-09-2017
4889710 07-05-2018
8807447 22-09-2017
7747842 03-08-2017
REPL/GE/80/17-18
FLI/049/L/17-18
135E-17-18
19-07-2017
1972645.28
213403.39
0 SB001
16
17-08-2017
1753559
210427.08
0
0 SB001
17
08-09-2017
1340000
TSK18-EPI03
05-05-2018
TL/06/17
20-09-2017
1797388
986889
204406.74
192577.32 0
177640.02 0
0
0 SB001
18
0 SB001
19
0 SB001
20
1710002416
28-07-2017
735380.8
160864.55
0
0 SB001
21
7617529 28-07-2017
EXP/17/0303
14-07-2017
1493369
160003.82
0
0 SB001
22
3451983 13-03-2018
BY17000350850
27-02-2018
2892268.4
144613.42
0
0 SB001
23
4992310 21-05-2018
9471043775
19-05-2018
907058.02
138364
0
0 SB001
24
2225615, 10-07-2017
Exp/B-14
10-07-2017
610322
133507.92
0
0 SB001
25
6142576 21-08-2017
9236806 12-12-2017
NI/17-18/GSTO194
17-08-2017
622324.84
130504.85
0
0 SB001
26
PCMC/7/17-18
11-10-2017
1041899 21-11-2017
7619116 27-07-2017
5249396 31-05-2018
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
-2017
ARL/17-18/EXP/31
17-10-2017
363510
68570
8767475 20-09-2017
E/U6/18/190
15-09-2017
233376.69
64342
8225529 24-08-2017
KHL/32
24-08-2017
597379.15
64004.91
9210883 11-10-2017
1100701 24-11-2017
5898387 06-10-2017
16CL/HL/BP06
05-10-2017
532558.32
57059.82
MKL1718/GEP00015
24-11-2017
EXP/G/002/17-18
04-10-2017
7949997 11-08-2017
8CL/HL/BP/04
10-08-2017
523446
335202.01
442765.68
56083.42 0
51132.51
47439.18 0
5249394 31-05-2018
VGLE69016
30-05-2018
940155.42
47007.78
oooooo ooo o o o ooooo
0 0 SB001
33
0 SB001
34
0 SB001
35
0 SB001
36
0 SB001
37
0
0 SB001
38
0 SB001
39
0
0 SB001
40
0 SB001
41
0 SB001
42
0
SB001
43
0 SB001
44
0 SB001
45
0 SB001
46
0 SB001
47
0 SB001
48
0
0 SB001
49
4078777 09-10-2017
7766928 02-08-2017
2323396 17-02-2018
GSTI/AWPL-046
07-10-2017
298339.4
45509.4
0
0 SB001
50
1710002650
31-07-2017
200558.4
43872.15
0
0 SB001
51
KHL/66
12-02-2018
447806.3
43560.89
0
0
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
0 SB001
LAMB/0047/17-18
05-07-2017
280430.53
30046.11
0
0 SB001
2335
64
65
Document 7
7521627 17-07-2017
3565583 17-03-2018
1105410 24-11-2017
4336601 08-07-2017
1197288 21-11-2017
4459601 17-01-2018
3572211 04-08-2017
3842225 29-03-2018
1968857 09-01-2018
7341490 10-07-2017
6527611 06-09-2017
8377685 27-11-2017
8379714 14-11-2017
EXP17180010001
138/17-18/EXP
NHI/EXP/11/17-18
1710001171
17-07-2017
55498.37
12140.27
0
0 SB001
99
479/2017-18/GST
KWW/EXP/17-18/16
16-03-2018
77843.04
11874.36
0
0 SB001
100
20-11-2017
77800.1
11867.81
0
0 SB001
101
7
08-07-2017
247236.57
11773.17
0
0 SB001
102
SLE344/17-18
21-11-2017
56 17-01-2018
02-08-2017
28-03-2018
78216
205892.28
55680
82445.58
11421.2
0
0 SB001
103
10294.61
0
0 SB001
104
10022.4
0
0 SB001
105
9893
0
0 SB001
106
16-12-2017
1710000628
10-07-2017
133E-17-18
05-09-2017
1438
27-11-2017
204057
44398.57
62742
119104.06
9717
0
0 SB001
107
9712.21
0
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
8 13-07-2017
6 08-07-2017
121788.56
106830.57
4750685 09-05-2018
1055573 22-11-2017
2943580 26-10-2017
4313801 03-07-2017
7685157 19-07-2017
8479290 08-09-2017
7305376 21-07-2017
IG/EXP/002/18-19
EX/171800004
NK/17-18/004
04-05-2018
15-11-2017
26-10-2017
98871
21199
21183.36
5799.45
5087.17
4943.55
4637.36
4633.86
2
03-07-2017
96376
JPZB/044/17-18
WTSINEXP17180007
14-07-2017
104821.17
21-08-2017
28301.12
1710000601
10-07-2017
27920.57
4589.33
4413.02
4317.12
4259.07
oooooooooo
0 SB001
122
0
0 SB001
123
0
0 SB001
124
0
0 SB001
125
0
0 SB001
126
0
0 SB001
127
0
0 SB001
128
0
0 SB001
129
0
0 SB001
130
0
0 SB001
131
Document 8
4366001 02-08-2017
4443480 29-04-2018
1765848 07-09-2017
1010394 20-12-2017
4119767 04-04-2018
4326401 07-07-2017
2990991 20-02-2018
15
02-08-2017
88799.63
4228.55
ARL/1819/EXP/003
EXP/G/001/17-18
PCMC/11/17-18
24-04-2018
32346
07-09-2017
26205
15-11-2017
23723
4071
3997.35
3
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
11-09-2017
36223.31
1724.92
4531901 13-12-2017
51
13-12-2017
35529.44
9544220 24-10-2017
MAN/C/04/17-18
24-10-2017
7222417 07-08-2017
2800871 12-02-2018
4327201 23-08-2017
JND08/CT/E/KOL
01-07-2017
EXP/18/17-18
09-02-2018
19
23-08-2017
4359301 17-07-2017
10
17-07-2017
9831039 21-11-2017
8P/4905/17-18
21-11-2017
1118428 29-11-2017
235/17-18
17-11-2017
31760
30807.57
28395
28482.1
26611.57
26284
9957.92
1691.88
1512.4
1467.03
1419.75
1356.29
1267.22
1188559 27-11-2017
042/RRP/17-18E
25-11-2017
17415
1251.62
1066.92
906
7843110 05-08-2017
JND11/CT/E/KOL
26-07-2017
3702933
18-10-2017
NK/17-18/001
18-10-2017
15887:16
3208.96
756.53
701.96
oooooooooo ooo oo o â—‹ â—‹ â—‹ oo oooooooooooo
0
0 SB001
132
0
0 SB001
133
0 SB001
134
0
0 SB001
135
0
0 SB001
136
0
0 SB001
137
0
0 SB001
138
0
0 SB001
139
0
0 SB001
140
0
0 SB001
141
0
0 SB001
142
0
0 SB001
143
0
0 SB001
144
0 SB001
145
0
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
IGST Export Refunds- extension in SB005 alternate mechanism and revised processing in certain cases including disbursal of compensation cess
28/2018 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Trade Notice
Customs
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CITY CUSTOMS COMMISSIONERATE, P.B. NO. 5400, C.R. BUILDING QUEEN'S ROAD, BENGALURU 560001 .
C.NO.VIII/09/05/2018 City Cus. Tech
Dated: 26.10.2018
PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 28/2018
Subject: IGST Export Refunds- extension in SB005 alternate mechanism and revised processing in certain cases including disbursal of compensation cess-Reg.
Attention of all Customs Brokers, Exporters, Importers, Members of the Trade and other stake holders is invited to Board's Circular Nos. 05/2018-Customs dated 23.02.2018, 0
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Cases where IGST refunds have not been granted due to claiming higher rate of drawback OR where higher rate and lower rate were identical
26/2018 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Trade Notice
Customs
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS: BENGALURU CITY COMMISSIONERATE P.B. NO. 5400: C.R. BUILDING, QUEEN'S ROAD, BENGALURU-5600 001
C.NO.VIII/09/ 16/2018 City Cus.Tech
Dated: 26.10.2018
PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 26/2018
Subject: Cases where IGST refunds have not been granted due to claiming higher rate
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
E. Basheer Ahamed Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Madurai
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 1466 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 26-10-2018
Appeal No. ST/310/2012 – Final Order No. 42733/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri M. Kannan, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a qualified engineer and had provided construction services to M/s. BSNL during the period 2005 – 06 to 2008 – 09 under the category of commercial or industrial construction service, which is a taxable service. On the basis of intelligence gathered by the Central Excise officers that the appellant is not paying service tax under the said category, investigations were initiated against the appellant and show cause notice was issued proposing to recover service tax of Rs. 4,31,559/- along wi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
contract service whereas the show cause notice has proposed to demand under commercial or industrial construction service. He also submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. Vs. CCE – 2018-TIOL-2867-CESTAT, Chennai.
3. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supported the findings in the impugned order.
4. After hearing both sides, it is brought to light that the period involved in the present case is June 2007 to March 2009. The demand has been raised in the show cause notice under commercial or industrial construction service. The contract entered between the appellant and the service recipient is a composite contract which involves both supply of materials as well as rendering of service. The Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. (supra) had occasion to analyse the issue regarding demand of service tax under construction of residential complex services, commercial or industrial construction service and constructi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ract Service.
7.9 At this juncture, it is worthwhile to reproduce excerpts from the Union Finance Minister's budget speech in 2007:-
“State Governments levy a tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract. The value of services in a works contract should attract service tax. Hence, I propose to an optional composition scheme under which service tax will be levied at only 2 per cent of the total value of the words contract”.
7.10 The issue was analyzed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Larsen & Toubro case (supra) and held that there can be no levy of service tax on composite contracts (involving both service and supply of goods) prior to 1.6.2007. This read together with the budget speech as above would lead to the strong conclusion that composite contracts were brought within the ambit of levy of service tax only with effect from 1.6.2007 by introduction of Section 65(105)(zzzza) i.e. Works Contract Services. As pointed out by the ld. counsels
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
fication of service shall be based on the specific entries and the more specific description of service has to be preferred. He invited our attention to CBEC‟s Circular 128/10/2010 dated 24.8.2010 which is reproduced as under:-
“The matter has been examined. As regards the classification, with effect from 1-6-2007 when the new service 'Works Contract service' was made effective, classification of aforesaid services would undergo a change in case of long term contracts even though part of the service was classified under the respective taxable service prior to 1-6-2007. This is because 'works contract' describes the nature of the activity more specifically and, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994, it would be the appropriate classification for the part of the service provided after that date.”
7.12 Thus, for example, while construction of a new residential complex as a service simpliciter would find a place under section 65(105)(30b) of the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Service under Section 65 (105) (zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994. In such situation, we note that it cannot be a case of simple mentioning of wrong provisions of law as submitted by the Revenue. Apparently, the tax liability of composite works contract is to be considered under works contract services only as per legal position settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s L&T Limited. Even in the appeal, the Revenue submitted that the respondent were engaged in construction services liable to tax under tax entry Section 65(105) (xxq). The grievance of the Revenue is with reference to commercial nature of the construction undertaken by the respondent and not on the correct classification of taxable activity.”
b. In the case of Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai – 2018-TIOL-360-CESTAT-MUM, in respect of identical issue for the period from 2005 to 2012, the Tribunal in para 7 has held as under:-
“7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nue in the show-cause notice stands demolished by the Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra). In the said judgment, their Lordships have very categorically laid down the law that the works contract cannot be vivisected for the confirmation of demand under various other services. On this ground itself, the entire demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority is liable to be set aside and we do so.”
c. In the case of URC Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem – 2017 (50) STR 147, the Tribunal in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 has held as under:-
“9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Larsen & Toubro & Ors. has decided thus
'24. A close look at the Finance Act, 1994 would show that the five taxable services referred to in the charging Section 65(105) would refer only to service contracts simpliciter and not to composite works contracts. This is clear from the very language of Section 65(105) which defines “taxable service” as “any service provided”. A
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
itted claim of the appellant that they are not providers of 'commercial or industrial construction service' but of 'works contract service', no tax is liable on construction contracts executed prior to 1st June, 2007.
11. Insofar as demand for subsequent period till 30th September, 2008 is concerned, it is seen that neither of the two show cause notices adduce to leviability of tax for rendering 'works contract service'. On the contrary, the submission of the appellant that they had been providing 'works contract service' had been rejected by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, even as the services rendered by them are taxable for the period from 1st June, 2007 to 30th September, 2008 the narrow confines of the show cause notices do not permit confirmation of demand of tax on any service other than 'commercial or industrial construction service'. It is already established in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the entry under Section 65(105)(zzd) is liable to
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e period 10.09.2004 to 16.06.2005 under CICS for the period 16.06.2005 to 30.09.2008 cannot also sustain and are therefore set aside. So ordered
5.3 For the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008, the demand confirmed is Rs. 26,88,611/-. We note that the appellant has not contested the liability under works contract for this period. The only argument brought forth by the Ld. Counsel is that they have discharged an amount of around Rs. 82 lakhs under this category after the visit of the departmental officers and therefore an amount of Rs. 36,88,611/- demanded in the impugned order should be considered as having been discharged. We find merit in his argument and hence the demand of Rs. 26,88,611/- under works contract service for the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008 is required to be considered as having been paid, albeit subsequent to the visit of the officers. However, the interest liability if any that arise on this amount if not paid already will have to be discharged by the appellants. So
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
contract, such services will require to be exigible to service tax liabilities under 'Works Contract Service' as defined under section 65(105)(zzzza) ibid.
d. The show cause notices in all these cases prior to 1.6.2007 and subsequent to that date for the periods in dispute, proposing service tax liability on the impugned services involving composite works contract, under 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' or 'Construction of Complex' Service, cannot therefore sustain. In respect of any contract which is a composite contract, service tax cannot be demanded under CICS / CCS for the periods also after 1.6.2007 for the periods in dispute in these appeals. For this very reason, the proceedings in all these appeals cannot sustain.”
5. Following the above decision, we are of the considered opinion that the demand of service tax under commercial or industrial construction service (residential complex) cannot sustain after the period 1.6.2007. The levy of service tax prior to
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
M/s. SRC Projects P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Salem
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 1465 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 26-10-2018
Appeal Nos. ST/659/2010 And ST/575/2012 – Final Order Nos. 42698-42699/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Ms. D. Naveena, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) And Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The issue involved in both the appeals being the same they are heard together and are disposed by this common order.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are paying service tax under the head commercial construction service. The period involved in the first appeal is from April 2007 to September 2007 and the period involved in the second appeal is from October 2007 to March 2009. They are eligible for abatement of 67% of the taxable value as per Notif
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
009. She submitted that the entire demand is unsustainable as the activity undertaken by the appellant falls under the category of works contract service involving execution of composite contracts. Therefore, the entire demand of service tax under the category of commercial or industrial construction service is unsustainable. She also submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. Vs. CCE – 2018-TIOL-2867-CESTAT, Chennai.
4. The ld. AR Shri A. Cletus supported the findings in the impugned order.
5. After hearing both sides, it is brought to light that the period involved in the present case is from April 2007 to March 2009. The demand has been raised in the show cause notice under construction of residential complex services. The contracts entered between the appellant and the service recipient is a composite contract which involves both supply of materials as well as rendering of service. The Tribunal in the case of Real
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
erection and commissioning service, commercial or industrial construction service, construction of complex service and in addition turnkey projects including EPC projects within the definition of Works Contract Service.
7.9 At this juncture, it is worthwhile to reproduce excerpts from the Union Finance Minister's budget speech in 2007:-
“State Governments levy a tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract. The value of services in a works contract should attract service tax. Hence, I propose to an optional composition scheme under which service tax will be levied at only 2 per cent of the total value of the words contract”.
7.10 The issue was analyzed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Larsen & Toubro case (supra) and held that there can be no levy of service tax on composite contracts (involving both service and supply of goods) prior to 1.6.2007. This read together with the budget speech as above would lead to the strong conclusion that com
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
He took support of the maxim 'generalia specialibus non derogant' – 'general things do not derogate special things'. The counsel for appellants have submitted that as per Section 65A of the Act ibid, classification of service shall be based on the specific entries and the more specific description of service has to be preferred. He invited our attention to CBEC‟s Circular 128/10/2010 dated 24.8.2010 which is reproduced as under:-
“The matter has been examined. As regards the classification, with effect from 1-6-2007 when the new service 'Works Contract service' was made effective, classification of aforesaid services would undergo a change in case of long term contracts even though part of the service was classified under the respective taxable service prior to 1-6-2007. This is because 'works contract' describes the nature of the activity more specifically and, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994, it would be the appropriate classification
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ct Service, were available in the Finance Act, 1994. The SCN did mention this in the first para itself. However, the proposal for tax demand was specifically made under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service under Section 65 (105) (zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994. In such situation, we note that it cannot be a case of simple mentioning of wrong provisions of law as submitted by the Revenue. Apparently, the tax liability of composite works contract is to be considered under works contract services only as per legal position settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s L&T Limited. Even in the appeal, the Revenue submitted that the respondent were engaged in construction services liable to tax under tax entry Section 65(105) (xxq). The grievance of the Revenue is with reference to commercial nature of the construction undertaken by the respondent and not on the correct classification of taxable activity.”
b. In the case of Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Servic
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
unal. If that be so, even when the Revenue authorities are accepting the facts that the contracts executed by the appellant are nothing but works contracts, for the period in question, entire case of the Revenue in the show-cause notice stands demolished by the Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra). In the said judgment, their Lordships have very categorically laid down the law that the works contract cannot be vivisected for the confirmation of demand under various other services. On this ground itself, the entire demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority is liable to be set aside and we do so.”
c. In the case of URC Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem – 2017 (50) STR 147, the Tribunal in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 has held as under:-
“9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Larsen & Toubro & Ors. has decided thus
'24. A close look at the Finance Act, 1994 would show that the five taxable services referred to in the charging Section 65(1
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
aforesaid Sections by deducting from the gross value of the works contract the value of properly in goods transferred in the execution of a works contract.'
10. In view of this specific decision and the admitted claim of the appellant that they are not providers of 'commercial or industrial construction service' but of 'works contract service', no tax is liable on construction contracts executed prior to 1st June, 2007.
11. Insofar as demand for subsequent period till 30th September, 2008 is concerned, it is seen that neither of the two show cause notices adduce to leviability of tax for rendering 'works contract service'. On the contrary, the submission of the appellant that they had been providing 'works contract service' had been rejected by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, even as the services rendered by them are taxable for the period from 1st June, 2007 to 30th September, 2008 the narrow confines of the show cause notices do not permit confirmation of demand of tax on
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
demand of service tax liability only under these two categories and not under Works Contract service. The demand confirmed in the impugned order under these categories namely under construction service for the period 10.09.2004 to 16.06.2005 under CICS for the period 16.06.2005 to 30.09.2008 cannot also sustain and are therefore set aside. So ordered
5.3 For the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008, the demand confirmed is Rs. 26,88,611/-. We note that the appellant has not contested the liability under works contract for this period. The only argument brought forth by the Ld. Counsel is that they have discharged an amount of around Rs. 82 lakhs under this category after the visit of the departmental officers and therefore an amount of Rs. 36,88,611/- demanded in the impugned order should be considered as having been discharged. We find merit in his argument and hence the demand of Rs. 26,88,611/- under works contract service for the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008 is required to be consi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
racted only if the activities are in the nature of services' simpliciter.
c. For activities of construction of new building or civil structure or new residential complex etc. involving indivisible composite contract, such services will require to be exigible to service tax liabilities under 'Works Contract Service' as defined under section 65(105)(zzzza) ibid.
d. The show cause notices in all these cases prior to 1.6.2007 and subsequent to that date for the periods in dispute, proposing service tax liability on the impugned services involving composite works contract, under 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' or 'Construction of Complex' Service, cannot therefore sustain. In respect of any contract which is a composite contract, service tax cannot be demanded under CICS / CCS for the periods also after 1.6.2007 for the periods in dispute in these appeals. For this very reason, the proceedings in all these appeals cannot sustain.”
6. Following the above decision, we ar
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Seeks to provide taxpayers whose registration has been cancelled on or before the 30th September, 2018 time to furnish final return in FORM GSTR-10 till 31st December, 2018
(23/2018) No. FD 47 CSL 2017 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Karnataka SGST
GST – States
Karnataka SGST
Karnataka SGST
FINANCESECRETARIAT
NOTIFICATION (23/2018)
No. FD 47 CSL 2017, Bengaluru, dated 26/10/2018
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 148 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Karnataka A
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Clarifications of issues under GST related to casual taxable person and recovery of excess Input Tax Credit distributed by an Input Service distributor.
CIRCULAR No. 71/2018 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Gujarat SGST
GST – States
CIRCULAR
Commissioner of State Tax,
Gujarat State, Ahmedabad
Dated 26th October, 2018
CIRCULAR No. 71/2018
No.GSL/GST/B.11
Subject: Clarifications of issues under GST related to casual taxable person and recovery of excess Input Tax Credit distributed by an Input Service distributor.
Representations have been received seeking clarification on certain issues under the GST laws. The same have been examined and the clarifications on the same are as below:
S.No.
Issue
Clarification
1.
Whether the amount requi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
on.
2.
As per section 27 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), period of operation by causal taxable person is ninety days with provision for extension of same by the proper officer for a further period not exceeding ninety days. Various representations have been received for further extension of the said period beyond the period of 180 days, as mandated in law.
1. It is clarified that in case of long running exhibitions (for a period more than 180 days), the taxable person cannot be treated as a CT P and thus such person would be required to obtain registration as a normal taxable person.
2. While applying for normal registration the should upload a copy of the allotment letter grant
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
edit to one or more recipients of credit, the excess credit so distributed shall be recovered from such recipients along with interest and penalty if any.
2. The recipient unit(s) who have received excess credit from ISD may deposit the said excess amount voluntarily alongwith interest if any by using FORM GST DRC-03.
3. If the said recipient unit(s) does not come forward voluntarily, necessary proceedings may be initiated against the said unit(s) under the provisions of section 73 or 74 of the GGST Act as the case may be. FORM GST DRC-07 can be used by the tax authorities in such cases.
4. It is further clarified that the ISD would also be liable to a general penalty under the provision contained in section (122)(1)(ix) of the GGST Act.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Processing of Applications for Cancellation of Registration submitted in FORM GST REG-16.
CIRCULAR No. 69/2018 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Gujarat SGST
GST – States
CIRCULAR
Commissioner of State Tax,
Gujarat State, Ahmedabad
Dated 26th October, 2018
CIRCULAR No.69/2018
No. GSL/GST/B. 9
Subject: Processing of Applications for Cancellation of Registration submitted in FORM GST REG-16 Reg.
The Board is in receipt of representations seeking clarifications on various issues in relation to processing of the applications for cancellation of registration filed by taxpayers in FORM GST REG-16. In order to clarify these issues and to ensure uniformity in the implementation of the provisions of law across the field formations, the Commissioner of State Tax, in exercise of its powers conferred by section 168 (1) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “GGST Act”), hereby clarifies the issues as detailed hereunder:
2. Section 29 of the GGST Act, read
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
an event occurs. For instance, a business may be transferred/disposed over a period of time in a piece meal fashion. In such cases, the 30-day deadline may be liberally interpreted and the taxpayers' application for cancellation of registration may not be rejected because of the possible violation of the deadline.
4. While initiating the application for cancellation of registration in FORM GST REG-16, the Common portal captures the following information which has to be mandatorily filled in by the applicant:
a) Address for future correspondence with mobile number and email address;
b) Reason for cancellation;
c) Date from which cancellation is sought;
d) Details of the value and the input tax/tax payable on the stock of inputs, inputs contained in semi-finished goods, inputs contained in finished goods, stock of capital goods/plant and machinery;
e) In case of transfer, merger of business, etc., particulars of registration of the entity in which the existing unit has been merged,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the application for cancellation.
In all cases other than those listed at (a) and (b) above, the application for cancellation of registration should be immediately accepted by the proper officer and the order for cancellation should be issued in FORM GST REG-19 with the effective date of cancellation being the same as the date from which the applicant has sought cancellation in FORM GST REG-16. In any case the effective date cannot be a date earlier to the date of application for the same.
6. In situations referred to in (a) or (b) in Para 5 above, the proper officer shall inform the applicant in writing about the nature of the discrepancy and give a time period of seven working days to the taxpayer, from the date of receipt of the said letter, to reply. If no reply is received within the specified period of seven working days, the proper officer may reject the application on the system, after giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard, recording reasons for rejection in the di
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
of cancellation, whichever is later. The purpose of the final return is to ensure that the taxpayer discharges any liability that he/she may have incurred under sub-section (5) of the section 29 of the GGST Act It may be noted that the last date for furnishing of FORM GSTR-10 by those taxpayers whose registration has been cancelled on or before 30.09.2018 has been extended till 31.12.2018 vide Government Notification, Finance Department No. (GHN-108)GST-2018/S.148(100-TH dated the 26th October, 201 8, Notification No. 58/2018-StateTax.
8. Further, sub-section (5) of section 29 of the GGST Act, read with rule 20 of the GGST Rules states that the taxpayer seeking cancellation of registration shall have to pay, by way of debiting either the electronic credit or cash ledger, the input tax contained in the stock of inputs, semi-finished goods, finished goods and capital goods or the output tax payable on such goods, whichever is higher. For the purpose of this calculation, the stock of in
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
hat the output tax liability of the taxpayer, as determined under subsection (5) of section 29 of the GGST Act, was greater than the amount of input tax credit available, then the difference shall be paid by him/her in cash. It is reiterated that, as stated in sub-section (3) of section 29 of the GGST Act, the cancellation of registration does not, in any way, affect the liability of the taxpayer to pay any dues under the GST law, irrespective of whether such dues have been determined before or after the date of cancellation.
9. In case the final return in FORM GSTR-10 is not filed within the stipulated date, then notice in FORM GSTR-3A has to be issued to the taxpayer. If the taxpayer still fails to file the final return within 15 days of the receipt of notice in FORM GSTR-3A, then an assessment order in FORM GST ASMT-13 under section 62 of the GGST Act read with rule 100 of the GGST Rules shall have to be issued to determine the liability of the taxpayer under sub-section (5) of sec
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e GGST Act has been amended by the GGST (Amendment) Act, 2018 to provide for “Suspension” of registration. The intent of the said amendment is to ensure that a taxpayer is freed from the routine compliances, including filing returns, under GST Act during the pendency of the proceedings related to cancellation. Although the provisions of GGST (Amendment) Act, 2018 have not yet been brought into force, it will be prudent for the field formations not to issue notices for non-filing of return for taxpayers who have already filed an application for cancellation of registration under section 29 of the GGST Act. However, the requirement of filing a final return, as under section 45 of the GGST Act, remains unchanged.
12. It may be noted that the information in table in FORM GST REG-19 shall be taken from the liability ledger and the difference between the amounts in Table 10 and Table 1 of FORM GST REG-16.
13. Difficulty, if any, in implementation of the above instructions may please be bro
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Seeks to provide taxpayers whose registration has been cancelled on or before the 30th September, 2018 time to furnish final return in FORM GSTR-10 till 31st December, 2018.
45/2018-State Tax Dated:- 26-10-2018 Arunachal Pradesh SGST
GST – States
Arunachal Pradesh SGST
Arunachal Pradesh SGST
GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEPARTMENT OF TAX & EXCISE
ITANAGAR
Notification No. 45/2018-State Tax
The 26th October, 2018
No. GST/23/2017/Vol-I.-In exercise of the powers conferred
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
BHAGWATI PRODUCTS LIMITED Versus THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX
Customs
2018 (11) TMI 857 – SC Order – 2019 (365) E.L.T. A39 (SC)
SUPREME COURT – SC
Dated:- 26-10-2018
Civil Appeal Diary No(s). 35978/2018
Customs
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind P. Dattar, Sr. Adv.Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Victor Das, Adv. Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Adv. Mr. Manish Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Shrey Ashat,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Belapur Versus Flemingo Duty Free Shop Pvt Ltd
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 842 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 26-10-2018
APPLICATION NOS: ST/ROM/85493, 85498 to 85504/2018 IN APPEAL NOS: ST/87234 to 87241/2016 – M/86105-86112/2018
Service Tax
Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) And Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial)
Shri MK Sarangi, Joint Commissioner (AR) for appellant applicant
Shri A R Krishnan, Chartered Accountant for respondent
ORDER
Per: C J Mathew
In these applications, made under section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944, Revenue contends that mistakes apparent on the record in final order no. A/89737-89744/17/STB dated 29th September 2017 disposing off appeal no. ST/87234/2016-MUM of theirs against the order of the first appellate authority in favour of M/s Flemingo Duty Free Shops P Ltd requires rectification. The dispute that was carried to the Tribunal pertains to eligibility for claim of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
f Customs Act, 1962, also sought rectification of that mistaken conclusion. Furthermore, according to him, the frontiers of taxable territory having been decided upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd v. Union of India [2008 (227) ELT 24 (SC)], the Tribunal had erred in excluding 'duty free shops' in 'international airports' from 'taxable territory.' The applications also seeks that written submissions, filed on behalf of Revenue, but ignored by the Tribunal, be taken into consideration.
3. Before proceeding to record the submissions of Learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the respondent, we cannot but observe that section 35C(2) of central Excise Act, 1944 is not intended to be an instrument for altering a final decision handed down by the Tribunal. 'Mistake apparent in the record' is one that should be apparent and not any disagreement with consequences of the trajectory of reasoning adopted or the outcome of the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
, and that, in the face of such obdurate refusal to accept the logical reasoning adopted in the impugned order, the Tribunal was compelled to drive the point home in no uncertain terms even by indulgence in theoretical exercise. It was also pointed out that the submissions of Revenue during the hearing appeared to fall back on the settled law pertaining to refund of CENVAT credit extended to exporters of goods and services in rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with its own definition of 'exports' that was not germane to the dispute before the Tribunal.
5. We have perused the written submissions that are part of the record pertaining to disposal of the appeal and annexed to the present application. Undoubtedly, it is elaborate on the exports that are entitled to rebate, is replete with various decisions pertaining to disposition of warehoused goods in the domestic market and hypothesizes that the respondent may be unjustly enriched by grant of rebate. Doubtlessly impelled by t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
edless to say, it is a fallacy to equate narration or assertion with acceptable disposal of submissions.
6. All that remains for disposal is the allegation of taint of mistake in the foray of the final order of the Tribunal into 'taxable territory.' It would not be out of place to note here that an order need not necessarily conform, either in pattern or in content, to the wisdom, expectation and comprehension of the applicant-Commissioner. In deciding to approve, reject or modify an order .impugned before it, the Tribunal may, by the qualification of its constituents as well as its status in the judicial hierarchy, find it necessary to articulate the law as settled, interpret law that is yet to be settled, impart encyclopaedical information and offer pedagogical explanation with the larger purpose of persuading that law and logic go hand in hand to limit the authority vested in tax collectors. A discussion on the leviability of domestic tax outside the 'taxable territory&
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
on; the equating of the two may well suit the applicant-Commissioner but inappropriate citing would not advance that cause.
8. As to whether that reasoning, if it did impact upon the confirmation of the orders of the two lower authorities, was correct in law or otherwise is for the Government to dispute before, and to be decided by, the appropriate appellate authority specified in the statute. To that end, Learned Chartered Accountant brought to our notice, almost as denouement, that Government of India, in Department of Revenue vide order no. 634/2018-CUS (WZ)/ASRA/MUMBAI dated 31st August 2018 through the Revision Authority in exercise of powers under section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962 while disposing of application of Shri Aarish Altaf Tinwala, has found that
'11. The Central Government however observes that the duty free shops though being physically located in Indian Territory, are specifically treated as being located outside the Customs Territory of India. … Goods sold by D
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
hic territory of India, but for the purposes of levy of Customs Duties or any other taxes, the area of Duty Free shops shall be deemed to be the area beyond the customs frontiers of India….'
9. The decision of the Government of India supra is neither binding on us nor should be so construed as to deny the present application which seeks a limited relief within the scope of section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. That opinion was also not available to persuade the Tribunal in composing the final order, now sought to be rectified, that was rendered. Even if it was, Learned Authorised Representative contends that an order pertaining to a passenger seeking exclusion from duties of customs in excess of 'free allowance' permissible to him has no bearing on the issue. Nevertheless, on the scope for application of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Hotel Ashoka, cited by Learned Authorised Representative, and the holistic perspective of the physical extent of t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Larsen & Toubro Limited (EAIC) Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai East
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 829 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 26-10-2018
APPEAL NO: E/86348/2018 – A/87789/2018
Central Excise
Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial)
Shri Jitendra Khare, AGM with Shri Kishore Ahuja, AGM for appellant
Shri S.J. Sahu, Assistant Commissioner (AR) respondent
ORDER
Imposition of penalty on ground of suppression of alleged availment of inadmissible credit even after subsequent reversal upon audit noting before issue of show cause is the subject matter of this appeal.
2. Brief fact of the appellant's case is that it is a large tax payer which is subjected to CERA and EA-2000 audits every year. During EA audit conducted in the month of June 2016 it was brought to the notice of appellant that certain inadmissible Cenvat Credits were availed by the appellant for the period between Oct-11 to Mar-15 amounting to Rs. 8,71,885/- and the same wa
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
h facilities available in the form prescribed for e-filing of returns. The appellant also contended that every year Excise Department had conducted audit of its records and verified the detail of Cenvat Credit availed by it but they had not raised any objection on previous occasions for which no mens rea can be inferred from the conduct of the appellant since entire allegedly erroneous credit is only 0.2% of the total availed of credit of Rs. 45,37,57,775/- covering 72,266 numbers of invoices and error might have occured in handling such huge volume of data. The Learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Jitendra Khare & Shri Kishore Ahjuja further submitted that in the previous occasions, on similar situations, favourable Order-in-Originals had been passed in favour of appellant and the same may be treated as judicial precedent in setting aside the order.
4. In response to such submissions of the appellant, the Learned AR for the Department Shri S.J. Sahu supported the order of the Commi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
arties which firm part of the appeal case record. Admittedly, appellant's availment of Cenvat credit which was held by the audit party is inadmissible is not being questioned in this appeal about its legality. In his Order-in-Appeal the commissioner has distinguished the appellant's case in respect of earlier decisions concerning the appellant on similar issue passed by the adjudicating authority and he hold that previous audit cannot be taken as a plea of non-suppression. To him audit is nothing but vouching a document in a selective and comprehensive way but it is not a complete checking of each and every document for which it cannot be said that there was no suppression or non disclosure of fact since it was appellant's responsibility to bring facts of availment of credit which they failed to do. However, in order to find out the purpose of audit, reference is made by me to the Manual published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in respect of EA audit and CERA audit.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ined by CERA audit party to point out the deficiencies, leakage of revenue and non recoveries of dues by the Central Excise Department. Therefore it cannot be said that only because audit party had found some credit availed as inadmissible, suppression of fact is made out.
6. As found from the show cause notice as well as from the OIO and OIA, the credit was held to be inadmissible on the ground that after sale services credit should not go to the manufacture but nowhere it has been referred that sale was done by the third party other than the manufacturer itself but there is no point in discussing on the merit of admissibility of the credit since the same is accepted by the appellant and not challenged though there is a difference between acceptance of the direction of the executive authority and imposition of tax without compliance to Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
7. Appellant has placed heavy reliance on the case law reported in 2015-TIOL-223-SC-CX in the matter of Com
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
lleged inadmissibility runs into lakhs, considering the largeness of tax payment by the appellant in crores, it comprised of only 0.2% of its total Cenvat Credit allegedly wrongfully availed. It is also found from the show cause and OIO that one to one co-relation of the credit availed is not a basic requirement of Cenvat Credit rules. Furthermore appellant had not only reversed the credit which was held by the audit party as inadmissible but had also intimated the fact of such reversal by e-mail to the competent authority. Audit being one of the ways by which departmental authorities can bring the fact of inadmissibility of credit to the knowledge of the assessee on verification of its document for which no specific mode is prescribed in the statute for suo moto submission of Cenvat Credit documents or related information to Excise Department and self assessment mechanism being introduced, it cannot be said that any suppression of fact has been established against the appellant. Hence
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Notifies the persons whose registration under the said Act has been cancelled by the proper officer on or before the 30th September, 2018,furnish the final return in FORM GSTR-10 of the said rules till the 31st December, 2018.
ERTS(T) 65/2017/Pt. II/29-58/2018-State Tax Dated:- 26-10-2018 Meghalaya SGST
GST – States
Meghalaya SGST
Meghalaya SGST
GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA
EXCISE, REGISTRATION, TAXATION & STAMPS
DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
No. 58/2018-State Tax
Dated Shillong, the 26
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Prescribing the date of furnishing of final return in form GSTR-10 for the class of persons whose registration has been cancelled on or before 30.09.2018.
G.O. Ms. No. 141 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Tamil Nadu SGST
GST – States
Tamil Nadu SGST
Tamil Nadu SGST
NOTIFICATIONS BY GOVERNMENT
COMMERCIAL TAXES AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE TAMIL NADU GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017.
[G.O. Ms. No. 141, Commercial Taxes and Registration (B-1), 26th October 2018,
Aippasi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Prescribing the date of furnishing of final return in form GSTR-10 for the class of persons whose registration has been cancelled on or before 30.09.2018.
F.12(56)FD/Tax/2017-Pt-III-126 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Rajasthan SGST
GST – States
Rajasthan SGST
Rajasthan SGST
GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
(TAX DIVISION)
NOTIFICATION
Jaipur, dated: October 26, 2018
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Act No. 9 of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Seeks to extends the time limit for furnishing the declaration in FORM GST ITC-04 for the period from July, 2017 to September, 2018 till 31st December, 2018.
(01-V/2018) No. KGST.CR.01/2017-18 Dated:- 26-10-2018 Karnataka SGST
GST – States
Karnataka SGST
Karnataka SGST
Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka)
Vanijya Therige Karyalaya, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru,
NOTIFICATION (01-VI 2018)
No. KGST.CR.01/17-18. Dated: 26.10.2018
In pursuance of section 168 of the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Extension of due date for furnishing return in GSTR- 3B for the month of September, 2018 till 25.10.2018.
25/2018-C.T./GST-55/2018-State Tax Dated:- 26-10-2018 West Bengal SGST
GST – States
West Bengal SGST
West Bengal SGST
GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL
DIRECTORATE OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
14, BELIAGHATA ROAD, KOLKATA-700015
NOTIFICATION BY THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX
Notification No. 25/2018-C.T./GST Dated: 26.10.2018
Notification No. 55/2018-State Tax
In exercise of the powers co
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
