Goods and Services Tax

A1 Cuisines Private Limited Versus Union of India, And State of Maharashtra,
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1278 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – 2019 (22) G. S. T. L. 326 (Bom.)
BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 28-11-2018
Writ Petition No. 8034 Of 2018
GST
P. N. Deshmukh And Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.
Mr. S. Kantawala, Advocate with Mr. A.M.Sudame, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S.A.Chaudhari, Advocate  Mr. A.D.Sonak, A.G.P. for Respondent.  
ORAL JUDGMENT  
P. N. Deshmukh,  
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to exempt the petitioner from charging applicable taxes under the GST Legislations on sale of cosmetic products, perfumes etc. to the International passengers and claim refund of any input tax paid on input supplies and input services from the retail shop which the petitioner intends to set up at the Domestic Security Hold Area at Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport (hereinafter re

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

after purchasing these products from the shop, will be able to depart from India after taking connecting International flight from the transit International Airport. It is further submitted that a duty free operator operating in India imports goods like liquor, tobacco products, souvenirs, eyewear, watches, fashion, chocolates, perfumes etc. by filing import general manifest and Bill of Entry for warehousing with the Customs department without payment of import duty on the first importation subject to certain conditions. The Bill of Entry clearly indicates the duty free operator as an “importer”. The imported goods are warehoused at a bonded warehouse. Further the Bill of Entry also discloses that the goods imported are for “sale only for Duty free shop/export.”
Similarly, it is also submitted that the duty free operator also takes on rent a private bonded warehouse located near the Airport as well as certain shops called 'dutyfree shops' at the arrival and departure terminals

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

69) or for removal to another warehouse or otherwise provided in this Act. The petitioner submits that the goods so warehoused are then brought to the dutyfree shop without payment of duty under escort of the bond Officer. The goods are then sold at the duty free shops at arrival and departure terminals. The subsequent sales at duty free shops are under general supervision and control of the Customs Officer and that the goods are sold at the duty free shops to the International passengers at the arrival and departure terminals by issuing a sales invoice which disclose inter alia the name of the passenger, flight details, passport number, etc. and is available for inspection by the Customs Officer. These details are also entered in the computer of the operators and are available for inspection by the Customs Authority.
4. The petitioner submits that with effect from July, 2017, the respondent no.1 promulgated and notified CGST, IGST and various State Governments promulgated SGST. That

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

proposed to be operated by petitioner and had sought further direction that petitioner shall be eligible to claim refund of any taxes paid on any supplies and input services from his shop in the event his tender for having such shop at Nagpur Airport is granted to him.
6. In the context of above facts, petitioner relied on the case of M/s. Hotel Ashoka (Indian Tourism Development Corporation Limited) vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Another (Civil Appeal No.2560 of 2010) reported in 2012 (276) ELT 433 (SC) and on the order of Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench, Mumbai in the matter of Commissioner, Service TaxVII vs. Flemingo Duty Free Shop Pvt. Ltd. (Appeal No.8723441/ 2016), dated 28.09.2017, wherein law laid down in the case of Hotel Ashoka (supra) is relied and Central Government's order dt.31.8.2018 bearing No.634/2018CUS( WZ)/ASRA/MUMBAI passed under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 in the case of Aarish Altaf Tinwala.
7. To

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

om India after embarking the International flight from the transit International Airport.
8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the petitioner in the instant petition and have perused the provisions of Article 286 of the Constitution of India, GST laws, Customs Act, 1962 and Finance Act, 1994. We have considered the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Ashoka (supra). We have also perused the two Orders of the CESTAT and of the Central Government following the case of Hotel Ashoka, which are relied upon by the petitioner.
9. The Government of India in case of Aarish Altaf Tinwala by its order dt.31.8.2018 dismissed the revision of applicant filed by International passenger on relying the case of M/s. Hotel Ashoka (cited supra) observing that :
“8. The applicant has vehemently pleaded that once he has completed the immigration formalities, he is said to have entered Indian Territory. Thereafter, the goods purchased from the duty free shop situa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

waters of India. ”
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. duty free shops are located in the Customs Area defined under Section 2(11) and it includes any area where the imported goods or export goods are kept before clearance by Customs authorities. Goods sold by duty free shops are not duty paid goods and such goods are deposited in a customs bonded premises/ware houses, licensed under Section 58A of the Customs Act, 1962 without payment of duty. Section 71 clearly mandates that no goods shall be taken out of a warehouse except clearance for home consumption, exportation or removal to another warehouse or as otherwise provided by this Act. It is thus clear that such goods need to suffer Customs duty on being exported by duty free shops and imported by passenger in terms of Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. The conten

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

id that the said goods had crossed the customs frontiers.
The goods are not cleared from the customs till they are brought in India by crossing the customs frontiers. When the goods are lying in the bonded warehouses, they are deemed to have been kept outside the customs frontiers of the country and as stated by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, the appellant was selling the goods from the duty free shops owned by it at Bengaluru International Airport before the said goods had crossed the customs frontiers. ”
“30. They again submitted that 'in the course of import' means 'the transaction ought to have taken place beyond the territories of India and not within the geographical territory of India.' We do not agree with the said submission. When any transaction takes place outside the customs frontiers of India, the transaction would be said to have taken place outside India. Though the transaction might take place within India but technically loo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tiers of India. Although, the applicant bought goods from duty free shop at CSI Airport Mumbai, the same are deemed to be imported from across the Customs Frontiers of India and customs duty is payable on such goods. Since the applicant crossed the green channel without declarations and without payment of customs duty, the department has rightly proceeded against the Applicant.
11. The Central Government has thus applied the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hotel Ashoka (supra) and correctly held that the transactions effected at the duty free shops at the arrival or departure of the International Airports in India located after the passenger clears immigration might have taken place within the geographic 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 and the transaction would be said to have taken place outside India.
12. The aforesa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

chase/supplies of goods or services to or from duty free shop situated after the passenger crosses the immigration counter at arrival or departure hall of International Airport Terminals; however, they would have no application to shops located at a domestic Airport or Domestic Security Hold Area, which are before even the immigration clearance by a passenger, where the transaction cannot be said to have taken place in any area beyond the customs frontiers of India or outside India. Even otherwise, a passenger travelling on a domestic flight from Nagpur may or may not travel abroad, and the Customs Authorities would not be able to have effective check and control to verify whether the goods purchased from Domestic Airport at Nagpur are actually taken abroad by the passenger.
14. We are thus unable to agree with the petitioner and find no merit in this petition. No case is made out even on prima facie basis to issue any directions or any notice in that regard. With the above observatio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re: Patrick Bernardinz D’Sa
GST
2018 (12) TMI 535 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 181 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA – AAR
Dated:- 28-11-2018
AAR No. KAR 29/2018
GST
SRI. HARISH DHARNIA, AND DR. RAVI PRASAD M.P. MEMBER
Represented by Sri. Patrick Bernardinz D'Sa
ORDER UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 98 OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX ACT, 2017 AND UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 98 OF KARNATAKA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
Sri. Patrick Bernardinz D'Sa, # 17-7-477 “Pauline”, Miller Road, Valencia, Kadak, Mangalore – 575 002, Karnataka (herein after referred to as Applicant) having temporary GSTIN number 291800000227ARM, has filed an application, on 23.02.2018, for advance ruling under section 97 of CGST Act,2017, KGST Act, 2017 & IGST Act, 2017 read with rule 104 of CGST Rules 2017 & KGST Rules 2017, in form GST ARA-01, discharging the fee of Rs. 5,000-00 each under the CGST Act and the KG

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ement with a Developer to develop his land. He had contributed only his land and in return gets his share of 50% of the total 12 flats constructed and also 50% share out of 4000 sq. ft. of commercial construction. The Joint Development Agreement was signed by him in January 2016 and construction is reported to be completed in January 2018 and hence filed the instant application.
FINDINGS & DISCUSSION:
5. We have considered the submissions made by the Applicant in their application for advance ruling as well as the submissions made by Sri P B D'Sa during the personal hearing. We also considered the issue involved on which advance ruling is sought by the applicant, relevant facts of the issue involved and the contents of the Joint Development Agreement.
6. The Applicant, filed this application dated 23.02.2018 for advance ruling, seeking clarification as to “Whether the applicant being the land owner is liable to pay GST on premises allotted him, which he intends to distribute among h

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

t Agreement was signed by him in January 2016 and the construction is stated to be completed in January 2018.
10. In the Context of the question raised by the applicant, it is pertinent to examine and discuss Notification No.4/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018, which notifies the following classes of registered persons, namely : –
a) Registered persons who supply development rights to a developer, builder, construction company or any other registered person against consideration, wholly or partly, in the form of construction service of complex, building or civil structure; and
b) Registered persons who supply construction service of complex, building or civil structure to supplier of development rights against consideration, wholly or partly, in the form of transfer of development rights,
as the registered persons in whose case the liability to pay central tax on supply of the Said services, on the consideration received in the form of construction service referred to in cla

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

r in respect of his land, is liable to registration and payment of tax.
12. Section 2(94) of CGST Act' 2017 defines “Registered Person” as a person who is registered under Section 25 but does not include a person having a Unique Identity Number. Section 25 of the CGST Act' 2017 prescribes the procedure for registration and stipulates that “Every person who is liable to be registered under Section 22 or Section 24 of the CGST Act 2017 shall apply for registration in every such state or Union territory in which he is so liable within thirty days from the date on which he comes liable to registration, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed;”
Section 22 of the CGST Act 2017 tells about the persons liable for registration and stipulates that Every supplier, who makes a taxable supply of goods or services or both, shall be liable to be registered, if his aggregate turnover crosses the threshold limit prescribed in the Act.
The applicant has not furnished any in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re: M/s. Nforce Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd
GST
2018 (12) TMI 534 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 184 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA – AAR
Dated:- 28-11-2018
AAR No. KAR ADRG 30/2018
GST
SRI. HARISH DHARNIA, AND DR. RAVI PRASAD M.P. MEMBER
Represented by Sri. Rudolph M C Rodrigues, Chartered Accountant
ORDER UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 98 OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX ACT, 2017 AND UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 98 OF KARNATAKA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
M/s. Nforce Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd., Victoria, Near Valencia Church, Kankanady, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore – 575 002, Karnataka (herein after referred to as Applicant) having GSTIN number 29AADCN3089J1Z0, have filed an application, on 17.03.2018, for advance ruling under Section 97 of CGST Act,2017, KGST Act, 2017 & IGST Act, 2017 read with rule 104 of CGST Rules 2017 & KGST Rules 2017, in form GST ARA-01, discharging the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the aggregate value of the building constructed and handed over to the land owner and the underlying value of the land. Therefore the applicant filed this instant application seeking advance ruling on the following issues
1. Whether the applicant is liable to pay GST on the value of building constructed and handed over to the land owner in terms of the Joint Development Agreement ?
2. If there is liability to pay GST on what value is the GST to be paid since there is no monetary consideration involved?
3. Is the applicant liable to pay service tax up to 30.06.2017 and GST thereafter?
PERSONAL HEARING: / PROCEEDINGS HELD ON 03.04.2018.
4. The Applicant submitted power of attorney, issued by Sri, Ivan Mark Sequeira, Managing Director, M/S Nforce Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd., authorizing Sri. Rudolpoh M C Rodrigues, Chartered Accountant to represent the applicant before the Authority for Advance Ruling in connection with the instant application for Advance Ruling. The said auth

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

is liable to pay GST on the value of building constructed and handed over to the land owner in terms of the Joint Development Agreement ?
2. If there is liability to pay GST on what value is the GST to be paid since there is no monetary consideration involved?
3. Is the applicant liable to pay service tax up to 30.06.2017 and GST thereafter?
7. Notification No.4/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018, notifies the following classes of registered persons, namely
a) Registered persons who supply development rights to a developers builder, construction company or any other registered person against consideration, wholly or partly, in the form of construction service of complex, building or civil structure; and
b) Registered persons who supply construction service of complex, building or civil structure to supplier of development rights against consideration, wholly or partly, in the form of transfer of development rights,
as the registered persons in whose case the liability

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e or Union territory in which he is so liable within thirty days from the date on which he comes liable to registration, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed;”
Section 22 of the CGST Act 2017 tells about the persons liable for registration and stipulates that Every supplier, who makes a taxable supply of goods or services or both, shall be liable to be registered, if his aggregate turnover crosses the threshold limit prescribed in the Act.
9. In the instant case the applicant, a registered person, is supplying the construction service of building / civil structure to supplier of the development rights (the land owner) against consideration in the form of transfer of development rights. Notification No.4/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018, at para (b), stipulates that the supplier of construction service, to the supplier of development rights, is liable to pay GST for the service provided to the land owner in terms of the Joint Development Agreement

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d or undivided share of land, as the case may be.
11. The third question of the applicant relates to their liability to pay service tax up to 30.06.2017. In this regard we draw reference to Section 142 (11) of the CGST/ KGST Act 2017, which is appended below :
(11) (a) notwithstanding anything contained in section 12 no tax shall be payable on goods under this Act to the extent the tax was leviable on the said goods under the Value Added Tax Act of the State;
(b) notwithstanding anything contained in Section 13, no tax shall be payable on services under this Act to the extent the tax was leviable on the said services under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994;
(c) where tax was paid on any supply both under the Value Added Tax Act and under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, tax shall be leviable under this Act and the taxable person shall be entitled to take credit of value added tax or service tax paid under the existing law to the extent of supplies made after the appointed da

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re: M/s. C.M. Enviro Systems Private Limited
GST
2018 (12) TMI 477 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA – TMI
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA – AAR
Dated:- 28-11-2018
AAR No. KAR ADRG 31/2018
GST
SRI. HARISH DHARNIA, AND DR. RAVI PRASAD M.P. MEMBER
Represented by Sri. Praveen Crasta, Director
ORDER UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 98 OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX ACT, 2017 AND UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 98 OF KARNATAKA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
M/s. C.M. Enviro Systems Private Limited, # B-193 & 194, Peenya II Stage, V Main Road, Bengaluru- 560 058 (herein after referred to as Applicant) having GSTIN number 29AAACC5910C1Z3, have filed an application, on 16.05.2018, for advance ruli

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

equipments used by DRDO's and other Defence Establishments, Automotive, Electrical & Electronic Industries (Private & Public Enterprises) and hence the use of these products is scientific & Technical in nature.
3. In view of the above, the Applicant has sought for Advance Ruling on the question that “Can our product be classified as Scientific & Technical Instruments, Equipments under a relevant Chapter Heading”. But the Applicant requested to permit them to withdraw the application filed for advance ruling vide their e-mail letter dated 22.11.2018, quoting the reason that their claim has no merit.
4. In view of the foregoing, we pass the following
RULING
The application filed by the Applicant for advance ruling is dismissed as withdra

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Aman Enterprises And Beej Bhandar Versus Union Of India And 3 Others
GST
2018 (12) TMI 347 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – TMI
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 28-11-2018
Writ Tax No. – 1483 of 2018
GST
Pankaj Mithal And Pankaj Bhatia JJ.
For the Petitioner : Naveen Chandra Gupta,Murari Mohan Rai
For the Respondent : A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.
ORDER
Heard Sri N.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, Special Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner claims himself to be the registered purchasing dealer of the goods in transit which have been seized under Section 129 (1) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (in short of the Act). Sri C.B. Tripathi, Special Counsel has produced the copy of th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CCT, Medchal – GST Versus Visakha Industries Ltd
Central Excise
2018 (12) TMI 242 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 28-11-2018
Appeal No. E/30566/2018 – A/31491/2018
Central Excise
Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Shri V.R. Pavan Kumar, Superintendent for the Appellant.
Shri R. Muralidhar, Advocate for the Respondent.
ORDER
Per: M.V. Ravindran
1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. HYDEXCUS- MD-AP2-0252-17-18-CE dated 19.02.2018.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the refund claim filed by the respondent. The respondent in this case was a manufacturer of dutiable items and had opted for provisional assessments during the period October, 2012 to September, 2013. Subsequently, on finalisation of the said provisional assessments it was noticed that respondents had paid excess duty and they filed refund claim for the said amount which was rejec

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the amounts as these refunds are arising as consequential relief, on a decision by Tribunal holding in respondent's favour on merits. He also went into the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Adison & Company Ltd (supra) and held that it may not be applicable in the facts of this case.
4. Learned departmental representative after giving overall picture of the issue involved, submitted that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Adison & Company Ltd is directly on the point; that it is not in dispute that respondent had issued credit notes subsequent to the clearances effected by them and also not in dispute that the provisional assessments were finalised which resulted in excess payment. Further, he submits that the Apex Court in the case of Adison & Company Ltd specifically stated that there has to be an evidence to show that buyer of the goods has not been passed on the amount of the duty. He specifically reads Para 21 and submits that in the case in hand, the responde

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

passed by the Tribunal on 04.05.2016. It is his submission that after recording clearly and holding on this ground that appeal needs to be allowed, the first appellate authority further went into the details of the issue of applicability of ratio in the case of Adison & Co. Ltd. Learned counsel submits and produces before the Bench that the Tribunal's order dated 04.05.2016 was appealed to the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh but were withdrawn on the ground of monetary limit. It is his submission that as on date, the Tribunal's order granting them consequential relief holds field and is not set aside and hence the first appellate authority is correct in coming to such a conclusion.
6. On consideration of the submissions made, I do find that the first appellate authority was correct in coming to a conclusion that the respondent herein is eligible for the refund of the amount claimed by them as a consequential rel

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

eration of the Tribunal ruling. I have perused the Tribunal ruling leading to the refund, wherein the Tribunal examined the identical dispute where refund was denied on the ground of unjust enrichment; and unequivocally records the setting aside of the impugned orders with 'consequential relief' if any. In the face of an unambiguous direction, the lower authority cannot be justified in crediting the impugned refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund since this very aspect has been decided in the appellant's favour by the Tribunal order leading to the impugned refund claim. On this ground alone, the impugned order, being violative of judicial discipline, is legally unsustainable.” (emphasis supplied)
9. Since the refund claim filed by the respondent in this case has arisen out of the consequential relief granted by the Tribunal by order dated 04.05.2016, and that the said order holding the field are not set aside, and that appeals were filed were withdrawn would mean that the Tribunal's ord

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Crown Express Dental Lab, Director General Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Versus M/s Theco India Private Limited
GST
2018 (12) TMI 135 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – TMI
NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – NAPA
Dated:- 28-11-2018
Case No. 15/2018
GST
Sh. B. N. Sharma, Chairman, Sh. J. C. Chauhan, Technical Member And Ms. R. Bhagyadevi, Technical Member
Dr. Archana Singh and Sh. Vijay Pandey, Associate for the Applicant No. 1, Sh. Anwar Ali T. P., Additional Commissioner for the Applicant No. 2.
Sh. George Abraham and Sh. Amish Jain, Directors for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. This investigation Report dated 30.08.2018 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. Director General of Anti-Profiteering (here-in- after referred to as the DGAP) on 31.08.2018 under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The facts of the present case, in brief, are that the Standing Committee on Anti- profite

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

D) and Special Additional Duty (SAD) had been subsumed in the IGST but the Respondent had charged 18% IGST on Rs. 59,06,000/- which was the selling price as per the quotation dated 28.11.2016 and which included CVD and SAD etc. which had been merged in the IGST and hence he had been denied the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by the Respondent and therefore, action should be taken against him.
2. The said Application was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering and was referred to the DGAP vide it's minutes of the meeting dated 25.05.2018 for detailed investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
3. The DGAP had called upon the Respondent vide his notice dated 18.06.2018 to submit his reply on the allegations leveled by the Applicant No. 1 and also to suo-moto determine the quantum of benefit which had not been passed by the Respondent on account of the ITC. The Respondent was also asked to furnish documents and evidence in support of his reply. The DG

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

additional discount combo offer of approx. Rs. 13 lakhs in the Lava Frames supplied by him if there was any adverse effect due to GST and the Applicant had agreed to these terms. The DGAP has also stated that the Respondent had further claimed that the invoices were issued after the implementation of the GST and he proposed to cover the extra cost to be paid by the above Applicant due to IGST through the additional supply of Lava Frames to him. The DGAP has further stated that the Respondent has intimated that he had imported and sold both the items after the GST was implemented and he had not claimed any transitional benefit on them.
4. The DGAP has also submitted that the Respondent had informed there had been an increase in the taxable value of 240CNC Milling Machine w.e.f. January, 2017, as was apparent from the invoice (Annex- 14) of Poona Dental Lab who had bought the same on 27.01.2017, however, no invoice was available for the Sintering Furnace D664 as it was supplied for the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

above Applicant to pay the GST amount of Rs. 10.84 lakhs, although he had paid the same to the Government.
5. The DGAP after having investigated the submissions made by the Respondent had found that the Respondent had given a quotation on 28.11.2016 for a total amount of Rs. 59,06,000/- plus 2% Freight and 2% CST against C-Form, for both the items to the above Applicant which showed that the total amount which was to be paid by the above Applicant, was as under:-
Description
Price (in Rs.)
Lava Mill CNC 240 and accessories (A)
44,66,000/-
Lava Materials approved Sintering Furnace D664 (B)
14,40,000/-
Total price (C=A+B)
59,06,000/-
Freight (D= 2% of 'C' above)
1,18,120/-
Price (including Freight = C+D)
60,24,120
Plus CST (2%)
 
6. The DGAP has also intimated that as against the above quoted price the invoice for the above items was issued on 06.09.2017, as under:-
Description
Price (in Rs.)
Lava Mill CNC 240 and accessories (A)
45,55,320/-
Lava Materi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

price to the extent of the CVD that was no longer to be paid as well as to the extent of the IGST the credit of which was available to him. The DGAP has concluded that the invoice dated 06.09.2017 on which IGST@18% was charged proved that the base price of the above items had remained the same, i.e., Rs. 60,24,120/- as per the quotation dated 28.11.2016 and the base price was not reduced to the extent of CVD that was not to be paid after the implementation of the GST.
8. The DGAP has also provided a detailed comparison of the taxes and duties which were payable before and after the implementation of GST and stated after the perusal of the Bill of Entry No. 3050858 dated 31.08.2018, it was apparent that the taxable value of the product “Lava CNC 240 Milling Machine” on which CVD @ 12.5% would have been required to be paid was Rs. 22,15,844/- and for the Bill of Entry No. 2990028 dated 25.08.2018, the taxable value of the product “Sintering Furnace D664” on which CVD @ 12.5% was require

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

y. Therefore, The DGAP has concluded that the total price to be charged from the Applicant No. 1 should have been Rs. 66,30,377/- instead of Rs. 71,08,462/- and hence the total amount of profiteering done by the Respondent in the case of supplies made to the Applicant No. 1 was Rs. 4,78,085/-.
9. The above report was considered by the Authority in its meeting held on 12.09.2018 and it was decided to hear the Applicant No. 1 and the Respondent on 26.09.2018.
10. The hearing was held on 26.09.2018, wherein the Applicant No. I was represented by Dr. Archana Singh and Sh. Vijay Pandey; Applicant No. 2 was represented by Sh. Anwar Ali T.P., Additional Commissioner and on behalf of the Respondent Sh. George Abraham and Sh. Amish Jain, Directors appeared. The Applicant No. 1 stated that he had purchased the above two items from the Respondent based on the quotation dated 28.11.2016 having taxable value of Rs. 60,24,120/-, however, after much delay the products were received with the tax inv

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

eration of the CST paid by the Respondent on the above items as the Applicant No. 1 was based in Ranchi and any sale prior to the GST attracted CST @ 2 %, which amounted to an additional Cost, for which no credit was available as per the provisions of the CST Act, 1956. The Respondent has also contended that the DGAP had failed to consider the 2 % CST component of Rs. 1,20,482/- while working out the amount of profiteering The Respondent has also contended that he had not indulged in Profiteering and the amount of Rs. 4,78,085/- inclusive of GST @ 18% amounting to Rs. 79,928/- calculated by the DGAP was incorrect.
13. We have carefully considered the material placed before us as well as the submissions made by the Respondent and find that the Respondent has vehemently argued that he had supplied additional material to the above Applicant costing about Rs. 13 Lakhs and borne an amount of Rs. 6 Lakhs out of the above amount which had not been taken in to consideration by the DGAP. In th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nt has also claimed that the price of 240CNC Milling Machine had increased in the month of January, 2017 which was communicated to the above Applicant and he had agreed that the Machine may be supplied to him on the increased price. However, there is no evidence on record to prove the above claim of the Respondent. Neither he had submitted fresh quotation to the above Applicant nor he had sent any communication to him in this regard and hence the above claim is not tenable.
14. We have also found that the Respondent has wrongly charged higher price from the Applicant No. 1 as he should have reduced the base price to the extent of CVD (at 12.5%) which was chargeable on the amount mentioned in the quotation dated 28.11.2016 since in the period prior to GST no CENVAT credit was available for the CVD paid on the import of the goods whereas in the post GST period no CVD was charged instead IGST was charged on the import of goods which was available as ITC to the Respondent while supplying

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ind it prudent to refer to the tables below for ascertaining the quantum of profiteering in the subject supplies:-
Table-A
Pre-GST import scenario
Post-GST (As charged)
CNC 240 Milling Machine (in Rs.)
D664 Sintering Furnace (in Rs.)
Total
CNC 240 Milling Machine (in Rs.)
D664 Sintering Furnace (in Rs.)
Total
Taxable value at the time of import (A)
22,15844
10,25,411
32,41,255
 
 
 
 
CVD @ 12.5% of taxable value at the time of import (B)
2,76,980
1,28,176
4,05,156
 
 
 
 
Base Price Charged By The Respondent (C)
45,55,320
14,68,800
60,34,120
Base Price
45,55,320
14,68,800
60,24,120
CST Charged (2% of C)
91,106
29,376
1,20,482
IGST Charged (18%)
8,19,958
2,64,384
1084342
Total price to be charged
46,46,426
14,98,176
61,44,602
Total price actually charged
53,75,278
17,33,184
71,08,462
Table-B
Pre-GST (What should have been)
Post-GST (What should have been)
CNC 240 Milling Machine (in Rs.)
D664

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he total Profiteered amount to be Rs. 4,78,085/- (Rs.3,26,837 + Rs. 1,51,248 = Rs. 4,78,085).
16. As is evident from the narration of the facts mentioned above, the Respondent has charged more than the actual base price and hence there is no doubt in our minds that the Respondent has profiteered at the expense of the Applicant No. 1 in respect of the subject supplies made by him and has thus violated the provisions of Section 171 of the Act ibid and has therefore rendered himself liable to penal action in line with the provisions of Section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017 apart from his liability to refund the above profiteered amount along with the applicable interest in terms of the provisions of the CGST Rules. 2017.
17. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to reduce the sale price of the above items immediately commensurate to the reduction in the price due to ITC of erstwhile chargeable CVD which is now available in the form of IGST and pass on this benefit to his customers. He is

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

t has deliberately acted in defiance of the above law and hence he is guilty of the conduct which is contumacious and dishonest. He has further acted in conscious disregard of the obligation which was cast upon him by the law, by issuing incorrect invoice in which the base price was deliberately not reduced by the amount of CVD, SAD and CST chargeable under erstwhile scenario which is now chargeable as IGST in the GST regime and is available as ITC benefit and thus he had denied the benefit of reduction in the price granted vide IGST provisions to his customers. Accordingly he has committed an offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017.
19. It is also revealed from the record that the notice regarding imposition of penalty has already been issued to the Respondent on 11.09.2018. However, the Respondent has not furnished any reply or advanced any arguments on the quantum of penalty to be imposed on him. Keeping in view the principles of natural justice, opportunity of bein

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Commissioner of Central GST And Central; Excise, J&K, Jammu Versus Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (12) TMI 102 – JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT – TMI
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 28-11-2018
MCC No. 322/2018 c/w CEA No. 66/2018, IA No. 01/2018
Central Excise
Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, Judge And Mr. Justice Tashi Rabstan, Judge
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : None
MCC NO. 322/2018
For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Accordingly, filing of the certified copy of the impugned order is dispensed with.
CEA No. 66/2018
Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on an earlier orde

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Exploring Principal-Agent Dynamics under CGST Act, 2017: Del-Credere Agents' Roles and GST Implications Explained.
Circulars
GST – States
Scope of principal and agent relationship under Sched

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

New Circular Guides IGST Refund Process for Exports from Non-EDI Sites; Emphasizes Documentation and Timely Claims.
Circulars
Customs
Refund of IGST paid on exports of goods done from Non-EDI

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST on Royaty paid to Govt
Query (Issue) Started By: – Ravikumar Doddi Dated:- 27-11-2018 Last Reply Date:- 29-11-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 4 Replies
GST
Dear sir,
Whether GST is payable or not on royalty paid to Govt by Mining companies, at what rate if it is exempted PL give the notification or circular and SAC code.
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
As per FAQ dated 31.7.17 (Q.No.22) GST is payable on royalty paid to Govt. under RCM.
Question 22 : Whether

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Amount paid on behalf of related party
Query (Issue) Started By: – Kaustubh Karandikar Dated:- 27-11-2018 Last Reply Date:- 3-12-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 7 Replies
GST
XYZ is making payment to various parties on behalf of the persons / entities which are related to XYZ. The amount so paid is debited to the respective person / entities account. This being paid on behalf of related parties; will it amount to rendering service to related parties and XYZ will be liable to pay GST on it even if no consideration is received from related parties?
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Answer is 'yes'.This activity is in the course or furtherance of business. Hence covered under Serial No.2 of Schedule-1 (Section 7).

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ease throw light on this aspect ? Thanks a lot.
Reply By CASusheel Gupta:
The Reply:
Kasturi Sir
Definition of “intermediary” means a broker, an agent or any other person, by whatever name called, who arranges or facilitates the supply of goods or services or both, or securities, between two or more persons, but does not include a person who supplies such goods or services or both or securities on his own account.
In this case XYZ is not facilitating the supply of goods/services. Instead his role comes after the supply has already been made. Further, intermediary supplies his services, doesn't lend. In this case, XYZ is actually lending money to his related persons and on the instructions of these related persons payment is made to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Comprehensive Maintenance Contract is a Composite Supply, Equipment Parts Supply and Services Agreement is a Mixed Supply.
Case-Laws
GST
Classification of supply – The activities performed under the ‘Comprehensive Maintenance Contract’ are to be treated as a composite supply of services and the activities performed under ‘Equipment Parts Supply and Services Agreement’ are to be treated as Mixed Supply.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Applied on One-Time Concession Fees for Long-Term Lease; No Exemptions Available Under Current Rules.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of GST – One time concession fees charged – the applicant is not e

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty for Transporting Goods Without E-way Bill Under GST Act Section 129; Risk of Confiscation for Non-compliance.
Case-Laws
GST
Penalty u/s 129 of GST Act – E-way bill – transport at the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

RECENT ADVANCE RULINGS IN GST (PART-10)
By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 27-11-2018

Advance rulings are important in any tax law as it provides a forum for clarification and possible interpretation of statutory provisions. Moreover, it conveys the legislative intention from the revenue's view point. Provisions of advance ruling are contained in section 95 to 106 of CGST Act, 2017 and State / UT GST enactment. Rules 103 to 107 of also provide for forms, manner, certification etc.
The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) have been set up in all the states and we have now over 200 advance rulings on different issues already pronounced by various State Authorities. The appellate mechanism for filing appeals against AAR rulings is also in place and we have about twenty such appellate orders confirming or modifying the AAR orders. One major issue presently being faced is about multiple authorities (equal to number of States), each pronouncing a r

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

hority for Advance Ruling and sought ruling on whether the said goods fall under Chapter Heading 8438 of Tariff and whether GST shall be applicable @18%.
The Authority for Advance Ruling ruled that 'Ice cream making machine' is classifiable under Tariff heading 84.18 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 instead of 8438 and GST rate applicable to said product at the rate 28% [Mitora Machinex (P.) Ltd., In re (2018) 6 TMI 624 (AAR,Gujarat); ]
* The assessee made an application before the Authority for Advance Ruling and sought ruling on the following issues :
* Whether Tariff Heading 8535 covers products 'Electrical apparatus for switching or protecting electrical circuits or for making connections to or in electrical circuits for a voltage exceeding 1,000 volts and product Lighting Arrester is specifically covered under Tariff Heading 8535
* Whether Earthing Pipe specifically processed to make solely and principally for lightning arrester system and placed below ground level

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ng Code 995
[ IN RE : M/S. RAPID ELECTRODES PVT. LTD. 2018 (6) TMI 703 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT ]
* Where the assessee made an application before the Authority for Advance Ruling and sought ruling on whether roof ventilators are classifiable as air or vacuum pumps under heading 8414 of Customs Tariff as adopted by GST.
As per the Rules for Interpretation of Customs tariff as made applicable to GST Tariff and General rules for Interpretation of the schedule, classification of Goods shall be governed by certain principles laid down therein. As per these general rules for interpretation, the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description.
The primary function of these Roof ventilators is to provide ventilation by continuous extraction of air from the building. Even in trade parlance these goods are identified as Roof ventilators only and not as Windmills as contested by the applicant. Hence, i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e said Chapter Head which is 28% as on date.
[Indo German Brakes (P.) Ltd, In re (2018) 6 TMI 369 (AAR, Uttarakhand); ]
Advance Ruling on activities relating to agricultural produce
Where the assessee is engaged into the activities of cleaning of the various Agriculture produce like saunf (fennel), dhaniya (coriander), Jeera (cumin seeds), etc. or the like goods which are brought to them by the farmers or by the traders. Such agricultural produce contains dust particles, certain small pieces of stones, dust, mud and other impurities etc. The applicant is having cleaning plant and they remove the various impurities but do not change the essential character of the agriculture produce but make the product marketable for primary market.
The assessee made an application before Authority of Advance Ruling and sought ruling on whether the activity of cleaning agricultural produce such a saunf, dhaniya (Coriander), jeera (cumin seeds), etc. by removing impurities like dust particles, ston

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

The Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Versus M/s. Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd., Chennai-4
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 934 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 27-11-2018
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.2745 to 2749 of 2018 And CMP.Nos.20855, 20857, 20860 & 20863 of 2018
Service Tax
Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And Mr.Justice N. Sathish Kumar
For the Appellant : Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda
For the Respondent : Mr.N.Viswanathan and Mr.S.Baskaran
COMMON JUDGMENT
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J
Mr.N.Viswanathan and Mr.S.Baskaran, learned counsel accept notice for the respondent. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and with consent, the above appeals are taken up for joint disposal.
2. These appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act) challenging the common final order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tr

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e assessee without verifying the claim of the assessee that they completed the services prior to 01.6.2007 and consequently, they are entitled for abatement.
5. We have perused the common order passed by the Tribunal and we find that the Tribunal took note of an earlier passed in the assessee's own case in Final Order No.40902/2016 dated 06.6.2016.
6. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the said final order passed by the Tribunal dated 06.6.2016 was an order remanding the matter with the specific direction to the Adjudicating Authority to examine the taxability of the services involved in the execution of the works contract and if such contracts were executed prior to 01.6.2007, the Adjudicating Authorities were directed to deal with such cases after taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Kerala Vs. Larsen & Toubro Limited [reported (2015) 39 STR 913].
7. It is a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ed in the show cause notice dated 30.11.2010. It is further pointed out that in yet another assessment for the period from April 2011 to March 2012 and for the subsequent periods, show cause notices were issued and were adjudicated and Orders-in-Original dated 22.3.2018 were passed dropping the proposal in the relevant show cause notices by accepting the claim of the assessee with regard to abatement.
10. Though the learned counsel for the assessee is partially right in referring to the Orders-in-Original dated 27.1.2017 and 22.3.2018, still we cannot dispense with the verification process because the periods involved in these appeals are different from the periods involved in the other cases.
Therefore, to that extent, we are of the opinion that the Adjudicating Authority should verify the nature of transactions to ascertain as to whether the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Limited can be applied to the case of the assessee.
11. Accordingly, the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Integrated Tech 9 Labs Private Limited Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others
GST
2018 (12) TMI 346 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – TMI
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 27-11-2018
Writ Tax No. – 1492 of 2018
GST
Pankaj Mithal And Pankaj Bhatia JJ.
For the Petitioner : Anand Kumar Pandey
For the Respondent : C.S.C.
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, special counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 31.1.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner U.P. Goods and Service Tax, Mobile Squad, Fifth Unit, NOIDA respondent No. 3 and has prayed that he may not proceed any further in pursuance thereof.
The petitioner had previously fi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

writ petition. It is settled law that successive writ petitions for the same cause of action are not maintainable and all questions which could have been taken or ought to have taken and if not decided would be deemed to have been adjudicated or declined.
This apart the seized goods of the petitioner have already been released after deposit/ submission of security of the amount specified in the order under Section 129(3) in accordance with provision of Section 129(1) of the Act making the matter final as provided under Section 129(5) of the Act.
Accordingly we do not find any substance in this petition and dismiss this petition with liberty to petitioner to take the course to the appropriate remedy as may be available in law against the o

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Hindon Machinery Tools Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others
GST
2018 (11) TMI 1572 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2019 (22) G. S. T. L. 4 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 27-11-2018
Writ Tax No. – 1494 of 2018
GST
Pankaj Mithal Versus Pankaj Bhatia JJ.
For the Petitioner : Ankur Agarwal,Suyash Agarwal
For the Respondent : C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.
ORDER
Heard Sri Suyash Agrawal and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.
The goods of the petitioner have been seized in transit on 5.11.2018 on the ground that on the E- Way Bill the number of tax invoice was incorrectly mentioned.
The submission Sri Suyash Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the E- Way Bill only required mentioning of the do

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CARPENTERS CLASSICS INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, MUTHANGA, COMMISSION OF STATE TAXES, THIRUVANNATHAPURAM AND STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
GST
2018 (11) TMI 1571 – KERALA HIGH COURT – [2019] 61 G S.T.R. 185 (Ker), 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 714 (Ker.)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 27-11-2018
WP (C). No. 38306 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : ADVS. SRI. K. N. SREEKUMARAN SRI. N. SANTHOSHKUMAR AND SRI. P. J. ANILKUMAR
For The Respondent : DR. THUSHARA JAMES, GP
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, based at Bangalore, imports Kitchen cabinets, then, supplies and installs them in the houses of the customers, on their placing the orders. On 21.11.2018, the petitioner sent a consignment of three sets of kitchen cabinets to be installed in the houses of the customers in Thalassery and Kozhikode. The petitioner proposed to send them to Ernakulam and from there, it wanted to distribute to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he GST Act, for the provisional release of the goods, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. Sri K. N. Sreekumaran, the petitioner's counsel has advanced his arguments laced with emotion and a bit of rhetoric, too. He stressed that despite the change in tax regime, the authorities still refuse to change their mind set. According to him, the authority's literal approach is virtually stifling every industry and dampening the entrepreneurial spirit of the business people, as well.
5. Sri Sreekumaran also contends that even before the consignment could be dispatched from Bangalore, the petitioner generated the e-way bill online-and it is a verifiable fact. Though the driver carried the bill physically, as he is illiterate or semiliterate, he could not understand what the Assistant Tax Officer demanded. Perhaps panicked, he produced only the invoices and the local e-way bill, but not the e-way bill first generated for transporting the consignment from Bangalore to Ernakul

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the petitioner can put forward all its defences and may avoid any fine or penalty.
8. Heard Sri K. N. Sreekumaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Thusahara James, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
9. Indeed, I reckon the petitioner may have a genuine grievance. I also accept that it may not have tried to evade any tax. And the transaction, in that sense, could have been above board. That said, I must also note that the Assistant State Tax Officer followed only the law-especially, Rule 138A. And that rule reads thus:
138A. Documents and devices to be carried by a person- in-charge of a conveyance.-(1) The person in charge of a conveyance shall carry-
(a) the invoice or bill of supply or delivery challan, as the case may be; and (b) a copy of the e-way bill in physical form or the e-way bill number in electronic form or mapped to a Radio Frequency Identification Device embedded on to the conveyance in such manner as may be notified by the Commissi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

notification, require a class of transporters to obtain a unique Radio Frequency Identification Device and get the said device embedded on to the conveyance and map the e-way bill to the Radio Frequency Identification Device prior to the movement of goods.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), where circumstances so warrant, he Commissioner may, by notification, require the person-in-charge of the conveyance to carry the following documents instead of the eway bill.
(a) tax invoice or bill of supply or bill of entry; or
(b) a delivery challan, where the goods are transported for reasons other than by way of supply.”
10. As the learned Government Pleader has rightly contended, if online generation of e-way bill suffices, the Rule would not have insisted on the consignment carrying a copy of the bill or the number in electronic form. At any rate, the issue now concerns only the provisional release and the statute provides an efficacious mechanis

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Sweetshop Edibles and Restaurant Bundled as Service for Tax: Pure Food Items Considered Part of Restaurant Operations.
Case-Laws
GST
Supply of pure food items such as sweetmeats, namkeens, co

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Early Payment Discounts by Del Creder Agents Not Liable for GST, Says Tax Authority.
Case-Laws
GST
Supply or not – amount passed on to the customer by Del Creder Agent (DCA) on account of the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Job Work rules
Query (Issue) Started By: – MJ Enterprises Dated:- 26-11-2018 Last Reply Date:- 28-11-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 6 Replies
GST
Section 2(68) of the CGST Act, 2017 defines job work as 'any treatment or process undertaken by a person on goods belonging to another registered person'. The one who does the said job would be termed as 'job worker'. The ownership of the goods does not transfer to the job worker but it rests with the principal. The job worker is required to carry out the process specified by the principal, on the goods.
MyQuery is : It is immaterial as to whether the job worker undertakes job work in his premises or in the premises of service receiver.? and which say with Rules and section Pl

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

one it will take of shape erstwhile BAS category/supply of Manpower.
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
All the above factors are hinting at separate premises. Even separate registration is required for doing job work, if turnover exceeds threshold exemption limit.
Reply By Venkat Enterprises:
The Reply:
He'll sir,
Thank you for your reply, but sir if one job work forming work of principles and for some work he entered into contract with other and who performing there job on the premises of job worker. As job worker can employee other job worker for the completion of principles job as there is no provision in section of job work. Can this contract is treated as job work (supply of labour) and if not what will the treatment?
Reply

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CONTRACT BOTTLING A SERVICE
By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 26-11-2018

It is now affirmed that beer bearing a brand or owned by brand owners which are manufactured by Contract Bottling Units or tie-up units (generally known in trade as CBUs) is a supply of service which attracts Goods and Services Tax (GST).
A recap
United Breweries Ltd. sought an advance ruling from the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR), Karnataka on the following two issues:
* Whether beer bearing brand/s owned by Brand Owner manufactured by Contract Brewing Units (CBUs) out of the raw materials, packaging materials and other input materials procured by it and accounted by it and thereafter selling such beer to various parties under its invoicing would be considered as supply of services and whether GST is payable by the CBUs on the profit earned out of such manufacturing activity? and
Whether GST is payable by the Brand owner on the "Surplus Profit" t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

amount retained by the CBUs as their profit.
It was ruled that since the applicant is engaged in supply of service and the service does not find mention at any other entry in the Classification table it has to be placed in the residual entry. The applicable rate of Central Tax as per serial number 35 of the Notification No. 11/2017-CT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
It was also ruled that GST is payable by the Brand owner on 'Surplus Profit' transferred by the CBU to brand owner out of the manufacturing activity and the supply of service to the CBUs is classified under Service Code (Tariff) 999799 and liable to pay GST at 18% (CGST-9%, SGST-9%) on the amount received from the CBUs. [As reported in IN RE : M/S UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED (2018) 7 TMI 835; vide ruling dated 28.06.2018].
Appellate Affirmation
Industry leader, not being satisfied, approached the doors of Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR), Karnataka for a review.
It was submitted against the said ruling that AAR

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

f service under Central /State Goods and Service Tax Act, 20l7, whereas there is only a monetary transaction between the Appellant and the CBU by way of transfer of apportioned profit from supply of beer, which is excluded from the ambit of charge under provision of the said Act.
The Authority erred in not appreciating the fact that the arrangement between the Appellant and the CBU was in the nature of consortium for earning profit from operation of beer manufacture and supply, necessitated by the regulations governing the supply of beer.
That the Authority erred in not following the settled positions as cited in the relied upon decisions above wherein it was held that the activity of permitting the CBU to manufacture alcoholic beverages on behalf of the principal does not amount to rendering of taxable service under the category of IPR service.
The AAAR interpreted the scope of 'supply' as per section 7 and charging section 9 of the GST law. While section 9 clearly excludes the s

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ceived for a 'mixed supply'.
While in overall terms, at times the service supplied assumes the character of permitting the use of intellectual property rights, or of being a franchise service, at other times it takes on the colour and character of being secondment of personnel. The varied nature in the character of the services supplied by the Appellant, makes it difficult to determine the pre-dominancy in terms of characterisation since the consideration for some elements of the supply is being received in terms of a variable amount.
Since, the activity which the Appellant engages in with respect to contract does not essentially change, hut the volume of consideration can change in each tax period, it does pose a challenge in terms of giving one particular nomenclature to the activities of the Appellant that would remain unchanged over all tax periods.
There is a standard rate of 18% which applies across the whole range of services that are taxed under GST. However, this fact of ha

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ms of Section 9 of the CGST Act,
* The service supplied by the Appellant is classified under the Service Code 999799 as 'other services nowhere else classified'.
* The amounts received by the Appellant from the contracting units under the Agreement, in the nature of brand fee and reimbursement of expenses, is termed as a consideration for the supply of service and is chargeable to GST at the applicable rate of 18%.
End Note
To conclude, it can be said that it is now settled from the advance ruling perspective that activities of contract bottling of beer shall be eligible to levy of GST @ 18%. However, an assessee may still knock the doors of High Court or Supreme Court by way of a writ petition.
Further, since we have now an AAAR affirmed advance ruling which is atleast binding on the applicant and its jurisdictional tax officer, it indicates that the same analogy would apply to other bottling activities like alcoholic liquor (other than beer), pharma, FMCG and other industries

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Area wise working / checklist for annual return and GST audit
By: – Sandeep Rawat
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 26-11-2018

Area wise working / checklist for annual return and GST audit
As this is first year of annual return and GST audit, registered person as well as professional are also in dilemma situation for fulfilling the compliance under GST law so that the requite information which is required in filing the annual return and GST audit could be prepared in time and order.
In this regards I have prepared areas wise working plan/checklist which prescribed the requisite documents and actions for the annual return and GST audit.
GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
* Have you checked whether the Supplier has applied for New Registration or has he Migrated?
* Have you checked the registration details of: Registered Person, Business Verticals, Factory / Warehouse / Godown, ISD and in respect of other place of business?
* Whether GSTIN is displayed in Name Board

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

* Whether refund voucher is issued for refund of advance received?
* Whether Credit note/ Debit notes are issued as per the provisions of the GST law as per section 34?
* Whether Credit note/Debit Note is issued before 30th September of the Subsequent Financial Year?
* Have you checked correctness of Tax Invoice /Bill of supply with the appropriate Supply Register/ GSTR 1?
* Whether the Tax Invoice/Bill of supply is cancelled for genuine reasons, if any like Name of party /details where applicable?
* Whether any Invoice cum Bill of supply is raised for specific transactions?
* Whether the transport documents are maintained and verified?
* Whether any copies of Credit Note and Debit Note are raised otherwise than as specified in section 34?
* Whether the Delivery challan/E- way bill Register is maintained?
* Whether Series of documents issued as per clause 13 of GSTR 1 matches with Books of Account from July 2017 to March 2018?
GOODS SENT TO JOB WORK
* Whether the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

xport and Merchant Export etc. are appropriately classified under GST law?
* Whether any transactions which falls within the scope of supply has not been identified by the registered person
* Have you checked Interstate supply as per section 7(5) of IGST Act 2017?
* Have you checked Intra State supply as per section 8 of IGST Act 2017?
* Whether the Zero-rated supply is verified as per the provisions of the law?
* Whether the supplies made by registered person falls within the meaning of Composite /non- composite/ Mixed supply? If yes, whether the same has been offered to tax as per section 8 of CGST Act?
* Have you checked for sale of capital goods and the GST charged and as to whether they are included in the returns filed ?
* Whether Interstate supply is regarded as Intra state supply and vice versa?
* Whether abatement provisions, if any, are applicable (like one third for land) is compiled with?
* Whether the transactions are correctly classified as supply of goo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

cked the inward supplies records with Monthly return and ascertained reasons for variations, if any?
* Have you made a list of restricted input tax credit items as per the GST law?
* Have you tallied monthly return with Input tax credit receivable, if any?
* Have you reconciled tax collections with payments and transfer of the balance to appropriate accounts?
* Have you checked adjustment of tax set-off by relevant journal entries?
* Have you checked that input tax credit on capital goods is correctly availed?
* Whether Input Tax credit is reversed for the sale of capital goods as specified in GST law?
* Any Reversal of input tax credit for the goods sent for job work?
* Whether the recipient of supply has effected payment for such inward supply within 180 days from the date of Invoice?
* Whether input tax credit availed is debited to recoverable account for availing re-credit?
* Whether the supplier has availed both benefits of depreciation and input tax credit?

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

STRIBUTOR
* Whether separate registration is taken as per Provisions of law?
* Whether any tax is payable under reverse charge and obtained separate Registration?
* Whether eligible and ineligible input tax credit is apportioned as per the GST law?
* Is there is any reversal of Input tax credit and credit note is issued?
* Whether the calculation of Turnover for allocating the input tax credit is as per the law?
* Whether the ISD invoice containing the relevant particulars is issued correctly as per the provisions of the law?
CLASSIFICATIONS
* Whether the classification of goods/ services is in conformity with the Schedules / Notifications?
* Whether the HSN classification is verified to confirm the rate of tax on goods and services?
* Whether the HSN details for inward and outward supply are verified?
* Whether the SAC code/HSN code is as per the law?
* Whether the HSN /SAC classification is same as followed in erstwhile law if applicable?
* Is there any speci

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ax payer charged wrongly IGST in place of CGST/SGST or vice versa?
* Have you followed the provisions of Rule 35 of the CGST Rules in respect of collection of taxes?
* Is there any excess collection of taxes?
REVERSE CHARGE
* Whether reverse charge tax is paid under 9(4) of the CGST Act 2017 up to 12th October 2017?
* Whether Reverse charge tax on notified supplies under section 9(3) and 9(5) of the CGST Act 2017 is duly paid?
* Whether reverse charge tax has been paid wrongly in lieu of CGST/SGST as IGST or vice versa?
* Whether corresponding input tax credit is availed on Reverse charge?
* Whether conditions of paying tax for RCM are fulfilled?
VALUE OF SUPPLY
* Whether all the inclusions to the value of supply as per section 15 of the Act have been verified?
* Whether discount offered to customers (pre/ post supply) is not included in the value of supply after fulfilment of conditions under section 15(3) of the Act?
* Whether valuation rules have been applied a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

export of goods are fulfilled?
* Whether the conditions are fulfilled for export of services?
* Whether there are any imports of goods/import of services?
* Whether the Zero-rated supply is with or without payment of taxes?
* Whether the conditions for location of supplier are fulfilled?
* Whether the supplier is intermediary under the GST Act and the conditions are fulfilled?
* Whether the supplier has declared sale in course of Imports, Non- territory supply, High Sea supply in the Return correctly?
* Whether the conditions for location of recipient are fulfilled?
* Whether the wrong payment of tax i.e. IGST in lieu of SGST/CGST is claimed as refund?
* Whether the wrong payment of tax i.e. SGST/CGST in lieu of IGST is claimed as refund?
* Whether the Supply by SEZ to DTA is treated as inter-State subject to fulfilment of conditions?
REFUND
* Whether the Supplier is eligible for Refund as per section 54?
* Whether the supplier has applied for Refund and wheth

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

in inward supply records and GST return?
* Have you checked that inward supplies are classified between intra-State, inter-states, Imports etc.?
* Have you checked that purchases of capital goods are booked as fixed assets and the GST is paid thereon? Have you checked Assets which have depreciated 100%?
* Have you checked sale / deletion of fixed assets?
MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS
* Whether books of accounts are maintained as specified in section 35 r/w Rules 56, 57 and 58 of the GST Law?
* Whether Books of accounts are maintained electronically manually?
* Whether books of accounts are maintained at each place of business?
* Whether books of accounts are maintained manually or electronically? If the same is maintained electronically, whether the software used complies with the requirements of the law?
* Whether the copies of Agreements/Agent agreement and other supporting documents are obtained?
* Whether the copies of Audited Financial Statements for each reg

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ernal/ Statutory auditors or any other such reports?
* Have you checked for any adverse points in reports in the previous year?
* Have you checked that assessment orders /APPEAL orders/notices issued by the department if any?
* Is there any judicial pronouncement that could be applicable to the dealer?
* Have you discussed any adverse issues arising out of the audit with the client?
* Have you obtained the letter of appointment / issued the letter of acceptance of audit?
* Have you come across any unusual transactions?
* Have you checked miscellaneous receipts / other income?
* Have you come across any huge or unusual inward or outward supply transactions / tax credits /tax payments etc.?
* Have you noticed any comments on internal controls, periodicity of updation of accounts / records etc.?
* Whether the registered person has availed the facility of digital signature?
* Whether the Auditor has used appropriate Audit tools?
(Mr. Sandeep Rawat has vast experience

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =