Goods and Services Tax

M/s. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Salem
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 1230 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 4-1-2019
ST/41844/2014 – Final Order No. 40007/2019
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri P.C. Anand, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
Brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of denatured spirit and rectified spirit. They are registered under the category of transport of goods by road service. The appellant had paid service tax under GTA service for the period June 2009 to May 2010 in respect of the freight paid to M/s. Shiva Cargo Movers Ltd. who has transported their finished goods. They later were of the opinion that no service tax has to be paid on the freight incurred by M/s. Shiva Cargo Movers Ltd. as the transporter does not qualify as

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

l.
2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. consultant Shri P.C. Anand submitted that the period involved is June 2009 to May 2010. During the said period, the owner / transporters of trucks were not liable to pay service tax. M/s. Shiva Cargo Movers Ltd. is a group company of the appellant. They are engaged in transportation of goods belonging to the appellant only. M/s. Shiva Cargo Movers Ltd. is a truck owner / operator and not a Goods Transport Agency. In the Budget speech of 2004, the Finance Minister had clarified that there is no intention to levy service tax on truck owners or truck operators. Since M/s. Shiva Cargo Movers Ltd. is not a GTA, they are not liable to pay service tax and the service tax paid by the appellant is made under mistake and therefore the appellant is eligible for refund. He relied upon the following case laws:-
a. Shreenath Mhaskkoba Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. – 2017 (3) GSTL 169 (Tri. Mum.)
b. Jaikumar Fulchand Ajmera – 2017 (48) STR 52 (Tri. Mum.)
3. The ld.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

both sides.
5. The main argument of the appellant is that M/s. Shiva Cargo Movers Ltd. who has undertaken the transport of the goods of the appellant is not Goods Transport Agency and therefore the appellants are not liable to pay service tax as a service recipient. The ld. consultant has referred to the Budget Speech 2004 of the Finance Minister to argue that there was no intention to levy service tax upon individual truck owners. In the present case, M/s. Shiva Cargo Movers Ltd. is a group company of the appellant which owns a fleet of tanker lorries. The appellant is engaged in manufacture of denatured spirit and rectified spirit and they have formed another company viz. M/s. Shiva Cargo Movers Ltd. for transportation of their goods. The argument of the ld. consultant that the lorries / vehicles are owned by M/s. Shiva Cargo Movers Ltd. and being truck owners they do not fall under GTA is without any substance. By Notification No.36/2004-ST dated 31.12.2004, the responsibility of d

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Preethi Kitchen Appliances Private Ltd. Versus The State Tax Officer, The Deputy Commissioner (ST) And The Joint Commissioner (ST)
GST
2019 (1) TMI 679 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – 2019 (21) G. S. T. L. 307 (Mad.)
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 4-1-2019
W. P. No. 52 of 2019 And W. M. P. No. 54 of 2019
GST
Mr. Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu
For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Kumar for Mr.N.Murali
For the Respondents : Mrs.Dhana Madhri Government Advocate (Tax)
ORDER
Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri, learned Government Advocate (Tax) takes notice for the respondents. By consent of the parties, this main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of detention of go

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

hout prejudice to the contention of the petitioner, they will pay one time tax under the CGST Act and SGST Act for the purpose of releasing the goods and agitate the matter before appropriate authority by way of filing revision.
5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents is not having any objection, if the petitioner is willing to pay one time tax liability.
6. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances and without expressing any view on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner as well as the respondents in the impugned detention proceedings, this writ petition is disposed of as follows:
(a) The petitioner shall pay one time tax liability of Rs. 1,61,032.78 under the CGST Act and Rs. 1,61,03

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

P.M. ABDUL HAJEE, PROPRIETOR, COASTAL HARDWARES AND SANITARIES (NOW COASTAL ENTERPRISES) Versus GOODS SERVICE TAX COUNCIL, NEW DELHI, THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM, THE COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, TAX TOWER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX NET WORK PVT. LTD., THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, THRISSUR AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX (KERALA), KOCHI
GST
2019 (1) TMI 417 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 4-1-2019
WP (C). No. 42351 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : ADVS. SMT. S. K. DEVI SRI. SANTHOSH P. ABRAHAM
For The Respondents : SRI. P. R.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

New Guidelines Issued to Resolve IGST Export Refund Errors, Ensuring Timely Reimbursements and Streamlined Processes for Exporters.
Circulars
Customs
IGST Export Refunds–resolution of error

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Price Difference received from supplier and shown as income in P&L, whether there is any GST liability on it.
Query (Issue) Started By: – Sandeep Yadav Dated:- 3-1-2019 Last Reply Date:- 5-1-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 5 Replies
GST
XYZ. Ltd(supplier) has given price difference to ABC Ltd.(recipient) by issuing a non gst document, because as per Sec15 discount which has not been agreed at the time of supply cannot be reduced from the value of supply.( This is also clarified from advance ruling sought by UltraTech Cement.). Now ABC Ltd. has not reversed the ITC proportionate to price diff received from XYZ.Ltd. ABC Ltd. has shown the price diff as its income in P&L A/C. My questions are:
1. Is there any need to reverse ITC proportionate to price diff received?
2. Whether there is any GST liability on price diff shown as income in P&L? (If ITC has not been reversed)
Reply By Madhavan iyengar:
The Reply:
My views
XYZ has not reduced its taxable value ( post dis

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

onsidering price diff. This would completely fall under schedule 2 according to which agreeing to an obligation is a supply of services. Now the question arises that what would the tax compliant and beneficial treatment:
Option 1: Reverse ITC on price Diff and show it as deduction from purchases in trading account.
Option 2: Do not reverse ITC on price diff and show it as seperate item in credit side of P&L A/c and pay tax on it considering it as supply of services.
One more question is that if recipient set off the payment of supplier with price diff received then whether it violates the provision of sec16(2) regarding payment of consideration within 180 days.
I also want to mention that there is big ambiguity and lacuna in GST law in this regard.(Earlier in VAT regime there was a provision that no one can sell goods below its cost, but there is no such provision in GST Law.)
Reply By Abhishek Sethi:
The Reply:
Can you clarify more around 'Price difference'? Is it a disc

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

only a financial entry
effectively what has happened is ABC has got the benefit of lower price thru discount but has taken Full ITC on the relevant supply, since ITC reversal is ruled out as the supplier has not adjusted its output gst thus the 2A will also reflect the credit so need to reverse ITC,
being a financial transaction on discount amount ABC needs to discharge the GST as this will also offset the excess ITC taken by ABC against the out put gst
Reply By Madhavan iyengar:
The Reply:
sending again as there was an error in earlier mail
In my view GST is a tax on value addition the entire chain claims itc and discharges gst.
In this case as it is mentioned the credit note is not issued fro discount it is only a financial entry
effectively what has happened is ABC has got the benefit of lower price thru discount but has taken Full ITC on the relevant supply, since ITC reversal is ruled out as the supplier has not adjusted its output gst thus the 2A will also reflect the cr

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input credit of GST in Case of Accident claim
Query (Issue) Started By: – Yogesh Ashar Dated:- 3-1-2019 Last Reply Date:- 6-1-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 3 Replies
GST
Dear Sir
In case of transporter who is charging GST on forward charge basis @12%, the query is in reference to insurance claim received on accident of truck. The Insurance company settled @75% of the amount. 25% is borne by the transporter. The amount billed by the repairer is in the name of the Company, where he has billed for the total amount.
Queries
1. Whether any GST has to be charged to the Insurance Company and accordingly a tax invoice needs to be raised for the 75% amount settled by the Insurance company
2. Whether full ITC can be claimed b

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

9;Consideration' as per Section 2(31) of CGST Act, 2017.
(31) ”consideration” in relation to the supply of goods or services or both includes –
(a) any payment made or to be made, whether in money or otherwise, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of, the supply of goods or services or both, whether by the recipient or by any other person but shall not include any subsidy given by the Central Government or a State Government;
(b) the monetary value of any act or forbearance, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of, the supply of goods or services or both, whether by the recipient or by any other person but shall not include any subsidy given by the Central Government or a State Governmen

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Notice under section 108
GST RVN – 01
GST
1[FORM GST RVN-01
[See rule 109B]
Reference No.
Date –
To,
………………………………………..
………………………………………..
………………………………………..
GSTIN:……………………………….
Order No. –
Date –
Notice under section 108
Whereas it has come to the notice of the undersigned that decision/order passed under this Act/the << Name of t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 Amendment Clarifies CGST Act Section 140(1) on Transitional Input Tax Credit, Eases Business Compliance and Reduces Disputes.
Circulars
GST
Central Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rule 138E
Restriction on furnishing of information in PART A of FORM GST EWB-01
GST
E-way Rules
Rule 138E of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017
1[138E. Restriction on furnishing of information in PART A of FORM GST EWB-01.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) of rule 138, no person (including a consignor, consignee, transporter, an e-commerce operator or a courier agency) shall be allowed to furnish the information in PART A of FORM GST EWB-01 11[in respect of any outward movement of goods of a registered   person, who, __]
(a) being a person paying tax under section 10, 2[or availing the benefit of notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue No. 02/2

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ded that the Commissioner may, 5[on receipt of an application from a registered person in FORM GST EWB-05,] on sufficient cause being shown and for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order 6[in FORM GST EWB-06], allow furnishing of the said information in PART A of FORM GST EWB 01, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified by him:
Provided further that no order rejecting the request of such person to furnish the information in PART A of FORM GST EWB 01 under the first proviso shall be passed without affording the said person a reasonable opportunity of being heard:
Provided also that the permission granted or rejected by the Commissioner of State tax or Commissioner of Union territory tax shall be deemed to be gra

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

been furnished for the period March, 2021 to May, 2021.]
Explanation:- For the purposes of this rule, the expression “Commissioner” shall mean the jurisdictional Commissioner in respect of the persons specified in clauses (a) and (b).]
 
 
*************
NOTES:-
1.
Inserted vide Notification No. 74/2018 – Central Tax dated 31-12-2018 w.e.f. 21-06-2019. Further date extended to 21.08.2019 vide notification no. 25/2019 dated 21.6.2019
Further date extended to 21.11.2019 vide Notification No. 22 /2019 – Central Tax dated 23-04-2019
2.
Inserted vide Notification No. 31/2019 – Central Tax dated 28-06-2019 w.e.f. 28-06-2019
3.
Substituted vide Notification No. 31/2019 – Central Tax dated 28-06-2019 w.e.f. 28-06-2019 befo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rule 109B
Notice to person and order of revisional authority in case of revision
GST
Appeals and Revision
Rule 109B of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017
1[109B. Notice to person and order of revisional authority in case of revision. –
(1) Where the Revisional Authority decides to pass an order in revision under section 108 which is likely to affect the person adversely, the Revisional Authority shall serve on him a notice in FORM GST RVN-01 and shall give him a reasonabl

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Changes Don't Affect Advance Authorization Benefits, But Importers Face Cash Flow Issues Due to IGST Exemption Removal.
Case-Laws
Customs
Import Policy after GST – Even by not allowing exemption of IGST at the time of import, no benefit in the AA scheme is altered by the Government, though collateral costs get fastened on the petitioner and the likes by way of blockages in cash flow and attendant interest liabilities. And clearly, it is a matter of public policy.
TMI Updates – H

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

VAGARIES OF CROSS CHARGE & ISD – THE GST COUNCIL NEEDS TO INTERVENE Analysis of Ruling of the AAAR (Karnataka) in M/s COLUMBIA ASIA HOSPITALS PVT LTD.)
By: – Vivek Jalan
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 3-1-2019

Recently The Appellate AAR in Karnataka has opened a Pandora's box in the case of M/s COLUMBIA ASIA HOSPITALS PVT LTD [ 2018 (12) TMI 1604 – APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KARNATAKA ]. In the ruling it has held that “the services of the employees at the Corporate Office in so far as they are benefiting the other registered units of the Appellant are to be considered as a 'supply of service' by one distinct person to another, by virtue of the entry 2 of Schedule I, supply of services between distinct persons even if without consideration”
Another issue on which it has not dwelt is the fact “whether Cross Charge can be a substitute for ISD registration”
In this article we will dwell on both the above issues. First the fact whether the ser

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

activity of the head office and branch are thus inextricably enmeshed. There is no independent existence of the branch as a business. The economic survival of the branch is also entirely dependent on finances provided by the head office. Its mortality is entirely contingent upon the will and pleasure of the head office.
The employees of the HO as well as the branches are the employees of the organization itself. The benefit of activities of the HO Employees will, undoubtedly, accrue to the branches. Similarly the benefit of activities of the Branch Employees will also accrue to the HO. Further, incase of need the employees of the branches/ HO travel to other branches/ HO to render services there. Furthermore an employee can also travel to a state where no registration has been obtained and render services in that state of value which can be more than the threshold limit of ₹ 20 Lakhs. However, reasonable intelligence suffices to identify the nature of the service rendered.
M

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

blem in the present case has arisen only because instead of the Branches signing the appointment letter jointly, only one of them has signed the same. The reason for entering into such an arrangement is not difficult to see as employees may not be willing to sign contracts with several branches who collectively do not even constitute a separate legal entity. Not only for this reason, but even for the sake of convenience in contracting and accounting, contracts of such employment may be signed by only at one place and not by all. This, however, cannot make a difference to the taxability or otherwise of the employment contract.
Another arrangement could be where one entity pays the salary and other expenses of the staff on behalf of other joint employers which are later trcouped from the other employers on an agreed basis on actual. Such recoveries will not be liable to service tax as it is merely a case of cost reimbursement.
Arguments against the decision of the Appellate AAR in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

which essentially is the Supply of services between related persons (Employees to Employers).
CONCLUSION: In the above case, we are of the opinion that the decision of the AAAR in the instant case of M/s COLUMBIA ASIA HOSPITALS PVT LTD certainly needs attention of the GST Council.
It may be noted that the GST Council has been very proactive in deciding a unique rate of GST in the case of SOLAR PLANTS in its 31st GST Council Meeting and this matter is a fit case for the GST Council to take up.
CROSS CHARGE INSTEAD OF TAKING ISD REGISTRATION:
In the instant case it is also seen that the entity M/s COLUMBIA ASIA HOSPITALS PVT LTD in the instant case is not registered as an ISD and instead is cross charging certain common expenses. The AAAR has not dwelt is the fact “whether Cross Charge can be an alternate for ISD registration. In this regard, if we look into the provisions of the law we note the following –
* For services Procured from third party (Legal fees, audit fees, professi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

an of The Indirect Tax Committee of The Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry. He is also a visiting faculty for Indirect Taxes in The Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Institute Of Chartered Accountants of India and Institute of Cost Accountants of India.]
Reply By KUMAR JAGADEESAN as =
The Article on Advance Ruling in Columbia Asia Hospitals Limited = 2018 (12) TMI 1604 – APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KARNATAKA throws open many controversial decisions on which clarity is required. The appellants had submitted that they were charging some HO expenses in proportion to their various regsitered (under GST) entities ( distinct persons) and were are also paying GST by raising invoices. Since it was not an activity coming under ISD, they had not regsitered as ISD but while the Authority was seized of the issue got themselves regsitered as ISD.
But what I do not understand is their levy of GST on the cross charges apportioned by them to their other branches which was n

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

would not lose its character as serviec by an employee under a contract of employment and thus would be outside the purview of GST in terms of Sch.III.
While the Government and GST council are trying to simplify the tax administartion, rulings such as these would be making doing business in the country more complicated and cumbersome. A rethink is necessary on this aspect.
J.KUMAR
ADVOCATE HYDERABAD
Dated: 7-1-2019
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani as =
I agree with Sri Jalan Sir and Sri Kumar Sir on the point that service of employee at Head Office to other branches do not quality as a service because employee is rendering service to company as a whole and not statewise.
I would like to seek view on why cross charge would not be a substitute to ISD. I would agree the nature of service will not stand good. As company cannot be providing legal consultancy service or courier service etc. However, it is supporting the other branches outside the State and therefore providing business sup

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST @ 18 MONTHS
By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 3-1-2019

As we enter into 2019, we have surpassed 18 months of GST Raj in India since July 1, 2017 and soon be finishing up with first full financial year of 2018-19 under GST regime.
This is no time to admire or criticize GST but to address the implementation issues including the technical glitches it is confronted with. As the data would reveal, the high-empowered Council, GST Council, which takes decisions under GST regime has had 31 meetings so far including 7 in 2018 itself, more than the average board meetings, an Indian company generally holds in a year. The 32nd meeting is scheduled for 10th January, 2019.
The implementation of GST all a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

gainst the tax offices and even imposed fines on officers.
2019 being an election year, we can expect some taxpayer friendly decisions and roll-backs in rates as well as simplification of procedures. New return filing mechanism is on the cards. The tax rates are now being rationalized and lowered. A higher threshold limit is being thought of in place of ₹ 20 lakh. It could go up to ₹ 75 lakh which may be a real relief as the present threshold limit is based on 'aggregate turnover' which is wide enough to cover even exempt and non-taxable supplies. This in many cases causes hardship and real beneficiaries for whom it is meant are not able to avail this exemptions. Thanks to the forthcoming elections.
It is highly possible that

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

egister return filers 87.30 lakh
Assessees with turnover below ₹ 70 lakh 63.50 lakh
Average GST collection (2017-18) ₹ 89885 crore
GST Collection (in Rs. crore)
1,03,459
94,016
95,610
96,483
93,960
94,442
1,00,710
97,637
94,726
96,782
89,885
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Avg. of
2018-19
Avg. of 2017-18
2018
(Source: Business Line dated 02.01.2019)
So far, in two months only, i.e., in April 2018 and October 2018, GST collection has crossed ₹ 1 lakh crore. The total gross GST revenue collected in December is ₹ 94,726 crore. This comprises CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax) amounting to ₹ 16,442 crore while collection from SGST (State GST) was ₹ 22,459 crore and

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s EMT Megatherm Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST & Excise, Kolkata North
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 1022 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 3-1-2019
Ex. Appeal No.78802/2018 – FO/A/75009/2018
Central Excise
SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ms. Heena Bairagara, C.A. for the Appellant (s)
Shri S. S. Chattopadhay, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue
ORDER
Per Shri P. K. Choudhary :
This is an appeal filed by the Appellant against Order-in-Appeal No.422/S.Tax.I/Kol/2018 dated 27.06.2018.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of induction heating equipments classifiable under Chapter 85 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Show-cause notice

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

appeal before the Tribunal.
3. The ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that they have purchased the inputs on the strength of the invoices containing all the particulars and they are availing the credit of duty on the basis of valid duty paying documents. She submits that the only ground on which the credit is denied is that the invoices bear handwritten serial numbers and the credit has also been taken on the basis of duplicate/photo copies of invoices. In this regard, the ld.Counsel submits that the serial number on the invoices can be hand-written and moreover, even the invoices can be hand-written and the printed invoices is not a mandatory requirement under the Statute. The copies of the invoices are filed in the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

supra). The relevant Paragraph of the said decision is reproduced thus :
“4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that both the orders-in-original as well as the impugned order do not identify any statutory provision which mandates the pre-printing of the serial number. Para 3.2 of the Central Excise Manual relied in the impugned order reads as follows :
“3.2 The serial number can be given at the time of printing or by using franking machine. But when the invoice book is authenticated in the manner specified in sub-rule (5) of the Rule 11, each foil of the invoice book should contain serial number before being brought into use. Hand written serial number shall not be accepted.”
4.1 The said Central Excise Manual and the pa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Late fee waived for GSTR 3B for July 17 to September 2018
S.O. 09 Dated:- 3-1-2019 Bihar SGST
GST – States
Bihar SGST
Bihar SGST
Commercial Tax Department
Notification
The 3rd January 2019
S.O. 09, Date 3rd January 2019- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 128 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereafter in this notification referred to as the said Act), the Governor of Bihar, on the recommendations of the Council, and in supersession of the Commercial Taxes Department notification No S.O.145 dated the 7th September, 2017 published in the Bihar Gazette, Extraordinary, vide number. 817, dated the 7th September, 2017, Commercial Taxes Department notification No S.O.255 dated the 24th Octob

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

urn is nil, the amount of late fee payable by such registered person for failure to furnish the said return for the month of July, 2017 onwards by the due date under section 47 of the said Act shall stand waived to the extent which is in excess of an amount of ten rupees for every day during which such failure continues:
Provided further that the amount of late fee payable under section 47 of the said Act shall stand waived for the registered persons who failed to furnish the return in FORM GSTR-3B for the months of July, 2017 to September, 2018 by the due date but furnishes the said return between the period from 22nd December, 2018 to 31st March, 2019.
2. This notification shall come into force with effect from 31st December, 2018.
[(F

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bihar Goods and Services Tax (Second Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2018
S.O. 11 Dated:- 3-1-2019 Bihar SGST
GST – States
Bihar SGST
Bihar SGST
Commercial Tax Department
Notification
The 3rd January 2019
S.O. 11, Date 3rd January 2019- WHEREAS, sub-section (4) of section 16 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereafter in this Order referred to as the said Act) provides that a registered person shall not be entitled to take input tax credit in respect of any invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both after the due date of furnishing of the return under section 39 for the month of September following the end of financial year to which such invoices or invoice relating to such debi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of the return under section 39 for the month of September following the end of the financial year to which such details pertain, or furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier;
AND WHEREAS, the financial year 2017-18 was the first year of the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax in India and the taxpayers were still in the process of familiarising themselves with the new taxation system and due to lack of said familiarity-
(i) the registered persons eligible to avail input tax credit could not claim the same in terms of provisions of section 16 because of missing invoices or debit notes referred to sub-section (4) within the stipulated time;
(ii) the registered persons could not rectify the error or omission i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ll be entitled to take input tax credit after the due date of furnishing of the return under section 39 for the month of September, 2018 till the due date of furnishing of the return under the said section for the month of March, 2019 in respect of any invoice or invoice relating to such debit note for supply of goods or services or both made during the financial year 2017-18, the details of which have been uploaded by the supplier under sub-section (1) of section 37 till the due date for furnishing the details under sub-section (1) of said section for the month of March, 2019.”.
3. In sub-section (3) of section 37 of the said Act, after the existing proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:
“Provided further that the rec

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bihar Goods and Services Tax (Third Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2018
S.O. 12 Dated:- 3-1-2019 Bihar SGST
GST – States
Bihar SGST
Bihar SGST
Commercial Tax Department
The 31st December 2018
The 3rd January 2019
S.O. 12, Date 3rd January 2019- WHEREAS, sub-section (1) of section 44 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereafter in this Order referred to as the said Act) provides that every registered person, other than an Input Service Distributor, a person paying tax under section 51 or section 52, a casual taxable person and a non-resident taxable person, shall furnish an annual return for every financial year electronically in such form and manner as may be prescribed on or before the thirty-fir

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bihar Goods and Services Tax (Fourth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2018
S.O. 13 Dated:- 3-1-2019 Bihar SGST
GST – States
Bihar SGST
Bihar SGST
Commercial Tax Department
The 31st December 2018
The 3rd January 2019
S.O. 13, Date 3rd January 2019- WHEREAS, sub-section (4) of section 52 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereafter in this Order referred to as the said Act) provides that every operator who collects the amount specified in sub-section (1)shall furnish a statement, electronically, containing the details of outward supplies of goods or services or both effected through it, including the supplies of goods or services or both returned through it, and the amount collected under sub-section

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

owing Order, to remove the difficulties, namely:
1. Short title. This Order may be called the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (Fourth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2018.
2. In section 52 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in sub-section (4), the following Explanation shall be inserted, namely:
“Explanation: – For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby declared that the due date for furnishing the said statement for the months of October, November and December, 2018 shall be the 31st January, 2019.”.
3. This order shall come into force with effect from 31st December, 2018.
[(File No. Bikri kar/GST/vividh-21/2017(Part-4)-43)]
By the order of Governor of Bihar,
DR. PRATIMA,
Commissioner State Tax-cum-Secretar.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Athani Sugars Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of CGST, Kolhapur (Vice-Versa)
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 379 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 3-1-2019
Appeal No. E/88189/2018, E/88779/2018 – A/85009-85010/2019
Central Excise
DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Shri V.B. Gaikwad, Advocate for Appellant
Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for Respondent
ORDER
Per: Dr. D.M. Misra
These two appeals are filed, one by the assessee appellant and other by the Revenue challenging the same Order-in-Appeal No. PUN-EXCUS-001-APP-0063-2018-19 dated 05.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Pune-I.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses falling under Chapter 1701 and 1703 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Alleging that during the period March, 2015 to May, 2015, the appellant had cleared the exempted goods namely, Bagasse emerged as a by-

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

UM. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and not sustainable.
4. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. I find that the issue of applicability of Rule 6(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to bagasse which emerges during the course of manufacture of sugar and molasses, has been settled taking note of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd. – 2015 (322) ELT 769 (SC) in favour of the assessee in the aforesaid cases. In Shree Narmada Khand Udyog (supra), this Tribunal observed as follows: –
“5. I find that the department has dropped the demand on the byproduct “Bagasse” for the period prior to 01.03.2015. However, on insertion of explanation I to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 by virtue of Notification No. 6/2015-CE(NT) dt. 1.3.2015 a view was taken by the department that bagasse being not an excisable goods and cleared from the factory, agains

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

l” rate of duty;
(h) “final products” means excisable goods manufactured or produced from input, or using input service;”
6. The amended definition of 'excisable goods' and 'manufacture', have been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DSCL Sugar Ltd's case (supra). Their Lordships observed as follows:-
“10. In the present case it could not be pointed out as to whether any process in respect of Bagasse has been specified either in the Section or in the Chapter notice. In the absence thereof this deeming provision cannot be attracted. Otherwise, it is not in dispute that Bagasse is only an agricultural waste and residue, which itself is not the result of any process. Therefore, it cannot be treated as falling within the definition of Section 2(f) of the Act and the absence of manufacture, there cannot be any excise duty.
11. Since if is not a manufacture, obviously Rule 6 of the Cenvat Rules, 2004, shall have no application as rightly held by the H

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Time limit extended for furnishing GSTR-3B for newly migrated taxpayers
S.O. 02 Dated:- 3-1-2019 Bihar SGST
GST – States
Bihar SGST
Bihar SGST
Commercial Tax Department
Notification
The 3rd January 2019
S.O. 2, dated the 3rd January 2019- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 168 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) read with sub-rule (5) of rule 61 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the Commissioner, on the recommendations of the Co

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Boutique Hotel India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST CC & C.E., Jodhpur-1
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 1174 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 3-1-2019
Service Tax Appeal No. ST/53469/2018-ST [SM] – FINAL ORDER NO. 50037/2019
Service Tax
MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present for the Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocates
Present for the Respondent: Mr. P. Juneja, D.R.
ORDER
PER: RACHNA GUPTA
The appellant herein is the service provider for the services as that of cab operators, mandap keepers, health club etc. The Department observed that during the period from October, 2007 to December, 2012, the appellant has short paid the tax amounting to Rs. 13,25,286/-. It was for the foreign remittances that the appellant has made to the Foreign Service providers for receiving various services as that of advertising & marketing, business auxiliary service, commission to travel agent service etc. The Department thereafter served a show cause notice

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

aid there was the option of cenvat credit and it would have been the Revenue neutral situation. It is only the penalty, which has been confirmed by the order under challenge that has been objected by the appellant vide the present appeal. Ld. Counsel has placed reliance upon Section 73 sub section (3) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the purpose. Reliance is placed on decision in the case of M/s.I2K2 Networks Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2018-TIOL-2343-CESTAT-All. Accordingly, the order is prayed to be set aside. Appeal is prayed to be allowed.
4. Per contra, ld. D.R. has paid emphasis on para 7.2 of the order under challenge where the plea of the applicability of Section 73 (3) of the Finance Act has duly been considered by Commissioner (Appeals). It is impressed upon that since the short payment of the tax has not been paid by the appellant unless the Department has pointed it out, it amounts to the suppression of fact and in that scenario it is Section 73, sub section (4) which comes into exi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

vice tax, and inform the [Central Excise Officer] of such payment in writing, who, on receipt of such information shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) in respect of the amount so paid :
Provided that the Central Excise Officer may determine the amount of short-payment of service tax or erroneously refunded service tax, if any, which in his opinion has not been paid by such person and, then, the Central Excise Officer shall proceed to recover such amount in the manner specified in this section, and the period of “thirty months” referred to in sub- section (1) shall be counted from the date of receipt of such information of payment.
Explanation.1- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the interest under section 75 shall be payable on the amount paid by the person under this sub-section and also on the amount of short payment of service tax or erroneously refunded service tax, if any, as may be determined by the [Central Excise Officer], but for this sub-se

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the present case that the entire duty as has been proposed to be recovered from the impugned show cause notice stands deposited vide challan No. 00055 dated 18.03.2003. The interest has also been deposited vide challan No. 00003 dated 19.03.2003. The fact has very much been acknowledged in the show cause notice itself. The entire payment is thus before the issuance of show cause notice dated 16.04.2013. There is no reason to deny the benefit of sub section (3) of Section 73 of the Act to the appellant.
7. The Department has made emphasis on sub-section (4) thereof, but the perusal of show cause notice makes it clear that Section 73 to sub-section (4) has not been invoked. It has now been settled law that the Department is not allowed to go beyond the show cause notice, otherwise also section 73 sub-section (4) includes the cases where the short payment or non-payment by the reason of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or suppression of facts. Mere non-payment or short payment for

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Precision Technocrates & Marketers Versus CGST, C.C. & C.E., Jodhpur-1
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 1171 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 3-1-2019
Service Tax Appeal No. ST/51894/2018-ST [SM] – FINAL ORDER NO. 50036/2019
Service Tax
MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present for the Appellant: Mr. Ashish, CA & Mr. Rajesh, Consultant
Present for the Respondent: Mr. P. Juneja, D.R.
ORDER
PER: RACHNA GUPTA
The appellants are engaged in providing commercial or industrial construction services. During the course of audit of the appellant for the period w.e.f. October, 2009 to March, 2011, Department observed that the appellant has availed the credit of Central Excise Duty paid on various items as that of Cement, M.S. Plates, M.S. Channels etc. used for construction of factory shed, building or laying of foundation or making of structures for the support of capital goods as inputs. Department alleging the credit to have been wrongly avai

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

hmedabad) has been relied upon. It is further impressed upon that the appellant has paid the tax on the gross amount without availing any abatement on the benefit of the Composition Scheme. The said circumstances otherwise entitle the appellant to avail the credit as has been disallowed by Commissioner (Appeals). S.B. Jivani vs. CCE reported in 2014 (35) STR 351 (Tri.-Admd.) has been relied upon.
4. Finally, the show cause notice is objected as being barred by time on the ground that the appellant was under the bonafide belief for explanation 2, incorporated in the definition of the input, to not to be applicable upon the appellant and as such there was no suppression of fact as is alleged. Extended period was not invokable. The order under challenge is accordingly prayed to be set aside. Appeal is prayed to be allowed.
5. Per-contra, ld. DR while justifying the order under challenge has impressed upon para 7 of the impugned order. It is submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) has reas

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ng oils, greases, cutting oils, coolants, accessories of final products cleared along with the final product, goods used as paint or as packing material, or as fuel, or for generation of electricity or steam used in or in relation to manufacture of final products or for any other purpose within the factory of production.
(ii)all goods except light diesel oil, high speed diesel oil or motor spirit, commonly known as petrol, and motor vehicles used for providing any output service.
Explanation 1. – The light diesel oil, high speed diesel oil or motor spirit, commonly known as petrol shall not be treated as an input for any purpose whatsoever.
Explanation 2. – Input includes goods used in the manufacture of capital goods which are further used in the factory of manufacture.
but shall not include cement, angles, channels, CTD or TMT bars or other items used for construction of factory shed, building or laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods.
w.e

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ds except when used as parts or components in the manufacture of a final product;
(D) motor vehicles;
(E) any goods, such as food items, goods used in a guesthouse, residential colony, club or a recreation facility and clinical establishment, when such goods are used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee; and
(F) any goods which have no relationship whatsoever with the manufacture of a final product.
7. The plain reading of the amended explanation makes it clear that the opening line for Explanation 2 is about the input including goods as are used in the manufacture of the capital goods used in the factory of the manufacturer. It becomes clear that the explanation is exclusively in respect of the manufacture only, that too when it is used for construction of factory shed, building or laying of foundation or making of structure etc. The use of word factory shed further clarifies that the explanation is exclusively for the manufacturer and not for the service

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

VINOD P.A. Versus ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, PERINTHALMANNA, STATE OF KERALA, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, COMMISSIONER (GST), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI, STATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COCHIN AND THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.
GST
2019 (1) TMI 304 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 3-1-2019
WP (C). No. 73 of 2019
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL
For The Respondent : DR THUSHARA JAMES, GP
JUDGMENT
The petitioner transported certain goods from Tamil Nadu to Perinthalmanna. When the authorities checked the documents carried along with the goods, they found

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. CORBEL PRE-LAMINATED BOARDS INDIA (P) LIMITED Versus THE STATE GST OFFICER THIRD CIRCLE, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD AND THE COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
VAT and Sales Tax
2019 (1) TMI 232 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 3-1-2019
WP (C). No. 1 of 2019
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : ADVS. SRI. K. P. ABDUL AZEES, SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN AND SMT. T. ARCHANA
For The Respondent : DR THUSHARA JAMES, GP
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a registered d

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG CO LTD. Versus STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO. IV, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, SALES TAX COMPLEX, COCHIN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, SALES TAX COMPLEX, COCHIN AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, KAKKANAD, COCHIN
VAT and Sales Tax
2019 (1) TMI 166 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 3-1-2019
WP (C). No. 35 of 2019
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL
For The Respondent : DR THUSHARA JAMES, GP
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act), question

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =