Goods and Services Tax

M/s S.P. Enterprises Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others
GST
2018 (12) TMI 890 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2019 (22) G. S. T. L. 162 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 12-12-2018
Writ Tax No. – 1589 of 2018
GST
Pankaj Mithal And Pankaj Bhatia JJ.
For the Petitioner : Shubham Agrawal
For the Respondent : C.S.C.,B.K.Singh
ORDER
Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned counsel for the Commercial Tax Department and Sri R.C. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4.
The petitioner is a purchasing dealer duly registered under the Goods and Services Tax. The goods (betel nuts) in transit have been seized for the reason that the respondents, on verificati

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

goods and not to give the same in custody of the Custom Department. Ex-facie we find that the respondent no. 4 has no authority in law to dictate respondent no. 3 in such a manner. Issuance of such direction by respondent no. 4 is blatantly illegal and without any authority of law.
The Custom Department has not passed any order of detention/confiscation of the said goods under the Customs Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances, we direct the respondents to release the goods and vehicle in favour of the petitioner forthwith and report about the compliance within three days on affidavit.
Put up on 18.12.2018 in the additional cause list, on which date, Superintendent, Customs (Preventive) Division, Commissionerate, 5th and 11th Floor

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CIDCO Gets 'Government Entity' Status; 12% Concessional Tax Rate on Power Infrastructure Work per Notification 31/2017.
Case-Laws
GST
Government Entity or not – Power Supply Infrastructure De

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Lions Club Poona Kothrud Exempt from GST Registration: Membership Fees Not Considered 'Supply' Under GST Act.
Case-Laws
GST
Requirement of registration – applicability of the GST Act – receipt of fees from members by the Lions Club of Poona, Kothrud – the amounts collected as ‘fees’ from the members are not for the purposes of making any ‘supply’ – The fees collected are used for social causes – No GST liability.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, ne

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Liability In Case Of Intermediary Services To Foreign Company for which payment received in foreign currency?
Query (Issue) Started By: – Shyam Agarwal Dated:- 11-12-2018 Last Reply Date:- 14-12-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 12 Replies
GST
Sir, Mr.A providing Intermediary services to foreign company received an Advance on 02.09.18 for (50% advance) 500$ at ₹ 71/- & paid GST on ₹ 35,500/- Now Mr.A completed a provision on 31.10.18 & also raised invoice on 31.10.18 for 1000$ (for full value) & Rate of $ on 31.10.18 were ₹ 74/-.Now as on 31.10.18,whether Mr.A is liable for GST on ₹ 37,000/-(i.e on 500$ x ₹ 74/-) or on ₹ 38,500 (i.e.on difference between 1000$xRs.74/- Less: ₹ 35,500/-value taken at the time of Advance?
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
On ₹ 37500/- tax is to be paid and not on ₹ 38,500/- as per Section 12 (2) of CGST Act.
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani:
The Reply:
12(2) The time of supply of goo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

)(a) i.e. the date of issue of the invoice read with Rule 34(2) of CGST Rules, 2017. Rate of exchange for determination of taxable value will be the time of supply of services. (Date that is 31.10.2018) Receipt of advance is subject to supply of services. Service has been supplied on 31.10.18. Here you cannot adopt hybrid procedure. So correct rate exchange for payment of tax is ₹ 74/- for whole amount and not part amount (50%). Moreover, what is crucial is the invoice has been issued within 30 days of the supply/completion of service.Rule 34(2) of CGST Rules clears the doubt to the effect that hybrid procedure cannot be adopted. Lacunae or doubt, if any, is also dispelled by way of Rule 34(2) of CGST Rules.
In a nutshell, you are absolutely right. Tax is to be paid on 38500/- as sought for.
Reply By Shyam Agarwal:
The Reply:
Thanks Kasturi Sir, you are really always source of inspiration for all of us. Please clear one thing in Rule 34 of CGST rules which states that the rate

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ice it is for supply of service. Advance is provisional until service supplied. Section prevails over rule. Here Rule as well as Section emphasize on the time of supply i.e. date of invoice if issued with in prescribed period. Rule and Section are not contradictory. You cannot take benefit of the wordings, " whichever is earlier". When I posted my first reply I did not go through Rule 34. Rules are framed to clarify Act. When Rule says the date of supply is determinant factor for taxable value, the date 31.10.18 is decisive factor. Rest you may seek opinion of other experts.
Reply By Shyam Agarwal:
The Reply:
Sir, thanks for clarify my doubt in interpretation of Rule 34 read with Section 13. Please consider one more situation, suppose in above case, if supplier does not issue invoice within the time limit prescribed under section 31(2) of CGST act i.e. If Invoice is issued after completion of 30 days from the date of completion of service. Then still the answer will be same

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ayment" also. The whole sequence of events are finalized on the date of issue of invoice. You may call it "Advance" or Security but not 'payment'. Advance or security is to be adjusted or refunded subject to the terms and conditions executed between service provider and service receiver.Amount received on 2.9.18 does not conform to the legal definition of '"PAYMENT". Since the invoice has been issued on 31.10.18, there is no room for 'but' and 'if'. Now past cannot be undone.
Hypothetical situation
Had you received full payment in advance on 2.9.18, you would have to go by the date of invoice for determination of rate of exchange for correct payment GST. Sometime supply is continuous for a number of years e.g. construction service, there the issue of 'whichever earlier' in connection with the date of receipt of payment arises.
Hence I stick to my second reply posted after going through Rule 34 (2) in your specific query.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

apply.
Rule 34 emphasizes on "date of supply" of service. Supposing that invoice has not been issued within prescribed period we are to resort to Section 13(2)(b). What (b) emphasizes that is the date of provision of service. "provision' does not always stand for 'clause' . Here provision means to provide service i.e. the date of providing service. It is relevant to mention that there is no no difference between "Supply of service " and "Providing of Service". You are talking of completion of service and I am emphasizing on "Supply". Service can be supplied/provided in piecemeal also in case of continuous supply of service e.g. Construction Service. This situation is not applicable to your case because " intermediary services" do not conform to the term,"Continuous supply" . The date of provision of service does not mean the date of completion of service. The word, "Completion" is neither present i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Foreign company
Query (Issue) Started By: – Rajagopalan Sundaram Dated:- 11-12-2018 Last Reply Date:- 26-12-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 4 Replies
GST
GTA provides services of transportation in India to a foreign company
My questions are
1) what is the rate of gst to be charged . Pls confirm my understanding it is IGST.As foreign company has no GSTiN , how do GTA proceed in this regard.
2) Trucks for the above job were hired from URD transporter, hence rcm is payable by GTA which is 5 % . Can GTA take ITC for the same
Thank you
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Reply to Query No.1 : Transported goods are to be consumed in India. You are covered under Section 12(8)(b) of IGST ACT, 2017. Under Forward Charge Mec

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Technip India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Noida
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 1102 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI
CESTAT ALLAHABAD – AT
Dated:- 11-12-2018
MISC Application No. ST/MISC/70255/2018, APPEAL No. ST/70737/2017-CU[DB] – ST/A/72840/2018-CU[DB]
Service Tax
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical)
Shri Tarun Jain (Advocate)) for Appellant
Shri Shiv Pratap Singh (Deputy Commissioner) AR for Respondent
ORDER
Per: Archana Wadhwa
1. The present appeal arises on account of amalgamation of three entities, namely, (1) Technip India Limited (earlier registered for Service Tax in Channai), (2) Technip ENC India Limited (earlier registered for Service Tax in Mumbai) and (3) Technip KT India Limited, Delhi (registered with Service Tax in Noida). All the three companies had a common holding company which decided to amalgamate these companies. The scheme of amalgamation was presented and obtained the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

14 the Service Tax Authorities in Mumbai were informed. In these letters, it was duly pointed out by the Appellant that the scheme has been sanctioned by the Hon'ble High Court and in terms of the scheme the Cenvat Credit available with the entity registered at Chennai and Mumbai, stood transferred to the entity registered at Noida with effect from 21.04.2014.
4. In this background, the Appellant took the credit available with the Chennai and Mumbai entities and this credit was duly shown in statutory returns pertaining to the period April, 2014 filed by the appellant with the Noida Service Tax Department. Thereafter, the appellant also applied for the centralized registration of these units which was duly granted to the appellant on 08.10.2014. The process was also initiated by the appellant for surrender of registration with Chennai and Mumbai Service Tax Authorities which were also duly surrendered.
5. Thereafter, an audit was undertaken by the Service Tax Department Noida dated 0

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

sought to be denied by the Department.
7. In response to the notice the appellant submitted that (a) in terms of settled law there was no requirement to obtain permissions from the Department for transfer of credit in terms of Rule 10, (b) that in any case the appellant itself had intimated the Department regarding the transfer of credit in terms of the scheme approved by the Hon'ble High Courts, (c) in any case the credit transfer was not subject to compliance with the sub Rule 10 (3) in view of the fact that under Rule 10 (3) the requirement was only to account for credit on inputs or capital goods.
8. In the aforesaid background, the impugned order has been passed. It is pertinent to point out that the leanred Commissioner has accepted the submission of the appellant that no permission is required by the appellant for transfer of credit in terms of Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Nonetheless, the Impugned Order has been passed for the following reasons;
(i) Learned Commissio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

re, the learned Commissioner has found the Appellant guilty of suppression to confirm the entire demand with equal penalty and also against interest while denying the Department transfer of the entire Credit.
Hence the present appeal.
9. On hearing both the sides duly represent by Shri Tarun Jain, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Shiv Pratap Singh, Deputy Commissioner AR appearing for the Revenue we find that the show cause notice proposed to deny credit on the ground that no prior permission stands taken by the appellant. However, the said issue stands accepted by the Adjudicating Authority and as such it was not open to the Revenue to deny the credit on further allegations. The legal issue that Adjudicating Authority cannot go beyond the show cause notice is well settled by catena of judgments. Reference can be made to the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court's decision in the case of Sarika Jain vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2018) 407 ITR 254 (All.) wherein it was

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In Re: M/s. Aristoplast Products Pvt. Ltd.
GST
2019 (2) TMI 1006 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, DAMAN, DIU AND DADAR AND NAGAR HAVELI – 2019 (22) G. S. T. L. 139 (A. A. R. – GST)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, DAMAN, DIU AND DADAR AND NAGAR HAVELI – AAR
Dated:- 11-12-2018
AR-04-05/AR/DMN-Silvassa/2018
GST
SHRI SATISH KUMAR AND CHARMIE KAMAL PAREKH, MEMBER
N.B: This copy is granted free of charge for the private use of the person to whom it is issued.
1. Any person deeming himself aggrieved by this Advance Ruling may appeal against the Ruling before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling in terms of Section 100 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Such appeal shall be done within 30 days from the date of the communication of the order. The appeal papers shall bear fee of Rs. 10,000/- as provided under Rule 106(1) of CGST Rules, 2017.
2. The appeal should be filed in Form GST ARA-02, prescribed under sub rule (1) of the Rule 106 & GST ARA-03 Of the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

this order can prefer an appeal before the appellate Authority for Advance Ruling Daman.
Sr.No.
Particulars
Details
Remarks.
1.
Name and address of the applicant  
M/s. AristopIast Products Pvt Ltd, Survey No 45/2-8, Vapi Daman main road, Dabhel Nani Daman
 
2.
GSTIN
25MMCA5352J1Zl
 
3.
Date of Form ARA-01
12/24.09.2018
 
4.
Date of personal hearing
10.12.2018
 
5.
Applicant represented by
Shri Kaushik D. Nahar
 
6.
Jurisdictional authority Centre  
CGST, Daman
 
7.
Jurisdictional authority UT
UTGST Daman & Diu
 
8.
Details of Fee payment
Challan Identification Number (CIN) -HDFC 18082500001058 Date – 13.08.2018, HDFC 18112500004128, Date -26.11.2018, HDFC 18072500001823 Date -17.07.2018 & HDFC 18092500004609 Date – 27.09.2018
5000+5000 = 10,000/. 5000+5000 = 10,000/-
M/s. Aristoplast Products Pvt.Ltd., Survey No 45/2-8, Vapi Daman Main Road, Dabhel, Nani Daman – 396210, having GSTIN Number 25AAMCA5352J1

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ed fee amounting to Rs. 5,000/- for Central GST and Rs. 5,000/- for UT GST vide Challan Identification Number (CIN) HDFC 18072500001823 Date -17.07.2018 & HDFC 18092500004609 Date – 27.09.2018.
3. The issue was forwarded to the jurisdictional AC for verification in the above two applications. The JAC vide their letter issued from F.No. Div-I/Misc./CGST/1/2018-19/1191 dtd 05.12.2018 have replied that the Description of Goods and HSN code, mentioned in Tariff of the above product, is as under:-
Name of Product manufactured
HSN Code
Rate of GST
Description of Goods
Broom Sticks
9603
18%
Brushes (including brushes constituting parts of machines, appliances or vehicle), hand operated mechanical floor sweepers, not motorized, mops and feather dusters, prepared knots and tufts for broom or brush making paint pads and rollers, squeegees (other than rollers squeegees) [other than brooms and brushes, consisting of twigs or other vegetable materials bound together with or without handles

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of their products viz- Sprayers and Broomsticks made of plastics. They submitted that in both the cases they are paying GST @18% & 5% respectively as per the tariff rate, which in their opinion falls in the above rate brackets. They however, seek the order of the AAR in the above case. Shri Nahar also submitted that apart from the documents they have also submitted pictures of the products along with their applications. He further submitted that they have nothing to add more.
5. Discussion and Findings
In the present case there are different applications for the different products. The applicant has paid separate fee in each case for the Advance Ruling for these two products.
Now we, the members of Advance Ruling have to decide-
1. The Correct HSN code for the Broom Stick made of plastics and applicable rate of tax
2. The correct HSN Code of Sprayers made of Plastics and applicable rate of tax.
6. First of all we take the product Broom Sticks for discussion of the correct clas

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

aint Pads And Rollers; Squeegees (other than roller squeegees).
6.2.1 Therefore, it is very much clear from the reading of the main heading that the major heading for the classification of the plastics broom-stick is 9603.
6.3 We note that there are separate classification :- one for Broom-sticks made from twigs or other vegetables materials and second category which is not made from twigs or vegetable materials. Since the product in question i.e. Broom-Sticks is made from plastics, hence, it is very much clear that it should be classified as Brooms other than brooms consisting of twigs or other vegetable materials bound together , with or without handle. Thus brooms made from plastics are other than brooms classifiable under heading 96031000. Therefore, we held that the correct classification of the Plastic Broom-Stick is under heading 96032900 and classifiable as “Others”.
6.3.1 Hence, the product Plastics Broom-Stick is eligible for concessional rate of tax vide Notification No.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

see. On going through the picture of the product, we find that the product is a plastic made handy container for storing liquid which is fitted with hand operated sprayers. It appears that the product is claimed for classification under the heading of Sprinkle which do not qualify because sprinkle is an irrigation systems installed in field under which water is flown through pipes and rotating of Sprinkles made the water pour surroundings area. Further the product in question is neither drip irrigation system nor other equipments.
Since the said product not falls under the category of sprinkle or drip irrigation system, hence, GST rate (6%+6%) 12% which is for the said irrigation system, is not applicable in their case of sprayers.
7.3 Now, we discuss the product Sprayer. Sprayer is a device used to spray a liquid. The sprayers are commonly used for projection of water, weed killers, crop performance materials, pest maintenance chemicals, as well as manufacturing and production line

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Removal of difficulty order regarding extension of due date for filing of Annual return (in FORMs GSTR-9, GSTR-9A and GSTR-9C) for FY 2017-18 till 31st March, 2019
ORDER No. 1/2018 Dated:- 11-12-2018 Central GST (CGST)
GST
CGST
CGST
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
ORDER No. 1/2018-Central Tax
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2018
S.O. 6109(E).WHEREAS, sub-section (1) of section 44 of the Central 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 f

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

isions of the said section;
NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 172 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Central Government, on recommendations of the Council, hereby makes the following Order, to remove the difficulties, namely:
1. Short title.This Order may be called the Central Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2018.
2. In section 44 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, after sub-section (2), the following Explanation shall be inserted, namely:
“Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that the annual return for the period from the 1st July, 2017 to the 31st March, 2018 shall be furnished on or before the 31st March, 2019.”.
[F.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

TRIMULA INDUSTRIES LIMITED Versus CGST C.E & C. C-BHOPAL
Central Excise
2019 (1) TMI 903 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 11-12-2018
Appeal No. E/53187/2018-SMC – A/53503/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
Shri Prabhat Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri P.R. Gupta & S. Nunthutk, AR for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Anil Choudhary:
1. Heard the parties. The issue in this appeal is whether the show cause notice has been rightly issued invoking the extended period of limitation.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellant is a manufacturer of sponge iron. During the course of audit for the period February, 2014 to March, 2015 it was noticed that appellant have wrongly taken Cenvat Credit of input services amounting to Rs. 2,22,252/- being the services used in the employee hostel and other repairs and maintenance in the plant. On the objection raised by the audit vide spot memo dated 9th July, 2015, on the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

to mention here that the Noticee are registered with Central Excise Department since long and they are aware of the Rules/Sections/ Notifications/ Laws & Procedures of the Department. In spite of that they had taken inadmissible Cenvat Credit, which was not admissible to them. The Noticee are working under Self Removal Procedure and they are clearing their goods on self-assessment basis without physical verification or valuation by the Central Excise Officers and therefore, it is the prime responsibility of the Noticee to take all precautions to avoid such lapses, wrong/excess availment of Cenvat Credit, breach of any of the Rule/Section of the Central Excise Act/Rules etc. In spite of the same they had taken inadmissible Cenvat Credit. Further, it appeared that the Noticee had done the said act with intent to evade payment of Central Excise Duty liveable on final products cleared by them by way of utilizing such inadmissible Cenvat Credit.
Since the notice have suppressed the mater

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

pre-deposit already made further interest was demanded and also penalty was imposed of equal amount under Rule 15 (2) of CCR, 2004.
5. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who have been pleased to hold that there is no applicability of interest as the amount have not been utilized following the ruling of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE & ST V/s Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (279) ELT 209. Further he was pleased to uphold the demand and also upheld the invoking of extended period of limitation. However, as the appellant had maintained proper records of such credit taken in their books of account, was pleased to reduce the penalty to 50%.
6. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal.
7. Heard the parties.
8. Having considered the rival contentions I hold that the transaction was duly recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant. Secondly a major part of the credit relates to repair and maintenance which is defi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited Versus The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Goods & Services Tax, Commissioner State Tax, Goods and Services Tax, Assistance Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner, Central Tax, Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Goods and Services Tax Council through Chairman, GSTN (Goods and Service Tax Network) And Union of India
GST
2019 (1) TMI 763 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – 2019 (24) G. S. T. L. 342 (Mad.)
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 11-12-2018
W. P. No. 31541 of 2018 And W. M. P. No. 36755 of 2018
GST
Mr. Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu
For the Petitioner : Mrs.G.Anitha
For the Respondents : Mr.V.Sundareswaran Standing Counsel for R1 to 7
ORDER
The petitioner s

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court has already considered the similar grievance expressed by the similarly situated persons and disposed of those writ petitions on 21.08.2018 in W.P.Nos.21321 to 21323 of 2018 by issuing certain direction. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that similar directions may be issued in the petitioner's case as well.
5. Mr.V.Sundareswaran, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents though submitted that similar directions may be issued in this case as well, he requested this Court to make it clear that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits by way of directions issued by this Court, only when they have made genuine attempt in uploading the FORM GST TRANS-1. Needless to say that it is for the p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Tanish Steels Versus State of Punjab and another
GST
2019 (1) TMI 549 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – TMI
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 11-12-2018
CWP-29005-2017
GST
MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ.
For The Petitioner : Mr. Chetan Jain, Advocate for Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate
For The Respondent : Sandeep Goyal, Advocate And Mr. Punkaj Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab
ORDER
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL , J (ORAL)
This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 29005 of 2017, 2594 and 7861 of 2018, as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issue involved in these petitions is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.29005 of 2017.
2 Prayer in this writ petition un

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

was an appealable order, however, since no Appellate Authority had been constituted so far, therefore, the petition was being filed.
5. Upon notice of motion having been issued, reply on behalf of the State has been filed. A copy of the notification dated 15.02.2018 has been produced in Court today which is taken on record. According to the said notification, Additional Commissioner (Appeals) has been appointed to perform the functions as an Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and rule 109A of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017.
6. The said notification reads as thus:-
“In exercise of the power conferred by Section 3 and Section 4 of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (P

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Fives Cail KCP Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai North
Central Excise
2018 (12) TMI 923 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 11-12-2018
Appeal Nos. E/40790 to 40792/2018 – Final Order Nos. 43075-43077/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Shri Senthil Nathan, Consultant for the Appellant
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of machineries for sugar and cement industry. They export the impugned goods to Vietnam and other countries. The appellant availed CENVAT credit in respect of certain items which were not manufactured by them but were purchased and cleared along with the final product which was exported. The department was of the view that the appellants are not eligible for CENVAT credit on the bought out items. Show cause notices were issued for different periods proposing to disallow the irregularly availed credit of i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ster concern, the very same issue has been analyzed and decided by the Tribunal wherein the credit was held to be eligible.
3. The ld. AR Shri L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The issue is with regard to the eligibility of credit on certain items which are brought into the factory by the appellant and cleared along with the final product which was exported to Vietnam. The very same issue has been analyzed in the case of KCP Ltd. (supra) and the Tribunal has held that the credit to be eligible. The decision in the case of Thermax Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune – 2016 (337) ELT 456 (Tri. Mum.) was relied by the Tribunal to decide the eligibility of credit. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below:-
“5.12 As per the undisputed facts of the case, the appellant had entered into a contract with the buyers located in Vietnam to supply and erect complete sugar plant. In para 6 of our Final Order No. 41661 to 4166

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

for receipt and export, as such”.
xxxx
xxxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxxx
6.2 Ld. counsel has also drawn our attention to Board's clarification No. 607/44/2001-CX dated 13.12.2001, clarifying the scope of the said Rule 16. Ld. counsel has also pointed out that the said Rules was further amended vide Central Excise Rules, 2002, which made the scope of Rule 16 even wider.
xxxx
xxxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxxx
8.3 The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their subsequent judgment in Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. (supra), has been followed by the Tribunal in Thermax Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune – 2016 (337) E|LT 456 (Tri. Mum.) wherein it has been held that bought out items used in erection of boilers at customer's site are inputs and cannot be distinguished from inputs used in manufacture of components within the factory, as both have gone into manufacture of final product.”
6. Following the said decision in KCP Ltd. (supra), I am of the view that the disall

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. SRTC Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN), Goods and Services Tax Council (GST Council), Union of India
GST
2018 (12) TMI 889 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 11-12-2018
Writ Petition No. 28209 of 2018
GST
Mr. Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu
For the Petitioner : Mr.ANR.Jayaprathap
For the Respondents : Mr.M.Hariharan, Additional Government Pleader for R1, Mr.V.Sundareswaran, Standing Counsel for R2, Mr.S.R.Sundar, Standing Counsel for R3 and R4.
ORDER
The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to take actions as may be necessary, including re-opening the common portal and extending the time period for filin

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

not succeed due to technical problems on the common portal GSTN. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Assessing Officer on 25.04.2018 with enclosures to substantiate that they made genuine attempt to upload the electronic Form GST TRAN-1. The first respondent, in turn, directed the petitioner to approach the Nodal Officer on this subject. It is stated that the non-submission for Form GST TRAN-1 within time was not due to the fault of the petitioner.
4. This Court, in various writ petitions, has already considered the similar difficulties expressed by similarly situated persons and disposed of those writ petitions with certain directions.
5. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent wherein it is stated that the first respondent h

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. C.P.C. (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Coimbatore
Central Excise
2018 (12) TMI 781 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 11-12-2018
Appeal No. E/329/2012 – Final Order No. 43074/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Shri R. Balagopal, Consultant for the Appellant
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cast articles of iron and steel and are having Central Excise registration. They are availing the facility of CENVAT credit of inputs, capital goods etc. They purchased inputs from central excise registered dealers under CENVAT credit scheme and availed the credit of such inputs. Based on intelligence, the officers visited the factory of the appellant and verified the CENVAT account and related documents. With regard to transaction with M/s. Kovai Scrap Traders, Coimbatore, a registered dealer of iron and steel scrap

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

r CI borings and the dealer had supplied CI borings. Instead of noting in the dealer's invoice the goods as CI borings, the dealer had mentioned the goods as waste and scrap. He argued that CI borings fall within the very same Tariff heading as of waste and scrap and there is no separate Tariff heading for CI borings. The goods are generally known as waste and scrap and in specific it may be known as CI borings. Since the appellant had placed purchase order for CI borings and had received CI borings, the same was noted in the MIN. Only for the difference in the description of the goods, the demand has been raised. He adverted to the relevant Tariff regarding waste and scrap under 72044900 and submitted that the rate of duty for such waste and scrap is 8%. There is no separate heading for CI borings and therefore the appellant does not gain anything by the difference in the description of the goods. With regard to the statement of Shri Selva Lakshmanan, partner, he submitted that the sa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

aste and scrap. It is also submitted by the appellant that though they had placed purchase order for CI borings, the supplier / dealer had mentioned the goods in the invoices as 'waste and scrap'. In common parlance, CI borings would fall under waste and scrap and the Tariff heading 72044900 would apply for CI borings also. There is no different central excise duty with regard to CI borings and waste and scrap (other). On such score, I cannot find any reason for the appellant to have any intention to avail fraudulent credit. The very variation in the description of the goods in the dealers invoice as well as the material inward notes cannot be a ground for alleging that the appellant has availed fraudulent credit. There is no allegation with respect to the difference in quantity of the goods received. It is only with regard to the variation in the description of the goods in the dealers invoice. It is also important to note that though the department has relied upon the statement of Sh

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

IGST Export Refund-extension in SB005 alternate mechanism revised processing in certain cases including disbursal of compensation cess
33 /2018 Dated:- 11-12-2018 Trade Notice
Customs
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
FIRST FLOOR CUSTOMS HOUSE old high court opposite NAVRANGPURA: AHMEDABAD-380009
Phone No: (079) 2754 4630 Fax (079) 2754 2343 E. mail: cus-ahmd-guj@nic.in
F.No. VIII/48-801/Cus/T/18 Date:11.12.218
Public Notice No. 33 /2018
Sub: IGST Export Refund-extension in SB005 alternate mechanism revised processing in certain cases including disbursal of compensation cess-reg.
Attention to all exporters, their authorized representatives and all other stakeholders is invited to CBEC Circular No. 40/2018-Custom

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

for the shipping bills filed till 30.06.2018. It has now been decided by the Board to extend the rectification facility to shipping bills filed up to 15.11.2018. However, it is reiterated that the exporters shall have to take care to ensure that the details of invoice, such as invoice number, IGST.paid etc. under GSTR 1 and shipping bill match with each other since the same transaction is being reported under GST laws and Customs Act.
4. It may be noted that SBs which have not been scrolled due to the IGST paid amount being erroneously declared as 'NA' are already being handled through officer interface as per Circular 08/2018-Customs, dated 23.03.2018. However, no such provision was hitherto available in respect of those SBs which

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ct of categories indicated at para 4 above, a facility has now been provide for the processing and sanctioning of the eligible differential IGST refund. This facility would be available only for cases where shipping bills have been filed till 15.11.2018 Exporters need to be cautious while filing details in shipping bill as a similar facility may not be available in future for the same mistake.
6. In order to claim the differential amount, the exporter is required to submit a duly filled and signed revised refund request (RRR) annexed to this public notice to deputy commissioner / assistant commissioner of customs (Technical). A scanned copy of the signed RRR can also be mailed to ahdcustech@gmail.com.
7. It may be noted that only those SB

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Shakti Hormann Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax, Medchal – GST
Central Excise
2018 (12) TMI 663 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 11-12-2018
Appeal No. E/30718/2018 – A/31559/2018
Central Excise
Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical)
None for the Appellant.
Shri Bhanu Kiran, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent.
ORDER
Per: P. Venkata Subba Rao
This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. HYDEXCUS- MD-AP2-0181-17-18-CE, dated 19.01.2018. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice. However, it is found that the issue falls in a narrow compass and hence can be decided even in the absence of representation from t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e tax paid is not eligible for credit. The appellant contested the demand on merits. After following due process, the Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant challenged this order before the First Appellate Authority on the ground that the credit was admissible prior to 01.04.2008 when the limitation of credit on input services 'up to the place of removal' was introduced. He also challenged the demand on the ground of limitation of time. The First Appellate Authority upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal. Hence this appeal on the following grounds,
i) The definition of input service under CENVAT Credit

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d that credit on transportation of goods from place of removal upto buyers premises is available on the ground that service tax being a consumption of service tax as owned by the customer.
iv) The notice was issued on 08.06.2010 covering the period April, 2006 to June, 2007 and is therefore hit by limitation as there is no evidence that the credit has been availed by fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty.
3. I have considered the facts of the case and arguments made by Learned Departmental Representative. The short point to be decided is whether CENVAT credit on input services is admissible on GTA services for outward transportation of goods from factory to the premises of the customers p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Removal of difficulty order regarding extension of due date for filing of Annual return (in FORMs GSTR-9, GSTR-9A and GSTR-9C) for FY 2017-18 till 31st March, 2019
01/2018 Dated:- 11-12-2018 CGST – Circulars / Ordes
GST
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
ORDER
No. 1/2018-Central Tax
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2018
S.O. 6109(E).WHEREAS, sub-section (1) of section 44 of the Central 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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

section;
NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 172 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Central Government, on recommendations of the Council, hereby makes the following Order, to remove the difficulties, namely:
1. Short title.This Order may be called the Central Goods and Services Tax (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2018.
2. In section 44 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, after sub-section (2), the following Explanation shall be inserted, namely:
“Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that the annual return for the period from the 1st July, 2017 to the 31st March, 2018 shall be furnished on or before the 31st March, 2019.”.
[F. No. 20/06/17/2018-

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tranfer of factory building , gst implications
Query (Issue) Started By: – satbir singhwahi Dated:- 10-12-2018 Last Reply Date:- 16-12-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 1 Reply
GST
A partnership firm has factory building . Now the firm is shifting to new location. Existing factory building(built in financial year 2012-13) it wants to transfer to sister concern. Whether gst applicable.
Reply By Pavan Mahulkar:
The Reply:
As per Schedule III para 5
Read with Schedule II para 5b

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Duty Drawback and ITC Refund
Query (Issue) Started By: – Kaustubh Karandikar Dated:- 10-12-2018 Last Reply Date:- 5-9-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 7 Replies
GST
If my understanding is correct, after 01.07.17, if a person is claiming 'All Industry Rate' of Duty Drawback, still he can claim refund of accumulated ITC on account of continuous exports. But I am not getting the relevant circular / authority under which it is allowed. Please help.
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Dear Sir,
Go through replies of Sh.Sanjay Malhotra, CS and Sh.Alkesh Jani in respect of Issue ID No.113414 dated 16.2.18. These will be helpful to you.
Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN:
The Reply:
Sir,
You have vast experience in taxation

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Development Charges and GST
Query (Issue) Started By: – Kaustubh Karandikar Dated:- 10-12-2018 Last Reply Date:- 11-12-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 5 Replies
GST
XYZ is the manufacturer of Product 'A' which attracts 12% GST. To manufacture this product, they require Blocks, Punches etc. which they get it done from outside. XYZ recovers this amount of developing the blocks and punches from the customer through tax invoice issued for Product 'A' but shows it separately as 'Development charges' for making blocks and punches. 1) Can XYZ charge the same GST which is applicable for product 'A' in respect of development charges recovered or 2) Need to issue a separate service invoice for development charges and charge the app

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Applicability of Threshold Exemption
Query (Issue) Started By: – Kaustubh Karandikar Dated:- 10-12-2018 Last Reply Date:- 14-2-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 17 Replies
GST
XYZ is having turnover in the financial year 18 – 19 above ₹ 20 Lacs and therefore paying GST. In the year 19 -20, he will be continuing to pay GST and if his turnover will be below ₹ 20 Lacs, will he be exempted from paying GST and claim refund of GST already paid in 19 -20 or otherwise how it works?
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani:
The Reply:
The threshold limit is applicable to register under GST Act. In the year of registration the tax shall be applied on the turnover in excess of the exemption limit. In the second year onward the tax is to be charged from the first supply itself.
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Dear Sir,
The issue is to be examined deeply. The word, 'preceding ' before 'year' is missing in Section 22 of CGST Act, 2017. The word, 'preceding&

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN:
The Reply:
In my view there is no provision for cancelling the registration when the aggregate turnover reduces below the threshold limit.
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
Dr.Govindarajan Sir,
I agree with you to the extent that there is no provision for cancellation of registration because of reduction turnover below threshold limit.
In pre-GST era, there was a word,"Preceding" financial year in every small scale exemption notification of Service Tax. Now in GST regime, "preceding" is missing and replaced by "a financial year'. What is impact of this ? Will you please offer your views ?
Thanks & regards.
K.L.SETHI
Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN:
The Reply:
I agree with you. The GST council is to bring clarification in this regard to avoid such confusions.
Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani:
The Reply:
In my view, by the word a financial year it means the turnover of the current year also shall be considered in cas

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tion has to be taken on crossing 20 lakhs, but tax has to be paid on full 21 lakhs.
When contacted Helpdesk, they also said tax to be paid on 21 lakhs.
But I dont find any logic in paying tax on full 21 lakhs when any registration is not required upto 20 lakhs in FY1718.
Experts view awaited.
Regards,
Siva
Reply By kollengode venkitaraman:
The Reply:
THIS QUESTION IS VERY RELEVANT. SEC 22. PRESCRIBES THE TURNOVER LIMIT FOR REGISTRATION. BUT I COULD NOT FIND ANY SECTION WHICH GRANTS THE BASIC EXEMPTION OF RS.20 LAKHS. IN KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT SEC.6 PROVIDES THE BASIC EXEMPTION LIMIT AND A PERSON BECOMES LIABLE TO PAY TAX, ONCE THIS LIMIT IS EXCEEDED. SUCH A PROVISION IS ABSENT IN CGST ACT. IS IT ACCIDENTAL OR PURPOSEFUL? AS SIVA OPINES, ONE LI LIABLE TO PAY GST WITHOUT ANY EXEMPTION!
Reply By KASTURI SETHI:
The Reply:
See Board's Flyer No.1. Any person is required to apply for registration when that person is liable to pay tax. You are liable to pay tax after crossing

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Not Applicable on Construction Services If Payment Received After Property Completion Date.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of GST – Construction services – relevant date of completion of construction

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Builder and Landowner Liable for GST on Multistoried Residential and Commercial Building Transactions.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of GST – landowner – The builder offered to develop and promote a mul

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Applicant Must Pay GST on Building Value Transferred to Landowner in Joint Development Agreement.
Case-Laws
GST
Levy of GST – land development agreement – The applicant is liable to pay GST o

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST at 18% Applies to Entire Contract for 220kV Underground Cable Work, Including Transportation Services.
Case-Laws
GST
Exemption from GST – supply of transportation services – The Applicant

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =