Goods and Services Tax

IN RE : DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, DEHRADUN
GST
2018 (9) TMI 1647 – APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, UTTARAKHAND – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 566 (App. A. A. R. – GST)
APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, UTTARAKHAND – AAAR
Dated:- 7-9-2018
GST ARA 02/01 – 01/2018-19
GST
SHRI S.H. HASAN AND SMT. SOWJANYA MEMBER
Concerned Officer: Smt. Preeti Manral, Deputy Commissioner, Tax
Appellant Represented by: Rajesh Gupta, F.C.A., LLB (Authorised Rep.)
ORDER
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. In the instant case, an application under Sub-Section (1) of Section 97 of the CGST Act and the rules made thereunder, was filed by Regional Forest Officer (Forest Division, Dehradun) seeking an advance ruling on the question whether GST is leviable on the “Marg Sudharan Shulk” and “Abhivahan ShuIk” said to be charged by Forest Division Dehradun from the non government, private and commercial vehicles engaged in mining work in lieu of use of forest road. The said mining is being und

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d Other Forest Produce Rules 2012″, the authority observed that a person who desires to obtain forest produce is required to be registered with the forest department after paying applicable fee and the said “Abhivahan Shulk” is charged on the basis of quantum and quality of forest produce and the said forest produce must be accompanied with a transit pass issued by forest authorities in this regard. It was further observed that charges for carrying forest produce through road or water are different and determined according to quality and quantity. Therefore, said “Abhivahan Shulk” cannot be termed as toll tax and rather is a form of consideration received by the applicant in lieu of services provided to the person for carrying forest produce. Under Section 2(102) of GST Act, services means anything other than goods. …..and all services but for list of exempted services as provided under Chapter 99 of GST Tariff, 2017 are liable for GST. Since the services provided by the applicant di

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

HE UTTARAKHAND TRANSIT OF TIMBER AND OTHER FOREST PRODUCE RULES' 2012 as notified by Govt. of Uttarakhand vide notification no. 819/X-2-2012-21(13)/2011 dated 18.05.2012. That the said Rules have been notified under Section 41, 42, 45, 51, 52 and 76 of Indian Forest Act' 1927.
3. That Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act' 1927 deals with “Power to make rules to regulate transit of forest produce” and clause (b) of subsection (2) of the said section prescribes that State Govt. may “prohibit the import or export or moving of such timber or other produce without a pass from an officer duly authorised to issue the same, or otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of such pass; further clause (c) prescribes that State Govt. may “provide for the issue, production and return of such passes and for the payment of fees therefore”
4. That THE UTTARAKHAND TRANSIT OF TIMBER AND OTHER FOREST PRODUCE RULES' 2012, have been formulated to implement the provisions of Indian Forest Act' 1927 an

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the use of money or its conversion by cash or by any other mode, from one form, currency or denomination, to another form, currency or denomination for which a separate consideration is charged.” There is nothing in the definition which stipulates that even Govt. Fee collected under a specific statue shall also be covered in the definition of service.
7. That under the provisions of GST, Supply is the critical event for Levy and Collection of Tax. The relevant Section 7 – Pertaining to Scope of Supply reads as under:
“7. (1) For the purposes of this Act, the expression “supply” includes-
(a) all forms of supply of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business;
(b) import of services for a consideration whether or not in the course or furtherance of business;
(c) the activities specified in Schedule I, made or agreed to b

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rson in the course or furtherance of business, whereas the appellant is not charging Abhivahan Shulk in furtherance of business, instead the same is charged under the provisions of a Statute and Authority of State Govt that too without any provision of any kind of service instead to regulate the transit of forest produce. That Clause (b) of Subsection (1) of Section 7 deals with import of services therefore the same is not applicable. Further the relevant schedules I, II & III also nowhere stipulate that any Govt. Fee collected under a specific statue shall also be covered in the definition of service.
8. That in terms of the submissions made, the Abhivahan Shulk (Transit Fee) is not exigible to GST and in case such fee is held to be exigible to GST, in such a scenario all Govt. Fees and Levies charged under their specific statues shall become exigible to GST, which is not the intention of legislature, therefore it was prayed that Abhivahan Shulk (Transit Fee) may not be considered ex

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ed Representative for the appellant on 08.08.2018. During the course of the personal hearing the Authorised Representative reiterated the points covered in the grounds of appeal filed with the Appellate Authority vide Appeal No. GSTARA 02/01/18.06.2018. Further, in order to understand the whole issue in minutest details, the Authorised Representative was asked some specific questions in a questionnaire form, the answers of which were submitted on 10.08.2018. The details of the submissions made in the Question Answer form are as under:-
Q1. Please provide the authority for the collection of the Abhivahan Shulk (Transit Fee).
Ans 1. The said Abhivahan Shulk is collected under the authority granted in terms of THE UTTARAKHAND TRANSIT OF TIMBER AND OTHER FOREST PRODUCE RULES' 2012, which have been formulated to implement the provisions of Indian Forest Act' 1927. A copy of the same has already been submitted during the course of personal hearing.
Q2. Since when this fee is collected a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

be regulated by the relevant conditions of sale and terms of the corresponding agreement deed executed by the buyer
c. Further transfer of forest produce as may be exempted by the Government from the operation of these rules by notification in the official Gazette.
Q4. What is the rate and methodology of collection of this fee? Is there any prescribed tariff? If yes, copy may please be submitted.
Ans 4. That the fee is payable in terms of Rule 5 of THE UTTARAKHAND TRANSIT OF TIMBER AND OTHER FOREST PRODUCE RULES'2012. A copy of the same has already been submitted during the course of personal hearing.
Q5. Under what accounting head is the fee deposited?
Ans 5. The Fee is Deposited with State Govt. as Govt. Revenue under Code – 0406- 01- 800- 01- 03. A copy of sample challan is enclosed herewith as Annexure-I.
Q6. What is the reason for imposition of this fee? How is the gross collection used and by which authority?
Ans 6. The fee is charged in terms of the authorities gra

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

TRANSIT OF TIMBER AND OTHER FOREST PRODUCE RULES'2012, which read as under:
(1) Whosoever contravenes any of the provisions of these rules shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years pr with fine which may extend to Rs. 10000/- or with both
(2) In cases where the offence is committed after sunset and before sunrise, or after making preparation for resistance to lawful authority or where the offender has been previously convicted of a like offence, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to 02 years or a fine which may extend to Rs. 50000/- but in no case less than Rs. 10000/- or with both.
Q10. Are the forest produce liable to seizure in case the Abhivahan Shulk is not paid? What is the fate of seized goods? Are they subsequently auctioned then is the Abhivahan Shulk recouped from the sales proceeds?
Ans 10.Yes. That once the produce is detained, the case is placed before the Civil Court and once the orders

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

efinition of service.
(ii) that Govt fee is not covered under scope of service as detailed in Section 7 (a) & (b).
(iii) that in case such fee is held exigible to GST then in such a scenario all Govt. Fees and levies charged under specific statutes shall become exigible to GST, which is not the intention of the legislature;
(iv) that the provisions of Notification No. 13/2017-CT(R) dated 28.06.2017 shall continue to apply and the same shall be payable by the recipient of service under Reverse Charge mechanism. Further the recipient of service shall also be entitled to benefit of exemption as contained in Entry S.No. 9 of notification no. 12/2017 CT(R) dated 28.06.2017
Before going into the specific details of the issue, the nature of the levy needs to be understood. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the landmark judgement in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Sajjan Lal, AIR 1975 (Supreme Court) page 706, (Para 40 and 41) = 1973 (12) TMI 93 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, laid down the law r

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

to the expenses incurred by Government in rendering the services. In the Secretary, Government of Madras, Home Department v. Zenith Lamp & Electrical Ltd., = 1972 (11) TMI 93 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, it was reiterated that the fact that the collections went to the Consolidated Fund was not in itself conclusive though not much stress could be laid on this point because Art. 266 requires that all revenues raised by the State shall form part of the Consolidated Fund.”
The principles were reiterated in Kishan Lal vs. State of Haryana (1993) Supplement 4 CC page 461 = 1993 (7) TMI 337 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – It is trite to reiterate the law laid down by this Court of the distinction between the tax and the fee and its demarcating line visa-vis the power of the legislation to make law for imposition of fee in that behalf. Suffice to reiterate the ratio laid in Sreenivasa General Traders and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors. 1983 (9) TMI 315 – SUPREME COURT, that the traditional view that

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

between the levy and the services rendered/expected is one of general character and not of mathematical exactitude. All that is necessary is that there should be a “reasonable relationship” between the levy of the fee and the services rendered. There is no generic difference between a tax and a fee. Both are compulsory exactions of money by public authorities. Compulsion lies in the fact that payment is enforceable by law against a person in spite of his unwillingness or want of consent. A levy in the nature of a fee does not cease to be of that character merely because there is an element of compulsion or coerciveness present in it, nor is it a postulate of a fee that it must have direct relation to the actual service rendered by the authority to each individual nor that each should obtain the benefit of the service.
Further, in the case of P. Kannadsan etc. vs. State of Tamilnadu & other etc. J.T. 1996 (7) SC 16 = 1996 (7) TMI 554 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. It has been observed that

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

s within the forest area and the same is collected from all the vehicles, whether loaded or empty. Thus the Marg Sudharan Shulk is used for the benefit of public in general who may use the roads of the forest area and not only to a particular class of people who are paying the said fee. The rates of Abhivahan Shulk, on the other hand, are fixed on the quantity of forest produce being transported. So, a vehicle entering a forest area will have to pay the Marg Sudharan Shulk even if it comes out empty. But the same empty vehicle will not be required to pay any Abhivahan Shulk, if it is coming out of the forest area without any forest produce. Thus, this fee is directly related to the quality and quantity of the forest produce. The Uttarakhand Forest Department is incurring expenses in maintaining the administrative machinery for collection of the Abhivahan Shulk and they are required, by the Uttarakhand Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules 2012, to construct and maintain depo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

r a government levy, for it to be termed as 'fee'. The very nature of it being a fee ensures that a quid pro quo has to be there and therefore rendering of some form of service comes in built, which is also established as discussed above. Thus, this shulk collected against the services rendered, is liable to be taxed under the provisions of Goods and Service Tax Acts, unless otherwise exempted.
Now, we come to the specifics of the appeal. Definition of services as provided in Section 2(102) of the CGST Act 2017, reads as “(102) “services” means anything other than goods, money and securities but includes activities relating to the use of money or its conversion by cash or by any other mode, from one form, currency or denomination, to another form, currency or denomination for which a separate consideration is charged;”. Thus, by using the word “anything” the legislation becomes all encompassing with the only exceptions contained in the definition itself. It is not possible to include

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nsideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business;
(b) import of services for a consideration whether or not in the course or furtherance of business;
(c) the activities specified in Schedule I, made or agreed to be made without a consideration
(d) the activities to be treated as supply of goods or supply of services as referred to in Schedule II.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),
(a) activities or transactions specified in Schedule III; or
(b) such activities or transactions undertaken by the Central Government, a State Government or any local authority in which they are engaged as public authorities, as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council, shall be treated neither as a supply of goods nor a supply of services.
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (1), and (2), the Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, specify, by notification, the transactions that are to be treated as-

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the Central Government, a State Government or any local authority in which they are engaged as public authorities, as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council are not supply. Abhivahan Shulk is not covered under SI. No. 4 of the notification No. 12/2017-CT (R) dated 28.06.2017 since the entry applies to functions entrusted to Municipalities. Similarly serial entry no. 5 of the said notification relates to functions entrusted to Panchayat. On the other hand, Serial no. 6 of the said notification states that Services by the Central Government, State Government, Union territory or local authority excluding the following services- (a)……… (b)…….. (c)………(d) any service, other than services covered under entries (a) to (c) above, provided to business entities are to be taxed at 'NIL' rates. Abhivahan Shulk does not fall under exclusion clauses (a) to (c) and hence they are to be treated as any service provided to a business entity, as per clause

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

recipients, on reverse charge basis, we find that this plea did not form a part or the original application that was filed before the AAR and the issue was not examined by the original Authority on Advance Ruling and accordingly no orders to this effect was passed. Advance Ruling was sought only to decide the exigibility of Abhivahan Shulk. The Reverse Charge mechanism is governed by certain laid down conditions and criteria. In absence of specific details, it is impossible to arrive at a reasoned decision. Hence we cannot consider the issue at the appellate stage without it forming a pan of the order in original. However, the rules and procedures regarding reverse charge mechanism are unambiguously laid down and in the era of self assessment procedure, it is for the assessee to ascertain whether he fulfils the terms and conditions governing payment of GST on reverse charge.
In view of the above findings we dismiss the appeal and uphold the decision of the Authority on Advance Ruling

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

R. ARVIND Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 1269 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – 2018 (362) E.L.T. 193 (Mad.) , [2020] 73 G S.T.R. 378 (Mad)
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 7-9-2018
W.P.No.15423 of 2018
Central Excise
Mr. K. Ravichandrabaabu J.
For the Petitioner : Mr.Akhil Suresh
For the Respondents : Mrs.Aparna Nandakumar, Senior Panel Counsel
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the second respondent dated 17.01.2018 in dismissing the appeal on the reason that the required pre-deposit was made belatedly after a period of 7 months from the date of filing of the appeal. In other words, the second respondent dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of predeposit as per Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. The petitioner is an Assessee and registered with the Service Tax Commissionerate for rendering service tax under the category of renting of immovable property. Pursuant to the issuance of show ca

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

for the petitioner submitted that when, admittedly, the appeal was presented in time, the belated payment of pre-deposit cannot be the reason to reject the appeal. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the recent decision of a Division Bench of this Court made in W.A.Nos.342 to 347 of 2017 dated 07.06.2017.
5. On the other hand, the respondents filed a counter affidavit and relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in [1996 (I) CTC 95] in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs E.P.Nawab Marakkadai.
6. Heard both sides.
7. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner has presented the appeal before the second respondent within time. It is also not in dispute that the appeal was not accompanied with the predeposit and on the other hand, such deposit was made only after a period of 7 months from the date of presentation of the appeal. The issue, thus, arises for consideration in this writ petition as to whether the appeal presented within time can

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ring the course of his arguments, has articulated a concern on behalf of the Revenue, which is, if such an interpretation is given, then, it is likely that the aggrieved party would abuse the process of law.
25.1.While we share the concern of Mr.Chopda, it must be said that our conclusions have to be based on the language used in the Act and not based on the likelihood of abuse of the provisions by the litigants.
25.2.Having said so, in our view, the Authorities below could follow the procedure, which has been adverted to, in the Circular dated 14.10.2014, as indicated in our interim order dated 07.04.2017.
26.The Circular sensu stricto applies only vis-a-vis appeals filed with the Tribunal.
Therefore, according to the procedure prescribed in the said Circular, the appellants are required to be given, at least three opportunities for processing necessary evidence of having made the prescribed mandatory predeposit.
26.1.The Circular, further states that if after three opportun

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

.P.Nawab Marakkadai, 1996 (100) STC 1, would come in the way of the appellants.
28.1.In this behalf, Mr.Chopda has laid emphasis on the observations made by the Court in paragraph no.11 of the said judgment. For the sake of convenience, the said observations are extracted hereafter:
“11.Learned counsel for the respondent laid emphasis on the following words in the said judgment: “……….. We are of opinion that by the word 'entertain' here is meant the first occasion on which the court takes up the matter for consideration. It may be at the admission stage or if by the rules of that Tribunal the appeals are automatically admitted, it will be the time of hearing of the appeal.”
But the very next sentence in the said judgment cuts at the very root of the respondent's contention. It is as follows:
“…………But on the first occasion when the court takes up the matter for consideration, satisfactory proof must be presented that the tax was paid within the period o

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the manner prescribed, appeal against such order to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (having jurisdiction):
Provided that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, within a further period of thirty days admit an appeal presented after the expiration of the first mentioned period of thirty days if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the first mentioned period:
Provided further that in the case of an order under section 12, section 12-A, section 14, section 15 or sub-sections (1) and 92) of section 16, no appeal shall be entertained under this sub-section unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the tax admitted by the appellant to be due or of such instalments thereof as might have become payable, as the case may be.””
30.A perusal of the Section would show that the second proviso, on which, reliance was placed by Mr.Chopda is framed in a manner, which is perceptibly different from the language w

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e Court rendered in M/s.Ranjit Impex Vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner and Another, (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 655. For the sake of convenience, the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph nos.2 to 4 and 6 being apposite, are set out hereafter:
“2.The factual narration would exposit that the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Deputy commissioner I, Commercial Taxes and at the time of presentation, a sum of Rs. 8,52,472 was required to be deposited as per the calculation made under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (for brevity “the Act”) but as it was not done, the memorandum of appeal was returned to him.
The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the assessee to comply with all the requirements as intimated by the appellate authority in the return memo dated 3-1-2011 and on such compliance, the appellate authority was directed to register the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with the law.
3.In th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e appeal shall not be considered on merits and eventually has to be dismissed on that ground.
6.Having heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned counsel for the Revenue, we are inclined to direct that the appellant shall deposit the amount as required by the Deputy Commissioner I, Commercial Taxes vide order dated 6-1-2011 by 30-9-2013 whereafter the appeal shall be heard and disposed of on merits. As far as the adjustment/refund is concerned, it is open to the appellant to initiate any independent proceeding. The conclusion of the Division Bench with regard to the factum that there has been proper adjustment by the Department in respect of the claim made by the assessee is set aside. However, we may proceed to clarify that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to the claim of the assessee.”
32.Having regard to the aforesaid, we are inclined to hold that the second respondent could not have dismissed the appeals, on the ground that the prescribed mandatory

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Daman Commissionerate Versus Jai Corporation Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 1134 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – TMI
BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 7-9-2018
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 247 OF 2018 IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO. 122 OF 2015
Central Excise
M.S. SANKLECHA AND RIYAZ IQBAL CHAGLA, JJ.
Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, Advocate a/w. Mr. J. B. Mishra for the Applicant
P.C.
1. None appears for the Respondent despite service of notice.
2. This application seeks condonation of 746 days delay in filing this Motion to sets aside the self-operating order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, rejecting the applicant's appeal under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2.2015. Although the affidavit states that the department learnt about dismissal of the appeal some time in December, 2017 on the official website of this court, no particulars of how and in what circumstances the website of the court was visited and the reason why it was not visited earlier. The reason given by the department is not a sufficient explanation for the delay caused in moving this Motion. In fact it evidences negligence on the part of the applicant.
4. In fact, this court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2017) 84 Taxmann.com 313 has observed as under :  
“8. We have found that if the number of appeals filed by the Revenue are approximately thousand per year or more, then, we expect the Revenue

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

today, on affidavit and belatedly, reflects total negligence and callousness of the Revenue officials. Their attitude shows that they are not at all vigilant and interested in pursuing the cases filed by the Department involving a tax effect of crores of rupees. They expect the Court to be lenient and liberal and pardon them every time. It is this approach of the Revenue officials which is not only strongly deprecated in the earlier order but this Court has refused to uphold it after it was noticed that this is the position in almost every matter.”  
5. The aforesaid observations apply on all fours to the present facts. The transfers of the officers of the department does not absolve the Revenue from prosecuting its appeal with sincer

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Daman Commissionerate Versus M/s. Wellknown Polyesters Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 748 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – TMI
BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 7-9-2018
Notice of Motion No. 119 of 2018 in Central Excise Appeal (L) No. 54 of 2013
Central Excise
M. S. SANKLECHA AND RIYAZ IQBAL CHAGLA, JJ.
Ms. P. S. Cardozo, Advocate for the Applicant / Appellant.
Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Advocate I/by PDS Legal for the Respondent.  
P.C.
1 This Motion seeks condonation of 529 days delay in filing the present Notice of Motion that seeks to set aside the self-operating order dated 21.04.2016 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, rejecting the applicant's appeal under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, for failure to remove office objections within the stipulated time i.e. 19.05.2016.
2. We have perused the affidavit in support of the Motion, filed by Mr. S.K. Jha, Assistant Commissioner of Central GST dated 0

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the exact date when the appellant department learnt about the rejection order dated 21.04.2016 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The only reason set out therein is that there is a change in the panel of Advocates and the appellant is a statutory government authority, responsible for collection of the revenue under the relevant statute.
5. The reasons set out in the said affidavit for the delay are not satisfactory and rather, it reflects casual attitude on the part of the officers of the revenue. It appears that after filing of the appeal and /or engaging a panel Advocate, the officers of the Revenue proceed as if their responsibility is over. In fact, this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2017) 84 Taxmann.com 313 under the Income Tax Act, 1961 has observed as under :
“8. We have found that if the number of appeals filed by the Revenue are approximately thousand per year or more, then, we expect the Revenue to appoint and depute responsib

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

urt to be lenient and liberal and pardon them every time. It is this approach of the Revenue officials which is not only strongly deprecated in the earlier order but this Court has refused to uphold it after it was noticed that this is the position in almost every matter.”
The aforesaid observations apply equally apply to the present facts.
6. When attention was drawn of the counsel for the Revenue with regard to the aforesaid observations of this Court, she responded by contending that the government is impersonal entity and depend upon its officers to perform their job. Therefore, when the officer has not done his job properly, the State should not suffer on that count. This very submission was the subject matter of consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General V. Livinmg Media India Ltd. and Anr. (2012) 348 ITR 7 (SC), (2012) 3 SCC 563, wherein the Apex Court has, inter alia, observed as follows (page 19 of 348 ITR) :
” It is not in di

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural redtape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”  
7. We are of the view that the above observations equally apply to this

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

The Bihar Goods and Services Tax (Eighth Amendment) Rules, 2018.
S.O. 231 Dated:- 7-9-2018 Bihar SGST
GST – States
Bihar SGST
Bihar SGST
BIHAR GOVERNMENT
COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
The 7th September 2018

S.O. 231 Dated 7th September 2018-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Governor of Bihar, hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (Eighth Amendment) Rules, 2018.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in these rules, they shall come into force with effect from 4th September 2018.
2. In the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), in rule 22, in sub-rule (4), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-
“Provided that where the person instead of replying to the notice served under sub-rule (1) for

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

lause (E), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:-
'(E) “Adjusted Total Turnover” means the sum total of the value of-
(a) the turnover in a State or a Union territory, as defined under clause (112) of section 2, excluding the turnover of services; and
(b) the turnover of zero-rated supply of services determined in terms of clause (D) above and non-zero-rated supply of services, excluding-
(i) the value of exempt supplies other than zero-rated supplies; and
(ii) the turnover of supplies in respect of which refund is claimed under sub-rule (4A) or sub-rule (4B) or both, if any, during the relevant period.'.
6. In the said rules, with effect from the 23rd October, 2017, in rule 96, for sub-rule (10), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely:-
“(10) The persons claiming refund of integrated tax paid on exports of goods or services should not have –
(a) received supplies on which the benefit of the Commercial Taxes Department notification No. S.O.-249 da

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

les, in rule 138A, in sub-rule (1), after the proviso the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-
“Provided further that in case of imported goods, the person in charge of a conveyance shall also carry a copy of the bill of entry filed by the importer of such goods and shall indicate the number and date of the bill of entry in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01.”.
8. In the said rules, for FORM GST REG-20, the following FORM shall be substituted, namely:-
“FORM GST REG-20
[See rule 22(4)]
Reference No. –
Date –
To
Name
Address
GSTIN/UIN
Show Cause Notice No.
Date-
Order for dropping the proceedings for cancellation of registration
This has reference to your reply filed vide ARN – dated in response to the show cause notice referred to above. Upon consideration of your reply and/or submissions made during hearing, the proceedings initiated for cancellation of registration stands vacated for the following reasons:
<>
or
The above referred show cause notice was issue

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ion of goods
UQC
Quantity
Taxable value
Type of goods (Inputs/capital goods)
Rate of tax (%)
Central tax
State/UT tax
Integrated tax
Cess
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
5. Details of inputs/capital goods received back from job worker or sent out from business place of job work
(A) Details of inputs/ capital goods received back from job worker to whom such goods were sent for job work; and losses and wastes:
GSTIN/State of job worker if unregistered
Challan No. issued by job worker under which goods have been received back
Date of challan issued by job worker under which goods have been received back
Description of goods
UQC
Quantity
Original challan No. under which goods have been sent for job work
Original challan date under which goods have been sent for job work
Nature of job work done by job worker
Losses & wastes
UQC
Quantity
1
2*
3*
4
5
6
7*
8*
9
10
11
(B) Details of inputs / capital goods received back from job worker other than the job

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

t for job work
Original challan date under which goods have been sent for job work
Nature of job work done by job worker
Losses & Wastes
UQC
Quantity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7*
8*
9
10
11
Instructions:
1. Multiple entry of items for single challan may be filled.
2. Columns (2) & (3) in Table (A) and Table (B) are mandatory in cases where fresh challan are required to be issued by the job worker. Otherwise, columns (2) & (3) in Table (A) and Table (B) are optional.
3. Columns (7) & (8) in Table (A), Table (B) and Table (C) may not be filled where one-to-one correspondence between goods sent for job work and goods received back after job work is not possible.
6. Verification
I hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the information given hereinabove is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therefrom.
Signature
Name of Authorised Signatory ………
Designation /Status……………&hell

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

charge basis
H
Sub-total (A to G above)
I
Credit Notes issued in respect of transactions specified in (B) to (E) above (-)
J
Debit Notes issued in respect of transactions specified in (B) to (E) above (+)
K
Supplies / tax declared through Amendments (+)
L
Supplies / tax reduced through Amendments (-)
M
Sub-total (I to L above)
N
Supplies and advances on which tax is to be paid (H + M) above
5
Details of Outward supplies on which tax is not payable as declared in returns filed during the financial year
A
Zero rated supply (Export) without payment of tax
B
Supply to SEZs without payment of tax
C
Supplies on which tax is to be paid by the recipient on reverse charge basis
D
Exempted
E
Nil Rated
F
Non-GST supply
G
Sub-total (A to F above)
H
Credit Notes issued in respect of transactions specified in A to F above (-)
I
Debit Notes issued in respect of transactions specified in A to F above (+)
J
Supplies declared through Amendments (+)
K
Supplies red

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ove) on which tax is paid and ITC availed
Inputs
Capital Goods
Input Services
E
Import of goods (including supplies from SEZs)
Inputs
Capital Goods
F
Import of services (excluding inward supplies from SEZs)
G
Input Tax credit received from ISD
H
Amount of ITC reclaimed (other than B above) under the provisions of the Act
I
Sub-total (B to H above)
J
Difference (I – A above)
K
Transition Credit through TRAN-I (including revisions if any)
L
Transition Credit through TRAN-II
M
Any other ITC availed but not specified above
N
Sub-total (K to M above)
O
Total ITC availed (I+ N above)
7
Details of ITC Reversed and Ineligible ITC as declared in returns filed during the financial year
A
As per Rule 37
B
As per Rule 39
C
As per Rule 42
D
As per Rule 43
E
As per section 17(5)
F
Reversal of TRAN-I credit
G
Reversal of TRAN-II credit
H
Other reversals (pl. specify)
I
Total ITC Reversed (A to H above)
J
Net ITC Available for Utilization (6O – 7I

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Cess
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Integrated Tax
Central Tax
State/UT Tax
Cess
Interest
Late fee
Penalty
Other
Pt. V
Particulars of the transactions for the previous FY declared in returns of April to September of current FY or upto date of filing of annual return of previous FY whichever is earlier
Description
Taxable Value
Central Tax
State Tax/ UT Tax
Integrated Tax
Cess
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
Supplies / tax declared through Amendments (+) (net of debit notes)
11
Supplies / tax reduced through Amendments (-) (net of credit notes)
12
Reversal of ITC availed during previous financial year
13
ITC availed for the previous financial year
14
Differential tax paid on account of declaration in 10 & 11 above
Description
Payable
Paid
1
2
3
Integrated Tax
Central Tax
State/UT Tax
Cess
Interest
Pt. VI
Other Information
15
Particulars of Demands and Refunds
Details
Central Tax
State Tax/ UT Tax
Integrated Tax
Cess
Interest
Penalty
Late Fee/Others
1
2
3

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tion
Payable
Paid
1
2
3
A
Central Tax
B
State Tax
Verification:
I hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the information given herein above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed there from and in case of any reduction in output tax liability the benefit thereof has been/will be passed on to the recipient of supply.
Signature
Date Name of Authorised Signatory
Designation / Status
Place
Date
Instructions: –
1. Terms used:
a. GSTIN: Goods and Services Tax Identification Number
b. UQC: Unit Quantity Code
c. HSN: Harmonized System of Nomenclature Code
2. The details for the period between July 2017 to March 2018 are to be provided in this return.
3. Part II consists of the details of all outward supplies & advances received during the financial year for which the annual return is filed. The details filled in Part II is a consolidation of all the supplies declared by the taxpayer in the returns filed during the fin

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

es to SEZs) on which tax has been paid shall be declared here. Table 6A of FORM GSTR-1 may be used for filling up these details.
4D
Aggregate value of supplies to SEZs on which tax has been paid shall be declared here. Table 6B of GSTR-1 may be used for filling up these details.
4E
Aggregate value of supplies in the nature of deemed exports on which tax has been paid shall be declared here. Table 6C of FORM GSTR-1 may be used for filling up these details.
4F
Details of all unadjusted advances i.e. advance has been received and tax has been paid but invoice has not been issued in the current year shall be declared here. Table 11A of FORM GSTR-1 may be used for filling up these details.
4G
Aggregate value of all inward supplies (including advances and net of credit and debit notes) on which tax is to be paid by the recipient (i.e.by the person filing the annual return) on reverse charge basis. This shall include supplies received from registered persons, unregistered persons on

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

not been paid shall be declared here. Table 6A of FORM GSTR-1 may be used for filling up these details.
5B
Aggregate value of supplies to SEZs on which tax has not been paid shall be declared here. Table 6B of GSTR-1 may be used for filling up these details.
5C
Aggregate value of supplies made to registered persons on which tax is payable by the recipient on reverse charge basis. Details of debit and credit notes are to be mentioned separately. Table 4B of FORM GSTR-1 may be used for filling up these details.
5D, 5E and 5F
Aggregate value of exempted, Nil Rated and Non-GST supplies shall be declared here. Table 8 of FORM GSTR-1 may be used for filling up these details. The value of “no supply” shall also be declared here.
5H
Aggregate value of credit notes issued in respect of supplies declared in 5A,5B,5C, 5D, 5E and 5F shall be declared here. Table 9B of FORM GSTR-1 may be used for filling up these details.
5I
Aggregate value of debit notes issued in respect of supplies de

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

are as follows:
Table No.
Instructions
6A
Total input tax credit availed in Table 4A of FORM GSTR-3B for the taxpayer would be auto-populated here.
6B
Aggregate value of input tax credit availed on all inward supplies except those on which tax is payable on reverse charge basis but includes supply of services received from SEZs shall be declared here. It may be noted that the total ITC availed is to be classified as ITC on inputs, capital goods and input services. Table 4(A)(5) of FORM GSTR-3B may be used for filling up these details. This shall not include ITC which was availed, reversed and then reclaimed in the ITC ledger. This is to be declared separately under 6(H) below.
6C
Aggregate value of input tax credit availed on all inward supplies received from unregistered persons (other than import of services) on which tax is payable on reverse charge basis shall be declared here. It may be noted that the total ITC availed is to be classified as ITC on inputs, capital good

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ived from input service distributor shall be declared here. Table 4(A)(4) of FORM GSTR-3B may be used for filling up these details.
6H
Aggregate value of input tax credit availed, reversed and reclaimed under the provisions of the Act shall be declared here.
6J
The difference between the total amount of input tax credit availed through FORM GSTR-3B and input tax credit declared in row B to H shall be declared here. Ideally, this amount should be zero.
6K
Details of transition credit received in the electronic credit ledger on filing of FORM GST TRAN-I including revision of TRAN-I (whether upwards or downwards), if any shall be declared here.
6L
Details of transition credit received in the electronic credit ledger after filing of FORM GST TRAN-II shall be declared here.
6M
Details of ITC availed but not covered in any of heads specified under 6B to 6L above shall be declared here. Details of ITC availed through FORM ITC01 and FORM ITC-02 in the financial year shall be declare

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

iers in their FORM GSTR-I.
8B
The input tax credit as declared in Table 6B and 6Hshall be auto-populated here.
8C
Aggregate value of input tax credit availed on all inward supplies (except those on which tax is payable on reverse charge basis but includes supply of services received from SEZs) received during July 2017 to March 2018 but credit on which was availed between April to September 2018 shall be declared here. Table 4(A)(5) of FORM GSTR-3B may be used for filling up these details.
8E & 8F
Aggregate value of the input tax credit which was available in FORM GSTR2A(table 3 & 5 only) but not availed in any of the FORM GSTR-3B returns shall be declared here. The credit shall be classified as credit which was available and not availed or the credit was not availed as the same was ineligible. The sum total of both the rows should be equal to difference in 8D.
8G
Aggregate value of IGST paid at the time of imports (including imports from SEZs) during the financial year shall

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

and Table 9C of FORM GSTR-1 of April to September of the current financial year or date of filing of Annual Return for the previous financial year, whichever is earlier shall be declared here.
12
Aggregate value of reversal of ITC which was availed in the previous financial year but reversed in returns filed for the months of April to September of the current financial year or date of filing of Annual Return for previous financial year , whichever is earlier shall be declared here. Table 4(B) of FORM GSTR-3B may be used for filling up these details.
13
Details of ITC for goods or services received in the previous financial year but ITC for the same was availed in returns filed for the months of April to September of the current financial year or date of filing of Annual Return for the previous financial year whichever is earlier shall be declared here. Table 4(A) of FORM GSTR-3B may be used for filling up these details.
7. Part VI consists of details of other information. The inst

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ng recovery out of 15E above shall be declared here.
16A
Aggregate value of supplies received from composition taxpayers shall be declared here. Table 5 of FORM GSTR-3B may be used for filling up these details.
16B
Aggregate value of all deemed supplies from the principal to the job-worker in terms of sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of Section 143 of the CGST Act shall be declared here.
16C
Aggregate value of all deemed supplies for goods which were sent on approval basis but were not returned to the principal supplier within one eighty days of such supply shall be declared here.
17 & 18
Summary of supplies effected and received against a particular HSN code to be reported only in this table. It will be optional for taxpayers having annual turnover upto ₹ 1.50 Cr. It will be mandatory to report HSN code at two digits level for taxpayers having annual turnover in the preceding year above ₹ 1.50 Cr but upto ₹ 5.00 Cr and at four digits' level for taxpayers h

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

A
Taxable
B
Exempted, Nil-rated
C
Total
7
Details of inward supplies on which tax is payable on reverse charge basis (net of debit/credit notes) declared in returns filed during the financial year
Description
Taxable Value
Central Tax
State Tax / UT Tax
Integrated Tax
Cess
1
2
3
4
5
6
A
Inward supplies liable to reverse charge received from registered persons
B
Inward supplies liable to reverse charge received from unregistered persons
C
Import of services
D
Net Tax Payable on (A), (B) and (C) above
8
Details of other inward supplies as declared in returns filed during the financial year
A
Inward supplies from registered persons (other than 7A above)
B
Import of Goods
Pt. III
Details of tax paid as declared in returns filed during the financial year
9
Description
Total tax payable
Paid
1
2
3
Integrated Tax
Central Tax
State/UT Tax
Cess
Interest
Late fee
Penalty
Pt. IV
Particulars of the transactions for the previous FY declared in ret

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

C
Total Refund Rejected
D
Total Refund Pending
E
Total demand of taxes
F
Total taxes paid in respect of E above
G
Total demands pending out of E above
16
Details of credit reversed or availed
Description
Central Tax
State Tax / UT Tax
Integrated Tax
Cess
1
2
3
4
5
A
Credit reversed on opting in the composition scheme (-)
B
Credit availed on opting out of the composition scheme (+)
17
Late fee payable and paid
Description
Payable
Paid
1
2
3
A
Central Tax
B
State Tax
Verification:
I hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the information given herein above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed there from and in case of any reduction in output tax liability the benefit thereof has been/will be passed on to the recipient of supply.
Signature
Name of Authorised Signatory
Designation / Status
Place
Date
Instructions: –
1. The details for the period between July 2017 to March 2018 shall be pro

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Non-GST supplies shall be declared here.
7A
Aggregate value of all inward supplies received from registered persons on which tax is payable on reverse charge basis shall be declared here. Table 4B, Table 5 and Table 8A of FORM GSTR-4 may be used for filling up these details.
7B
Aggregate value of all inward supplies received from unregistered persons (other than import of services) on which tax is payable on reverse charge basis shall be declared here. Table 4C, Table 5 and Table 8A of FORM GSTR-4 may be used for filling up these details.
7C
Aggregate value of all services imported during the financial year shall be declared here. Table 4D and Table 5 of FORM GSTR-4 may be used for filling up these details.
8A
Aggregate value of all inward supplies received from registered persons on which tax is payable by the supplier shall be declared here. Table 4A and Table 5 of FORM GSTR-4 may be used for filling up these details.
8B
Aggregate value of all goods imported during the fin

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

The instruction to fill Part V are as follows:
Table No.
Instructions
15A, 15B, 15C and 5D
Aggregate value of refunds claimed, sanctioned, rejected and pending for processing shall be declared here. Refund claimed will be the aggregate value of all the refund claims filed in the financial year and will include refunds which have been sanctioned, rejected or are pending for processing. Refund sanctioned means the aggregate value of all refund sanction orders. Refund pending will be the aggregate amount in all refund application for which acknowledgement has been received and will exclude provisional refunds received. These will not include details of non-GST refund claims.
15E, 15F and 15G
Aggregate value of demands of taxes for which an order confirming the demand has been issued by the adjudicating authority has been issued shall be declared here. Aggregate value of taxes paid out of the total value of confirmed demand in 15E above shall be declared here. Aggregate value of dema

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Waives the late fee payable on FORM GSTR-3B, FORM GSTR-4, FORM GSTR-6
S.O. 232 Dated:- 7-9-2018 Bihar SGST
GST – States
Bihar SGST
Bihar SGST
BIHAR GOVERNMENT
COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
The 7th September 2018

S.O. 232, Date 7th September 2018- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 128 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Governor of Bihar, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby waives the late fee paid under section 47 of the said Act, by the following classes of taxpayers:-
(i) the registered persons whose return in FORM GSTR-3B of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 for the month of October, 2017, was submitted but not filed on the common portal, afte

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Shri Pawan Sharma c/o Kalptaru Departmental & General Stores, Director General Anti-Profiteering, Indirect Taxes & Customs Versus M/s Sharma Trading Company
GST
2018 (9) TMI 625 – THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 497 (N. A. P. A.)
THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – NAPA
Dated:- 7-9-2018
06/2018
GST
Sh. B. N. Sharma, Chairman, Sh. J. C. Chauhan, Technical Member And Ms. R. Bhagyadevi, Technical Member
For the Applicant No. 1 : None
For the Applicant No. 2 : Sh. Akshat Aggarwal Assistant Commissioner and Sh. Bhupender Goyal Assistant Director (Costs)
For the Respondent : Sh. Subash Joshi, Proprietor and Sh. Vishal Sharma Advocate
ORDER
1. This report dated 16.03.2018, has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. Director General of Safeguards (DGSG) now re-designated as Director General Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present ca

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

taken against him.
2. The above application was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering and was referred to the DGAP, vide minutes of it's meeting dated 29.11.2017 for detailed investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
3. The DGAP had issued notice to the Respondent on 29.12.2017 to submit his reply on the allegation levelled by the Applicant No. 1 and also to suo moto determine the quantum of benefit which he had not passed on after the reduction in the rate of GST. The Respondent was also requested to provide copy of the balance sheet, invoices of sales and purchases and returns filed by him. The DGAP has informed that the Respondent in his replies dated 12.01.2018, 24.01.2018, 09.02.2018, 28.02.2018 and 12.03.2018 had stated that he was a distributor and stockist of M/S Hindustan Unilever Limited (hereinafter referred to as the HUL) and had supplied 20 units of the above product to the Applicant No. 1 vide invoice No. GSA37782 dated 15.11.2017 h

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

P for 300 ml. and thus the benefit of reduced rate of tax was passed on to the recipients through the additional quantity of 100 ml. The DGAP has also stated that the Respondent had claimed that the product was sold @ Rs. 0.59 per ml. after 15.11.2017 as compared to it's price of Rs. 0.73 per ml. during the month of November, 2017 and hence there was decrease of more than 18% in the price resulting in passing on of the benefit of reduction in the rate of the tax. The DGAP has further intimated that the Respondent had also maintained that the price of the above product was reduced from Rs. 235/- to Rs. 233/- w.e.f. 13.12.2017 which had also resulted in passing on the benefit of tax reduction along with supply of enhanced quantity of Vaseline.
4. The DGAP has reported that the contention of the Respondent that no profiteering was involved in the present case as the Applicant No. 1 had returned the product on 15.12.2017 which was sold to him on 15.11.2017 and a credit note had been i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

n his stock and on which full Input Tax Credit (ITC) of 28% had been availed by him. The DGAP has also submitted that the base price of the product, at the time of GST rate reduction w.e.f. 15.11.2017, was increased to maintain the same selling price which was prevalent before the reduction and therefore, the Respondent had indulged in the profiteering and had thus contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
5. The DGAP has also intimated that the Respondent had himself admitted that the Applicant No. 1 had purchased 10 units of the product on 26.09.2017 from him, vide invoice No. GSA25066 at the base price Rs. 166.90/- per unit on which the price charged including GST was Rs. 213.63/- per unit. The Applicant No. 1 had again bought 20 units of the product on 15.11.2017, vide invoice No. GSA37782 in which the base price was shown as Rs. 181.05/- and the price charged including GST was mentioned as Rs. 213.63/- per unit.
Therefore, the DGAP has concluded that altho

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

t the Respondent had profiteered an amount of Rs. 2,41 ,922/- @ Rs. 16.69/- including GST @ 18% per unit on the sale of 14,495 units and Rs. 3,08,448/- @ Rs. 14.88/- including GST @ 18% per unit on the sale of 20,729 units between the period of 15.11.17 to 31.01.2018. Thus an amount of Rs. 5,50,370/- was profiteered by the Respondent in the supply of 35,244 units of the product as per the following chart which amounted to violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017:-
7. The above report was considered by the Authority in it's meeting held on 23.03.2018 and it was decided to hear the Applicant No. 1 and 2 and the Respondent on 10.04.2018. However, the Applicant No. 1 did not appear during the hearing and vide his letter dated 09.04.2018 showed his satisfaction over the investigation report. The Applicant No. 2 was represented by Sh. Akshat Aggarwal, Assistant Commissioner and Sh. Bhupender Goyal, Assistant Director (Cost).
Sh. Subhash Joshi proprietor appeared

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

213.64/- inclusive of GST and 4.06% margin. He has also stated that on 14.11.2018 he had 1288 units of the product in his stock, which were bought @ Rs. 158.66/- per unit excluding GST however, On 15.11.2017 after reduction in the GST, the purchase price on the stocks was increased from Rs. 158.66/- to Rs. 172.77/excluding GST by the HUL in its software. He has further stated that although the tax was reduced from 28% to 18%, the software supplied by the HUL showed per unit price of the product as Rs. 172.77/- per unit on which he had paid GST @18% and earned profit margin of 4.06%. He has also claimed that on the closing stock, the differential amount of Rs. 14.11/- (Rs. 172.77/ Rs. 158.66/-), along with the ITC benefit of Rs. 0.03/- (Rs. 8.28/ Rs. 8.25/-) due to the change in the rate of tax had been recovered by the HUL from him on 26.02.2018. He has also submitted a copy of the letter dated 21.11.2017 issued by the HUL to all it's Redistribution Stockists in which they were as

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

r rate of Rs. 172.77/- and paid CST, i.e. Rs. 31.10/which was availed by him as ITC. He has also submitted that the product was sold for Rs. 213.64/- per unit including GST and 4.06% margin and hence his margin had remained the same, therefore, no profiteering was done by him. He has further submitted that on 08.12.2017, the MRP of the product was reduced from Rs. 235/- to Rs. 233/- by the HUL due to which his purchase price had been reduced from Rs. 172.77/- to Rs. 171.30/- excluding CST. He has also claimed that he had bought the product from the HUL @ Rs. 171.30/- per unit on which GST of 18%, i.e. Rs. 30.83/- was paid by him and ITC was claimed and the product was sold for Rs. 211.82/per unit inclusive of 4.06% margin and 18% GST and therefore, his margin had remained the same. He has also claimed that actually, he had lost Rs. 0.07/- per unit during each transaction and hence even after reduction in the MRP w.e.f. 08.12.2017, no additional profit had accrued to him. The Respondent

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

has also relied upon the law settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. V. State of Kerala [19941 1994 taxmann.com 377 (Kerala) in which it was ruled that a sales return meant a return of the very goods purchased by the buyer in whole or in part and it was a reversal of the sale, as if the sale had not taken place in respect of the returned goods and therefore contemplated a return before the goods were appropriated and used by the buyer. He has also contended that applying the same principle in the present case, the transaction of supply did not exist and hence the entire proceedings were contrary to the provisions of the law as the contention of the DGAP that any subsequent transaction of return of goods would not negate the original transaction of supply of goods was not correct and the proceedings were required to be set aside on this ground itself.
11. The Respondent has also averred that Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 provided that a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

a thing which was impossible as was enshrined in the legal maxim “Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia”
12. The Respondent has also pleaded that para 16 of the Report dated 16.03.2018, had failed to consider the benefit of additional grammage as it was stated that the Respondent being an intermediary could not increase the grammage. He has contended that there was no provision in the law which debarred him from getting benefit of grammage as an intermediary and in the entire supply chain any benefit which was available to a manufacturer was also available to an intermediary and the GST law did not make any distinction on this account. He has further pleaded that had the increase in weight been considered, it would have established that the commensurate benefit had been passed-on.
13. The Respondent has also claimed that the excess ITC and the excess purchase price that was recovered by the HUL from the Respondent had been deposited by the HUL in the Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF). The Responde

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

HUL has stated that the profiteered amount could not have been recovered by the HUL from its Stockists as there was no such provision in Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
16. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties as well the material placed on the record and it is revealed that the Respondent has himself admitted through the Table submitted by him vide his submissions dated 23.4.2018 that prior to the reduction in the GST on the product from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 it was being purchased by the Respondent at the base price of Rs. 158.66/- per unit with GST of Rs. 44.42/- @ 28% and the total purchase price was Rs. 203.08/ per unit and it was being sold by him on the price of Rs. 213.63/per unit after adding his margin @ 4.06% of Rs. 10.55/-. He had 1288 units of the product in stock on 14.11.2017. He has also admitted that after 15.11.2017 he had sold the product at the base price of Rs. 172.77/- after levying GST of Rs. 31.10/- @ 18% and charging

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

15.11.2017 in which the base price was shown as Rs. 181.05/- and the selling price was Rs. 213.63/- and hence the base price was enhanced by Rs. 14.15/- per unit by the Respondent. It has further been acknowledged by the Respondent that the above Applicant had purchased 11 units of the product from the Respondent vide invoice No. GSA42046 dated 28.11.2017 in which again an amount of Rs. 14.15/per unit was over charged from him. The Respondent was also aware that the rate of tax had been reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 on the above product which has been correctly charged by him in the above 3 tax invoices issued by him to the above Applicant.
Therefore, it is established from the record as well as the admission of the Respondent himself that he had resorted to profiteering by increasing the base price in violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act and had thus not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax by commensurately reducing the price of hi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

r what provisions of the above Acts he was bound to follow the instructions given to him by the HUL vide it's letter dated 21.11.2017, vide which the excess amount of ITC was credited by him to the HUL in respect of the above product, in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the Act and also charge the increased base price. Thus it is established that he had profiteered to the extent of Rs. 5,50,370/- on account of the increased base price charged by him including GST from 15.11.2017 to 31.1.2018 as has been mentioned in the table shown in para 6 supra. It has also been proved that the Respondent had profiteered an amount of Rs. 184/- @ Rs. 16.69/-per unit including GST @ 18% by supplying 11 units of the product to the Applicant No. 1 on 28.11.2017, therefore, he has violated the provisions of Section 171 of the above Act.
17. The Respondent has also claimed that all the units of the product bought by the above Applicant on 15.11.2017 had been returned by him on 15.12.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

month of November, 2017 and hence this averment of the Respondent cannot be accepted. As soon as the Respondent had issued the tax invoice on 15.11.2017 after increasing the base price he had violated the provisions of Section 171. The law settled in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Supra cited by the Respondent is of no help to him as the same is based on entirely different facts as the issues involved in this case were whether the returned goods were of the same quality which was supplied and whether return of these goods to the headquarter and not to the branch from where they were supplied made the Grasim Industries entitled for deduction of their value from its turnover or not. The issue in the present case is whether the supply made by Respondent on 15.11.2017 was nullified or not and hence the findings recorded in the above case are not being relied upon.
18. The Respondent has also averred that Section 171 of the Act did not provide for any methodology for determining the co

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rocedure” as required under Rule 126 of the CGST Rules, 2017 for determining whether both the above benefits have been passed on or not vide it's Notification dated 27.03.2018. It is further made clear that this Authority is not mandated to be a price regulator.
Section 171 only stipulates that any benefit of reduction in the rate of the tax or the ITC which accrues to a supplier must be passed on to the consumers as both are the concessions given by the Government from its own revenue and the suppliers cannot appropriate them as they are not entitled to do so. Both the benefits must go to the consumers and in case they are not identifiable the amount so collected by the suppliers should be deposited in the CWF so that it can be used in the public interest. In case of any legal or logistical difficulties the amount of benefit collected by the suppliers can always be deposited in the CWF but cannot be retained by the suppliers as it does not belong to them. The Respondent has made

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

y of the product as he was only an agent and not the manufacturer of the product and the units of product sold by him w.e.f. 15.11.2017 were from the stock on which he had availed full ITC of 28% and hence he was duty bound to pass on the benefit by reducing his base price.
20. The Respondent has also contended that the excess ITC credited by him to the HUL as per the letter dated 21.11.2017 had been deposited in the CWF and hence he could not be held accountable for profiteering. However it is apparent from the record that the Respondent had been instrumental in issuing incorrect tax invoices on 15.11.2017 and 28.11.2017 as well as in the case of supply of 35,244 units of the product sold by him between the period of 15.11.2017 to 31.01.2018 in which he had increased the base price of the product in order to negate the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax and extract illegal profit from his customers which was exactly equal to the amount of reduction in the rate of tax and hence a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

uivalent to the amount not passed on by the way of commensurate reduction in prices along with interest at the rate of eighteen percent from the date of collection of the higher amount till the date of the return of such amount or recovery of the amount including interest not returned, as the case may be;
(c) the deposit of an amount equivalent to fifty percent of the amount determined under the above clause in the Fund constituted under section 57 and the remaining fifty percent of the amount in the Fund constituted under section 57 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 of the concerned State, where the eligible person does not claim return of the amount or is not identifiable;
(d) imposition of penalty as specified under the Act; and
(e) x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-xx-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
22. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to reduce the sale price of the product immediately commensurate to the reduction in the rate of tax as was notified on 14.11.2017

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

tioned in the Table shown in para 6 above, till it is paid. The DGAP shall ensure that in case the above amount pertaining to the Respondent in respect of the above product has been deposited by the HUL in the CWF, the balance amount due as interest is calculated and got deposited from the above Respondent. In case the above amount has not been deposited or short deposited, the same shall be got deposited from the Respondent by the DGAP alongwith the interest. The above amount shall be further got deposited in the respective CWF of the Central or the State Government as per the provisions of Rule 133 (c) of the CGST Rules, 2017 by the DGAP as per the ratio prescribed under the above Rule.
24. We have also carefully considered the issue of imposition of penalty on the Respondent as the allegation of profiteering has been duly established against him. It is clear from the facts of the present case that the Respondent was fully aware of the Notification dated 14.11.2017 whereby the rate

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ue of any invoice or issues an incorrect or false invoice with regard to any such supply; (Emphasis supplied)
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
He shall be liable to pay a penalty of ten thousand rupees or an amount equivalent to the tax evaded or the tax not reduced under section 51 or short-deducted or deducted but not paid to the Government or tax not collected under section 52 or shortcollected or collected but not paid to the Government or input tax credit availed of or passed on or distributed irregularly, or the refund claimed fraudulently, whichever is higher.”
25. Accordingly, it is proposed to impose penalty on the Respondent under Section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 133 (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017. However, before the penalty is imposed the Respondent is hereby given notice as to why such penalty should not be imposed on him.
26. Any amount ordered to be paid or deposited by the Respondent under this order shall be paid or depo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Cubane Speciality Chemicals Pvt Ltd Versus CCT, Medchal – GST
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 564 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 7-9-2018
E/30104/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. A/31082/2018
Central Excise
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
For the Appellant : Shri Lalit Mohan Chandna, Advocate
For the Respondent : Shri P.S. Reddy, Asst. Commissioner/AR
ORDER
PER: M.V. RAVINDRAN
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUSMD- AP2-056-17-18 dated 15.09.2017.
2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are, the appellants are engaged in manufacturing paper quality products, organic compounds and water treatment chemicals falling under Chapters 29 & 38 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They registered with the Central Excise Department vide CER No.AADCC0379GXM001. They also registered with the Service Tax vide STR No.AADCC0379GSD001. The appellant is deemed manufacturer by virtue of Chapter Note 10 to Chapters 29

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d in paper and pulp industry and they also grants exclusive right to issue sub-licenses / user licences to corporate entries and / or individuals in the domestic territory and grants exclusive rights to apply for licenses to manufacture and sell the products.
4. The appellant has entered into a 'Confidentiality Agreement' with M/s Srivilas Hydrotech Pvt. Ltd., Bollaram (hereinafter referred to as M/s Srivilas) and provided certain proprietary information relating to product formulations, technology etc. which they procured from M/s Solute to M/s Srivilas and getting certain goods manufactured for them as per their requirement. M/s Srivilas manufacture the goods only for the appellants and they maintain confidentiality of the technical information what they received from the appellants.
5. The accounts of the appellant was audited by the authorities and objections were raised as regards availment of CENVAT credit of service tax paid by the appellant to M/s Solute on the ground that th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ges is used directly or indirectly in the manufacture of final products. He would draw my attention to the decision of Tribunal in the case of TATA Motors [2017 (50) STR 28] wherein identical issue was considered. He would submit that though initially appellant had indicated that there was understanding as a job worker between appellant and M/s Srivilas but it was an arrangement of purchase of finished goods manufactured by M/s Srivilas, but the fact remains that appellant had shared the technology procured by them from M/s Solute, was sold by the appellant in smaller packs as deemed manufacturer. It is his further submission that the issue is also contested on limitation as appellant availed the CENVAT credit and informed the departmental authorities about the same in the monthly returns. The objection as raised by the audit party and demand on them in the show cause notice is blatantly time barred as they have taken the credit on 2011, 2012 & 2013, while show cause notice was issued

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

hat there was an intention to avail ineligible CENVAT credit.
8. I have considered the submission made at length on both sides and perused the records.
9. On perusal of records the only issue that falls for consideration is whether the appellant is eligible to avail CENVAT credit of the service tax paid by him on Royalty charges paid to M/s Solute. Undisputedly, appellant procured technology for manufacturing of speciality chemicals from M/s Solute, paid royalty charges and discharged service tax. The appellant having no manufacturing capacity of his own got the finished goods manufactured from M/s Srivilas by sharing the technology procured by them. After getting the bulk finished goods from M/s Srivilas they re-packed and re-labelled the same from bulk quantity to retail packs and discharged the Central Excise Duty as deemed manufacturer.
10. On the above factual matrix, appellant had availed the CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on the procurement of technology from M/s Solut

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s PHILODEN INDUSTRIES PVT LTD Versus UNION OF INDIA
GST
2018 (9) TMI 477 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – TMI
GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 7-9-2018
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13813 of 2018
GST
MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. B.N. KARIA, JJ.
For The Petitioner : Mr Hardik P Modh (5344)
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. The petitioner's grievance arises out of inability to claim CENVAT credit to the tune of Rs. 64,19,887/of carry forward CENVAT credit and unutilized CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,16,560/on capital goods in the new Goods and Service Tax regime. The case of the petitioner is that upon introduction of the GST with effect from 01.07.2017, existing manufacturers and traders had to migrate to t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

failed to file ITC-01
Query (Issue) Started By: – priyesh agrawal Dated:- 6-9-2018 Last Reply Date:- 6-9-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 1 Reply
GST
sir,
what if assessee failed to file ITC-01 in 30 days? what are the remedies available to him? can he make an application to commissioner for extending the time?
ITC-01 is filled u/s 18(1)(c)
Reply By DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN:
The Reply:
The assessee may approach the Commissioner for extension. Rule 40(1)(b) provides that th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Issue of populist schemes needs to be considered in totality, North vs South debate is misleading – N. K. Singh
GST
Dated:- 6-9-2018

Schemes which may look like populist may in fact be popular as well and the scheme which may have commenced as a populist scheme has over a period of time may have generated multiplier effect said N. K. Singh, the Chairman of the visiting Finance Commission at a press conference in Chennai today. On what constitutes populist or not, commission is hearing different viewpoints, it will need to consider this in totality taking everything into account, he added.
North versus South debate is misleading, he mentioned, as many states from other parts of the country are also expressing similar apprehensions as made by southern states like the issue of population date of 2011 etc. It will be the endeavour of commission not to penalise the states doing well on demographic front as well as economic front while carefully balancing the equity and effi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

n in the momentum for India's economic development with per capita income significantly higher than national average and poverty significantly below, noted the Chairman. There have been excellent record of fiscal management and debt management well within the limits, however, inter district disparities are a worrisome feature and need priority attention.
Tamil Nadu has been traditionally welcoming the private and foreign investment which makes TN an imp engine of Indian growth. Commission also noted the policy imperatives by the state govt for enhancing Ease of Doing Business which has also helped in creating jobs.
Other issues which were discussed during meeting to take growth momentum of TN further while reducing disparities
1. Floods management system
2. Improving productivity of agriculture
3. Imp flood erosion works and paucity of resources for management of water resources
Commission has taken serious note of all the submissions made in the memorandum submitted and discusse

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the Commission about the declining share of the state in the devolution share since 10th Finance Commission. He urged the Commission to reverse this trend so that development efforts of the state do not stifle.
State govt officials in their presentation gave some innovative suggestions on vertical and horizontal devolutions. They demanded to include the population control and contribution to central taxes as criteria. They also suggested using 'Environmental Performance Index' which is a more holistic approach. They made some state specific suggestions related to Conservation of heritage buildings and Maintenance and strengthening of tourist circuits.
State govt also highlighted the issues related to Centrally Sponsored Schemes. They urged that Debt to GSDP norms should be customized to the rate of interest and rate of growth and not fixed rigidly in a doctrinaire fashion.
The Chief Minister submitted a detailed Memorandum to the Commission. The Chairman complemented the Govt. of Ta

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Charging of GST to overseas customers in India
Query (Issue) Started By: – Radhashyam Dash Dated:- 6-9-2018 Last Reply Date:- 7-9-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 3 Replies
GST
Hello Sir,
There is an overseas company e.g. xyz, Inc having office in India with name xyz india pvt.ltd.
I also have entity abc, Inc with office in India with name abc india pvt ltd.
Question 1: If I supply some goods, labour & some other services to xyz, inc ( within India ) from abc india pvt ltd, then can I charge GST to the customer ?
Question 2: If I supply some goods, labour & some other services to xyz, inc ( within India ) from abc, Inc, then can I charge GST to the customer ?
Question 3: If I supply some goods, labour & some other s

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

RCM paid on GTA services @5% is eligible to claim ITC
Query (Issue) Started By: – BHAVYA PETHRU Dated:- 6-9-2018 Last Reply Date:- 7-9-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 3 Replies
GST
Dear Experts,
We have been paying the Tax under RCM @5% for GTA service , whether we are eligible to take the Input tax credit of the same.
awaited for your respose
thanks & regards,
Bhavya.P
Reply By Rajagopalan Ranganathan:
The Reply:
Sir,
Since you are paying 5% tax on GTA service under RC

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

SUPPLY OF UPS WITH BATTERY: A CASE OF MIXED SUPPLY
By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 6-9-2018

It is a general trade practice that a battery is also supplied when one buys an unit of Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS). A question arose as to whether the supply of UPS along with a battery would amount to a composite contract of supply or it will be a case of mixed supply in terms of section 2(30), 2(74) and section 8 of the CGST Act, 2017. It may to noted that in case of a single supply, the rate of GST as applicable to principal supply is levied whereas in case of a mixed supply of two or more items, the higher of the rates applicable would be levied to the entire mixed bundled of supply as it is not a case of naturally bundled supply.
Advance Ruling
In Re Switching Avo Elector Power Ltd. (2018) 4 TMI 810 (AAR-West Bengal); the applicant was a supplier of power solution including UPS, servo stabilizer, batteries etc and wanted a clarity on th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

are)
III
375
8504
Transformers Industrial Electronics; Electric Transformers; Static Convertors (UPS)
III
376A
8506
Primary cells and primary batteries
Inserted w.e.f 15/11/17 vide Notification No. 41/2017-Central (Rate) dated 14/11/17
What is UPS and relevance of Battery
An UPS is an electrical apparatus that provides emergency power to a load when the input power source or mains power fails. A UPS differs from an auxiliary or emergency power system or standby generator in that it provides immediate protection from input power interruptions by supplying energy stored in batteries, super-capacitors or flywheels. The on-battery runtime of most UPS is relatively short but sufficient to start a standby power source or properly shut down the protected equipment. A UPS is typically used to protect hardware such as computers, data centres, telecommunication equipment or other electrical equipment where an unexpected power disruption could cause injuries or data loss. The UPS serv

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

turally bundled in a supply contract if the contract is indivisible. For example, a works contract within the meaning of section 2 (119) of the GST Act is a composite supply. Steel, cement and other goods and services supplied are inseparable in a contract for civil construction. The recipient has not contracted for the supply of steel, cement or architectural service, but for the service of constructing the civil structure, where all these supplies are inseparable and, therefore, naturally bundled. The contract for the supply of a combination of UPS and battery, if not built as a composite machine, is not indivisible. The recipient can split it up into separate supply contracts if he chooses. The goods supplied in terms of such contracts are, therefore, no longer naturally bundled and cannot be treated as a composite supply.
Further, mixed supply is defined under section 2(74) of the GST Act as one where "two or more individual supplies of goods/services or any combination there

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

for Advance Ruling (AAAR) by the applicant u/s 100 of GST law who vide Order dated 25.07.2018 and reported in IN RE: M/S. SWITCHING AVO ELECTRO POWER LIMITED – 2018 (8) TMI 1071 – APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL confirmed the original advance ruling.
As implied, the core issue involved in the appeal was whether UPS supplied with external storage battery was naturally bundled and hence a composite supply under the GST Act, or a mixed supply, as held by the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling. It was again reiterated by the applicant that when UPS comprising of static converter and an external battery is supplied it falls under Tariff Head 8504 and is taxable @ 18% under item No. 375 of Schedule III of the GST Act. UPS cannot function without battery as such it is an integral part of UPS and hence it is naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other and hence the supply of static converter along with external battery should be construed as a compo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

onverter (UPS) is part and parcel of the uninterrupted power supply system and is covered under Tariff Head 8504 and intra-State supply thereof attracts tax under GST Act as per rate applicable to goods enumerated under Schedule III of Tax-Rate Notification(s), vide serial No. 375, but the situation changes when storage battery or electric accumulator is supplied separately irrespective of whether under a single contract or a separate contract.
AAAR endorsed in full force the ruling AAR- West Bengal, viz,
"The UPS serves no purpose if the battery is not supplied or removed. It cannot function as a UPS unless the battery is attached. However, what needs to be considered is whether or not these two items are "naturally bundled". The stated Illustration to Section 2(30) of the GST Act refers to a supply where the ancillary supplies are inseparable from the principal supply and form an integral part of the composite supply. Note 3 also refers to a composite machine as the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Prescription of Certain Procedure for Obtaining GSTIN by Certain Tax Payers
783/2018/11/(120)/XXVII(8)/2018 CT-31 Dated:- 6-9-2018 Uttarakhand SGST
GST – States
Uttarakhand SGST
Uttarakhand SGST
Government of Uttarakhand
Finance Section-8
NOTIFICATION
September 06, 2018
No. 783/2018/11/(120)/XXVII(8)/2018 CT-31-WHEREAS the State Government is satisfied that it is expedient so to do in public interest
Now THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (06 of 2017), on the recommendations of the Council, the Governor is pleased to allow to specify the persons who did not file the complete FORM GST REG; 26 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 201

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

art A of the aforesaid FORM GST REG-26
Yes/No
5.
Contact details of the tax payer
5a.
Email id
5b.
Mobile
6.
Reason for not migrating in the system
7.
Jurisdiction of Officer who is sending the request
(ii) On receipt of an e-mail from the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN), such taxpayers should apply for registration by logging onto htlps://www.gst.gov.in/) in the "Services" tab and filling up the application in FORM GST REG-01 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
(iii) After due approval of the application by the proper officer, such taxpayers will receive an email from (GSTN mentioning the Application Reference Number (ARN), a new GSTIN and a new access token.
(iv) Upon receipt, such taxpaye

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 1222 – CESTAT CHENNAI – 2019 (21) G. S. T. L. 42 (Tri. – Chennai)
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 6-9-2018
ST/Misc. /40889/2013 and ST/19/2012 – Final Order No. 42381/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Ms. G. Vardhini Karthik, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in providing Telecommunication Service. Pursuant to audit, it emerged that the appellants were providing Interconnectivity Usage Charges (IUC) service to various telecommunication service providers viz. Airtel, Vodafone, Reliance etc. operating in India. It further emerged that the appellants were receiving and providing IUC services from Sri Lanka Telecom, a service provider situated outside India. That in res

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ory of service provided or received by the appellant and which become liable to discharge service tax liability under section 65(105) of the Finance Act.
2.2 Vide the Finance Bill, 2007, new definition “Telecommunication Service” was incorporated under section 65(104) of the Act with effect from 1.6.2007 whereby IUC was specifically incorporated in the definition of “Telecommunication Service” to make it a taxable service. However, the Board had issued a Circular No. F.No. 137/21/2011 dated 19.12.2011, where it was clarified that there cannot be any taxability in respect of International Private Leased Circuits charges provided by a foreign telecom service provider since such provider cannot constitute a telegraph authority under Indian law and they remain outside the taxability clause of the telecommunication service. She submits that the very same clarification would be applicable even in respect of IUC charges.
2.3 Ld. counsel also draws our attention to yet another circular F.No.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

is well settled that lack of such clarity in the show cause notice and omission to indicate the specific category of service under which the tax is proposed to be demanded will vitiate the proceedings ab initio.
5.1 Be that as it may, we find that the circulars dated 15.7.2011 and 19.12.2011 are very much applicable pari materia to IUC charges paid by the appellant to Sri Lanka Telecom. It is also pertinent to note that Board's circular dated 12.3.2007 cited by the ld. AR was in the nature of an advisory to convey the amended definition of telecommunication service as proposed in the Finance Bill, 2007. Even otherwise, the subsequent circulars dated 15.7.2011 and 19.12.2011 will surely override the said earlier circular. In the event, we find in favour of the appellant. The impugned order cannot be sustained and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
6. The miscellaneous application filed by the appellant for

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CGST, CCE & ST, Alwar, CE & ST-Udaipur Versus Gemscab Industries Ltd., Om Metals Infra Projects Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1201 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 6-9-2018
E/COD/50750/2018, Appeal No. E/52198/2018-DB, E/51800/2018-DB – FINAL ORDER NO. 53013-53014/2018
Central Excise
Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
Shri H.C. Saini, DR for the Appellant
Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Anil Choudhary:
1. The delay of 5 days is condoned as sufficiently explained. As the issue is covered and with the consent of both the parties matter is taken up for final hearing along with the Appeal No. E/51800/2018 CCE V/s Om Met

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

under International Competitive Bidding. The goods were cleared by Appellant (sub-contractor) to NTPC (for Mega Power Project) on the basis of proper documents which included letter of the Joint Secretary to Government of India dated 29.06.2006 addressed to General Manager, NTPC, New Delhi.
iii. However, the demand was confirmed raised under the Show Cause notice dated 21.09.2007.
iv. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal of the respondent under the reasoning that power cables falling under tariff item 8544 of the Excise Tariff and supplied to Mega Power project are eligible for exemption under Sl. No. 91 of the Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and the requirements under the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of the Joint Secretary to Government of India.
iii. However, the demand was confirmed raised under the Show Cause notice dated 12.04.2011.
iv. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal of the respondent under the reasoning that Gates and Gate parts falling under Chapter 73 of the Excise Tariff and supplied to Mega Power Project are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and the requirements under the Project Import Regulations, 1986 are not required to be satisfied.
5. Heard Shri H.C. Saini, Ld. DR for the Appellant as well as Ms. Sukriti Das, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent.
6. Having heard the rival contentions we are satisfied that the appellant have

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CFI Copiers Pvt. Ltd Versus CCT, Hyderabad GST
Customs
2018 (11) TMI 98 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 6-9-2018
Appeals No. C/30020/2018 & C30021/2018 – A/31188–31189/2018
Customs
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Shri B. Venugopal, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri P.S. Reddy, Asst. Commissioner /AR for the Respondent.
ORDER
Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran
1. These two appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-CUS- 000-APP-083 & 084-17-18, dated 28.08.2017.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The appellant herein had imported used multi functional photocopier machines without any licence. The said photocopier machines were seized and appellants were directed to fil

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

value, hence liable for confiscation. Adjudicating authority also recorded that appellant being a regular importer, has been repeatedly importing the old and used photocopier machines without producing licence as required under the Foreign Trade Policy, should be penalised. Accordingly, he imposed redemption fine of 25% ad penalty of 15% of the enhanced value and the first appellate authority agreed with the same.
4. It is the argument of Ld. Counsel that the Tribunal has ordered that redemption fine and penalty should be fixed at 10% and 5% respectively on the enhanced value in various cases which applies in the case in hand.
5. Ld. DR on the other hand submits that the ratio of the orders of other Benches can not be applied in the case

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

.T 565 (P&H)] and in the case of National copier Equipments vs. CCE [2015(320) E.L.T. 353 (P&H) has felt that redemption fine against confiscation for the regular violators as 20% of the enhanced value of the photocopier machines. Following the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, I hold that appellant is required to pay redemption fine in both the appeals @ 20% of the enhanced value of the photocopier machines. Coming to the penalty imposed, in my considered view, ends of natural justice would be met, if penalty is restricted to 10% of the enhanced value of the photocopier machines.
7. Both the appeals are disposed of, modifying impugned orders as indicated herein above.
(Dictated and Pronounced in open Court)

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

PHALNAX LABS Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCT, VISAKHAPATNAM GST
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 68 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 6-9-2018
Appeal No. E/30482/2018 – A/31190/2018
Central Excise
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Shri M.V.S. Sridhar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Arun Kumar, Dy. Commissioner /AR for the Respondent.
ORDER
Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. VIZ-EXCUS- 002-APP-110-17-18, Dated 19.01.2018.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The relevant issue that falls for consideration is on scrutiny of appellant's records, it was noticed by the audit party that appellant had availed ineligible CENVAT credit in respect of services rendered by the service providers while setting up of their plant. Show cause notice was issued for demand and reversal of such CENVAT credit. Appellant contested the show cause notice on merits as well as on limitation. Adjudicating authority

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

definition and submits that what is contemplated from this view. CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the services for construction of works contract of a building or a civil structure or part thereof or laying of foundation and making of structures for support of capital goods. It is his submission that both the exclusion clauses would not apply to them. It is his further submission that the adjudicating authority has considered the activity of the service provider as works contract which is not a case as these are the labour charges which are awarded to the contractor.
5. Ld. DR on the other hand draws my attention to the findings recorded by the first appellate authority in paras 11 to 13 of the Order-in-Appeal. It is his submission that the first appellate authority has recorded that these services which are received by the appellant are not coextensively used to the manufacture of final products and the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Rayalaseema Hi-Strength

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

utput service for providing an output service; or
(ii) used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products, up to the place of removal,
and includes services used in relation to modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage up to the place of removal, procurement of inputs, accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, security, business exhibition, legal services, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation up to the place of removal;
but excludes,-
(A) service portion in the execution of a works contract and construction services including service listed under clause (b) of section 66E of the Finance Act (hereina

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

s centre, life insurance, health insurance and travel benefits extended to employees on vacation such as Leave or Home Travel Concession, when such services are used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee”
7. From the above reproduced definition, it seems that Revenue wants to deny the CENVAT credit to the appellant on the ground that input services were covered in the Exclusion Clause A(b) laying of foundation or making of structure for support of capital goods. From the allegation in the show cause notice and the Annexure-B to the show cause notice, I find that the services which were rendered by the service providers were in respect of capital goods and not for laying of foundation or making structures for support of capital goods. Further, it has to be recorded in the findings of the first appellate authority that these services were not used coextensively for manufacture of final products, also seems to be not correct from the factual position as the appellant

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s SAFA MILL STORES Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, KARUKUTTY, THE STATE TAX OFFICER, KARUKUTTY AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAXES, TAX COMPLEX, KOCHI
GST
2018 (10) TMI 1519 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 6-9-2018
WP (C). No. 29390 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : Aji V. Dev
For The Respondent : GP. Dr. Thushara James
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a partnership firm, transported certain goods ostensibly from Bombay to Perumbavoor. But when the petitioner tried to unload the goods at Malamury, Perumbavoor, the authorities checked the documents carried along with the goods and found that they did not correctly reflect the desti

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (Ninteenth Amendment) Rules, 2018
KA.NI.-2-1761/XI-9(42)/17 Dated:- 6-9-2018 Uttar Pradesh SGST
GST – States
Uttar Pradesh SGST
Uttar Pradesh SGST
Uttar Pradesh Shasan
Sansthagat Vitta, Kar Evam Nibandhan Anubhag-2
NOTIFICATION
NO. KA.NI.-2-1761/XI-9(42)/17-U.P. GST RULES-2017-ORDER- (133)-2018,
Lucknow : Dated : September 06,2018
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (U.P. Act no.1 of 2017) read with section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act no.1 of 1904), the Governor is pleased to make the fallowing rules with a view to amending the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017:-
1. Sho

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Seeks to extend the due date for filing of FORM GSTR – 1 for taxpayers having aggregate turnover upto 1.5 crores
KA.NI.-2-1760/XI-9(42)/17 Dated:- 6-9-2018 Uttar Pradesh SGST
GST – States
Uttar Pradesh SGST
Uttar Pradesh SGST
Uttar Pradesh Shasan
Sansthagat Vitta, Kar Evam Nibandhan Anubhag-2
NOTIFICATION
NO. KA.NI.-2-1760/XI-9(42)/17-U.P. GST RULES-2017-ORDER- (132)-2018,
Lucknow : Dated : September 06,2018
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 2017) (hereinafter in this notification referred to as the said Act), on the recommendations of the Council, hereby notifies the registered persons having aggregate turnover of up to 1.5 crore

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Seeks to extend the due date for filing of FORM GSTR-3B for the month of July, 2018
35/2018 –State Tax Dated:- 6-9-2018 Delhi SGST
GST – States
Delhi SGST
Delhi SGST
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES
(GST – POLICY BRANCH)
VYAPAR BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI- 110002
NOTIFICATION No. 35/2018 -State Tax
Delhi, the 06th September, 2018
No. F.2(93)/Policy-GST/2018/559-68 – In exercise of the powers conferred by section 168 of the Delhi Goods and Service

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Ranjeet @ Ranjeet Singh Versus Union of India And 2 Others
GST
2018 (9) TMI 688 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (17) G. S. T. L. 381 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 6-9-2018
Criminal misc. Bail application No. – 21843 of 2018
GST
Vivek Kumar Singh, J.
For the Applicant : Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun
For the Opposite Party : B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi
ORDER
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Supplementary counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the complainant today in the Court is taken on record.
Heard Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. for State.
The present bail applic

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ed in paragraph no.4 that after follow up searches conducted so far at the premises of the buyers resulted into detection of fraudulent availment of input tax credit on the basis of fake invoices issued from the firm created, controlled and managed by applicant namely Ranjeet to the extent more than Rs. 16.57 crore.
The prosecution version as narrated in the first information report is that on the basis of an information of possible evasion of service and Goods and Service Tax Act, the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Zonal Unit Meerut conducted a raid at shop No. 10 Aman Banquet, Sector-5 Rajendra Nagar, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad and found one person present in the shop/office, who introd

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

y No.2 as well as learned A.G.A. states that during the search several voter identity cards of different persons, Rs. 34,98,500/- in cash, Bill Books containing different signatures, dongles, writing pad, stamps of several companies were recovered and the investigation is still in progress and the amount of tax evasion may exceed several crores.
After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A., and after perusing the averments made in the present bail application as well as rejection order, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground for grant of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is hereby rejected.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Pay Tax and Interest to Halt Registration Cancellation u/r 22, CGST Rules 2017.
Act-Rules
GST
Cancellation of registration – Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 – where person pays tax with inter

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =