Goods and Services Tax

2018 (9) TMI 762 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI – Refund claim – excess payment of duty consequent upon rebate discount given by the Supplier – refund claim was rejected mainly on the ground that the assessment made by the appellant in the Bill of Entry reached its finality, which they have not challenged – Held that:- Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Export) New Delhi Vs. Lalit Kumar [2017 (1) TMI 7 – CESTAT NEW DELHI] after considering the decision of Priya Blue Industries Limited [2004 (9) TMI 105 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, and held that since the Bill of Entry was assessed by the Customs Department and the assessed duty was paid by the respondent, it cannot be said that the duty was paid by the respondent in pursuance of an order of assessment. The case of the respondent falls under the second category i.e. borne by him contained in Section 27 ibid, according to which, since the duty incidence has been borne by the respondent, cla

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d a refund claim on reduction of freight in respect of Bill of Entry No. 9575519 dated 15.06.2015. 3. The Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim pertaining to excess payment of Excise duty consequent upon rebate discount given by the Supplier. 4. By the impugned Order, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence, the appellant filed this appeal. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. On perusal of the impugned Order, I find that the refund claim was rejected mainly on the ground that the assessment made by the appellant in the Bill of Entry reached its finality, which they have not challenged. 7. The lower authorities followed the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner 2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC). 8. I find that the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Export) New Delhi Vs. Lalit Kumar – 2017 (358) 395 ( Tri – Del) after considering the decision of Priya Blue

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of premature and not maintainable, in our considered opinion, would give rise to the cause of action for filing appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Since, the decision of the adjudicating authority has been conveyed in the letter dated 24-8-2011, it can be concluded that the said letter is only detriment to the interest of the respondent, against which the appeal was preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal against the said letter having been filed within a period of sixty days from the date of its communication in our opinion, there is no delay in filing appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, we do not find any merits in the contention of Revenue that filing of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is barred by the limitation of time. 6. Section 27 ibid provides the modalities and procedures for claiming refund of Customs Duty. The said provision mandates that duty paid in pursuance of an order of assessment or borne by the importer, can claim the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

resent case inasmuch as the duty in such case was paid by the importer in pursuance of an assessment order and the Hon ble Supreme Court have ruled that so long as the order of assessment stands, the duty would be payable as per that order of assessment and refund claim is not an appeal proceeding. Contrary is the case in hand, wherein the respondent was not aggrieved by the order of assessment inasmuch as on the basis of information furnished by it in the Bill of Entry, the same was assessed by the Customs Department. Thus, there was no scope on the part of the respondent to file any appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the assessed Bill of Entry. Further, the alternative provided in Section 27 ibid, i.e., borne by him was not the subject matter of dispute before the Hon ble Supreme Court. Considering the second alternative provided in Section 27 ibid, the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi reported in 2010

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

because there is no contest or lis and hence no adversarial assessment order. The Tribunal has referred to the cases of 5. CCE, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (120) E.L.T. 285] and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.). In both these cases, referred to by the Tribunal there was an assessment order which was passed and consequently it was held that where an adjudicating authority passed an order which is appealable and the party did not choose to exercise the statutory right of appeal, it is not open to the party to question the correctness of the order of the adjudicating authority subsequently by filing a claim for refund on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing his order. These judgments will therefore not apply when there is no assessment order on dispute/contest, like as is in the facts of the present case. We, therefore, answer the question framed by 6. holding that the refund c

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (8) TMI 1569 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT credit – input services – Garden upkeep services – Interior Decorator service – Renting of immovable property services – Held that:- The appellant is a manufacturer and as per pollution control norms, they are required to maintain certain percentage of green area in their factory premises – credit allowed – appeal allowed.
–
Interior decorator services – Held that:- It is brought out from evidence that the appellant had furnished invoices relating to the services – The appellant had done some minor civil work with respect to workstations used for overseeing manufacturing operations inside the factory – credit on these services allowed.
–
Renting of immovable property services – Held that:- A similar issue was analysed by the Tribunal in the case of Carrier Air conditioning & Refrigeration Ltd. [2016 (4) TMI 103 – CESTAT CHANDIGARH]. The Tribunal observed that the credit availed on the renting of branch offices was eligible – cr

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

w cause notice was issued proposing to deny the credit on these services. After due process of law, the original authority disallowed the credit in respect of certain services and confirmed the demand, interest and imposed penalties. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed the credit in respect of garden upkeep services, interior decorator services, renting of immovable property services. Hence this appeal. 4. On behalf of appellant, the Ld.Consultant, Sh.S.Adithya submitted that in Appeal No.ST/42486/2017 the issue arising for consideration is only whether the appellant is eligible for availing credit on renting of immovable property services. In Appeal No.ST/42487/2017 alongwith the above issue, there is disallowance of credit on garden upkeep services, as well as interior decorator services. He submitted that the appellant had availed the garden upkeep/maintenance services as per the requirement under the Statute to maintain a garden (Green Area) in terms of Pollution Contr

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e used for procuring orders and coordinating with customers for the purpose of supply of materials, its installation and doing market research. These activities are integral to the manufacturing activity and therefore is eligible for credit. He relied upon the decision in the case of Carrier Airconditioning & Refrigeration Ltd. Vs C.C.E., Delhi-IV 2016 (41) S.T.R. 824 (Tri. – Chan.) 5. The Ld.AR, Sh.R.Subramanian supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that al the above services do not have nexus with the manufacturing activity and therefore the authorities below have rightly denied the credit. In respect of interior decorator services, he submitted that the appellant had not furnished sufficient proof to show that the services were used for work situations. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The first issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is eligible for garden upkeep/maintenance services. The appellant is a manufacturer and as per pollution control

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e services is eligible. 9. The authorities below have disallowed the credit on renting of immovable property services in respect of branch offices. It is consistently argued by the appellants that they have setup branch offices in various places from where they collected sales orders from customers and follow up for supply of materials, payments and after sales coordination. A similar issue was analysed by the Tribunal in the case of Carrier Air conditioning & Refrigeration Ltd. (supra). The Tribunal observed that the credit availed on the renting of branch offices was eligible. Following the same, I am of the view that the disallowance of credit is improper and requires to be set aside which I hereby do. 10. In the result, the impugned orders are modified to the extent of allowing credit in respect of garden services, interior decorator services and renting of immovable property services of branch offices. The impugned order to the extent of confirming the demand on these services

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (8) TMI 487 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI – CENVAT Credit – duty paying documents – case of Revenue is that the appellant is not entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on the basis of the Debit Notes as the DHS–Mumbai cannot be said to have an office or any other premises of DHS- Kolkata and they cannot be considered as an “Input Service Distributor” as it failed to satisfy the definition as provided in Rule 2(m) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
–
Held that:- There is no dispute that the DHS- Mumbai had issued the Debit Notes towards the proportionate share in the Subscription Fee paid to Deloitte Global along with Service Tax of the appellant DHS-Kolkata – Tribunal in the case of Amra Raja Power Systems Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Tirupati [2015 (12) TMI 1558 – CESTAT HYDERABAD] held that when Service Tax has been duly discharged by the service provider, service recipient cannot be denied credit of Service Tax borne by him.
–
Appeal allowed – decided in fav

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ndian entities for their portion of their subscription towards the service received from Deloitte Global. 3. The appellant availed Cenvat Credit on the basis of the Debit Notes issued by them. According to the Revenue, the appellant is not entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on the basis of the Debit Notes as the DHS – Mumbai cannot be said to have an office or any other premises of DHS- Kolkata and they cannot be considered as an Input Service Distributor as it failed to satisfy the definition as provided in Rule 2(m) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. I find that there is no dispute that the DHS- Mumbai had issued the Debit Notes towards the proportionate share in the Subscription Fee paid to Deloitte Global along with Service Tax of the appellant DHS- Kolkata. 6. The Tribunal in the case of Amra Raja Power Systems Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Tirupati – 2016 (43) STR 313 (Tri- Hyd.) held that when Service

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

from the appellants including the Service Tax. The sister concerns are thus integrally connected with the appellant factory as they provide the required marketing support in connection with the manufacturing operations. It is therefore clear that the services have a nexus with the appellants manufacturing activities and thus qualify as input services. The credit is sought to be denied alleging that the arrangement is merely sharing of common expenses and not rendering of service. The department cannot blow both hot and cold. When the department has accepted tax on the services provided by sister concerns to appellant, then they cannot deny credit saying that no services were rendered. I find that the demand of credit is unjustified . 7. In view of the above discussion and the ratio of the decision, the impugned Order is set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. (Operative part of the Order was pronounced in Court) – Case laws – Decisions – Judgements – Orders – Tax

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – (1-H/2018) – Dated:- 31-5-2018 – GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA FINANCE SECRETARIAT NOTIFICATION (1-H/2018) [NO.KGST.CR.01/17-18], Bengaluru, dated: 31.05.2018 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (6) of section 39 read with section 168 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Karnataka Act 27 of 2017) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and in supersession of Notification (1-E/2018) No. KGST.CR.01/17-18, dated the 11th April, 2018, published in the Karnata

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – FTX.56/2017/Pt-II/114. – Dated:- 31-5-2018 – GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR FINANCE (TAXATION) DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION The 31st May, 2018 No.FTX.56/2017/Pt-II/114.- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, (Assam Act No. xxvIII of 2017) the Governor of Assam is hereby pleased further to amend the Assam Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, hereinafter referred to as the principal rules. namely:- 1. Short title and commencement. (1) These rules may be called the Assam Goods and Services Tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2018. (2) Save as otherwise provided in these rules, they shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 18thApril, 2018. 2. Amendment in rule 89 In the principal rules, in rule 89, for sub-rule (5). the following shall be substituted, namely: – "(5). In the case of refund on account of inverted duty structure, refund of input tax credit shall be granted as per the following for

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

produce before it, or before a duly authorized officer of the State Government, as the case may be, such books, accounts. documents, instruments, or commodities in custody and control of the applicant, as may be necessary for proper evaluation of the application; (c) to require any applicant to allow entry and inspection of any premises, from which activities claimed to be for the welfare of consumers are stated to be carried on, to a duly authorized officer of the State Government, as the case may be; (d) to get the accounts of the applicants audited, for ensuring proper utilisation of the grant: (e) to require any apnlicant, in case of any default, or suppression of material information on his part, to refund in lumpa sum along with accrued interests the sanctioned grant to the Committee, and to be subject to prosecution under the Act; (f) to recover any sum due from any applicant in accordance with the provisions of the Act; (g) to require any applicant, or class of applicants to su

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

y Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956) and which has consumers studies as part of its curriculum for a minimum period of three years; and (vi) a complainant as defined under clause (b) of sub-section (l) of section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986(68 of 1986), who applies for reimbursement of legal expenses incurred by him in a case instituted by him in a consumer dispute redressal agency. (b) application means an application in the form as specified by the Standing Committee from time to lime; (c) 'Central Consumer Protection Council' means the Central Consumer Protection Council, established under sub-section ( I ) of section 4 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 (68 of 1986). for promotion and protection of rights of consumers; (d) 'Committee' means the Committee constituted under sub-rule (4); (e) 'consumer' has the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (d) of sub-section (l) of section 2 of the Consumer Protection Acts 1986 (68 Of 1986), and in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – 12/2018–C.T./GST – Dated:- 31-5-2018 – GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL DIRECTORATE OF COMMERCIAL TAXES 14, BELIAGHATA ROAD, KOLKATA -700015 NOTIFICATION BY THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX Notification No. 12/2018-C.T./GST Dated: 31/05/2018 Notification No. 25/2018 – State Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (6) of section 39 read with section 168 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (West Ben. Act XXVIII of 2017) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act)

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (6) TMI 687 – THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – 2018 (17) G. S. T. L. 621 (N. A. P. A.) – Anti-Profiteering – Non-discharge of GST – it has been alleged that Respondent had not charged GST on the base price of the lift ordered by him from the Respondent, after excluding the pre-GST Excise Duty on the material component and thus he had been charged tax twice on the same material – Held that:- It is clear from the perusal of the record that the Applicant had paid advance for purchase of this lift and he was charged the Service Tax which was leviable at the time of issue of the invoice on 28-06-2017, which he has not disputed and which is also correct as the Applicant was liable for payment of Service Tax under the then applicable provisions of Finance Act, 1994 – However in respect of the two invoices dated 27-07-2017 as the installation of the second lift had been completed after coming in to force of the CGST Act, 2017, he was liable to be charged GST at the rate which w

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ndent, after excluding the pre-GST Excise Duty on the material component and thus he had been charged tax twice on the same material. 2. The above application was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering and was referred to the DGSG, vide the minutes of it s meeting dated 15.02.2018 for detailed investigations under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 3. The DGSG after summoning both the parties had found that an order for supply of two lifts was placed by the Applicant on the Respondent in December 2016 and for the first lift, the invoice was raised by the Respondent on 26.06.2017, against which full payment was made by the Applicant and he had no objection in respect of this invoice. The DGSG had also found that in the case of the second lift, the material was despatched to the Applicant on 29.03.2017 and the installation was done on 25.07.2017, i.e., after the GST had come into force. He had further found that three invoices were issued by the Respondent in respect

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

10) and 142 (11) of the CGST Act, 2017, the goods or services or both supplied after coming in to force of the above Act, in pursuance of a contract entered into prior to the appointed day were liable to GST but no tax was payable under this Act to the extent the tax was leviable on the said goods or services under the erstwhile VAT Act of the State or Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. He had also submitted that as per the explanation to Rule 3 of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, wherever any advance was received by the service provider against the taxable service, the point of taxation was to be construed as the date of receipt of such advance. He has further submitted that the installation of elevator was completed in the GST regime, and hence the point for levy of tax for supply of material fell under the GST regime and accordingly, two more invoices were issued on 27.07.2017 wherein the applicable GST was correctly charged. He has also intimated that the Respondent had claimed that

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ld on 24.04.2018 and it was decided to hear the Applicant on 11.05.2018. The hearing was further rescheduled to 14.05.2018. However, the Applicant did not put in an appearance on the scheduled date but vide his letter dated 14.05.2018 sent to the Authority, the Applicant had requested for withdrawal of his application dated 20.09.2017 citing the same reasons which were given by him in his letter dated 28.03.2018 to the DGSG. 6. We have carefully considered the material placed before us as well as the claim made by the Applicant and it has been revealed that the Applicant had placed an order for installation of two lifts on the Respondent in the month of December, 2016. It has also been revealed that the Applicant has no grievance against the price of the first lift supplied by the Respondent and the tax levied upon him. It has further been revealed that in respect of the second lift the Applicant has claimed that the Respondent had issued three invoices one of which was issued on 28-06

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

from the record that the Applicant vide his letter dated 28-03-2018 sent to the DGSG and vide his letter dated 14-05- 2018 sent to this Authority has admitted that he was not fully aware of the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 when he had filed his application on 20-09-2017 and since the issues pertaining to his case had been further clarified subsequently his application; should be treated to have been withdrawn. 8. Based on the above facts there is no substance in the claim made by the Applicant and therefore, this Authority accepts the report dated 16-04-2017 filed by the DGSG under Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and hereby orders dropping of the present proceedings as no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 has been established. A copy of this order be sent to the Applicant, the Respondent and the DGSG free of cost. File of the case be consigned after completion. – Case laws – Decisions – Judgements – Orders – Tax Management India – taxmanagemen

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – 10/2018 – Dated:- 31-5-2018 – GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES NAGALAND: DIMAPUR Dated Dimapur, the 31st May, 2018 NOTIFICATION- 10/2018 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (6) of section 39 read with section 168 of the Nagaland Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (4 of 2017) (here in after referred to as the said Act) and in supersession of notification No. 5/2018 dated the 28 March, 2018, except as respects things done or omitted to b

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (6) TMI 301 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – TMI – Tender inquiry for award of contract – tender inquiry has been rejected on the ground that GST number had not been furnished – Held that:- Clause 8 (v) of the Standard Bidding Document calling upon each bidder to submit last filed GST return along with GST number would be construed as an essential term of the contract – The petitioner having admittedly not complied with such condition, there would be no infirmity as regards rejection of his technical bid – petition dismissed. – CWP No.14649 of 2018 (O&M) Dated:- 31-5-2018 – MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACJ AND MR. TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. For The Petitioner : Mr. S.K.Choudhary, Advocate ORDER TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. Tender inquiry fo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

petitioner yet he has been awarded the contract. In a nutshell, argument raised is that if the condition of furnishing GST number had to be relaxed then a pick and choose policy could not have been adopted by the authorities concerned and such relaxation should have been granted across the board and to all the bidders/participants in the tender process including the petitioner. Having heard counsel for the petitioner at length and having perused the pleadings on record, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. It has gone uncontroverted that as per Clause 8(v) of the Standard Bidding Document, each bidder had to submit copy of last filed GST return along with GST number.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (6) TMI 110 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT – TMI – GST return filling – seeking allowance of tax credit – prayer seeking to either reopen and reinstate the facility of online submission of TRAN-I to the petitioner or to accept the Hard copy of TRAN-I of the petitioner – Held that:- It is appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by permitting the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities and to raise a notice of demand in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from today – petition disposed off. – CWP-14316-2018 (O&M) Dated:- 31-5-2018 – MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate ORDER AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACJ. The petitioner has approached this C

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

portunity of hearing to the petitioner and by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the averments made in the writ petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by permitting the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities and to raise a notice of demand in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from today. In case such a notice of demand is raised, the same shall be decided by respondent No.4 within a period of next two weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law. – Case laws – Decis

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – 25/2018 – Dated:- 31-5-2018 – Superseded vide Notification No. 30/2018 – Central Tax dated 30-07-2018 Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Notification No. 25/2018 – Central Tax New Delhi, the 31st May, 2018 G.S.R. 517(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (6) of section 39 read with section 168 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereinafter referred to as t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Special Refund Fortnight from 31.05.2018 to 14.06.2018 – TMI Updates – Highlights

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Shreyansh Agrawal – Dated:- 30-5-2018 Last Replied Date:- 30-5-2018 – My Client is registered under GST as Composition Dealer. Now he want to transfer a business to a person who are not yet registered under GST but he will also take registration under GST as a Composition Dealer. My query is that whether the stock will be treated as a Goods or Service and whether my client is required to pay GST on stock and is there is any consequences to other person if

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – GST – Dated:- 30-5-2018 – Refunds of GST have been a concern for both the Government and Trade for the past several months. Till now, the Government has sanctioned more than ₹ 30,000 crore as GST Refund. This includes an amount of ₹ 16,000 crore of IGST and ₹ 14,000 crore of ITC. The figures of ITC include sanction by both the Central and State Governments. Contrary to the press reports that there has been a dip in refund sanction after the first Refund Fortnight in March 2018, the refund sanctioned during May 2018 is to the tune of ₹ 8,000 crore. Refund claims to the tune of ₹ 14,000 crore (Rs.7,000 crore on the IGST side and ₹ 7,000 crore on account of ITC) are pending with the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

e mistakenly declared their export supplies as domestic supplies, would now be transmitted to Customs EDI System. A Circular No 12/2018 dated 29-05-2018 has been issued in this regard. On receipt of the records from GSTN, the Customs System would automatically process the refunds for sanction, if no other errors are committed by exporters. Circular No 45/19/2018-GST has been issued on 30-05-2018 clarifying matters related to refund claims by an Input Service Distributor, composition dealer, exports of services and supplies made to SEZ. The circular also clarifies issues related to requirement of LUT in cases of export of exempted or non-GST goods and scope of restriction imposed under Rule 96(10). All claimants may note the refund applicati

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Dinesh Vaswani – Dated:- 30-5-2018 Last Replied Date:- 30-5-2018 – We have our registered office in Thane , Maharashtra & we are in process of finalisation of a works contract order in Himachal Pradesh for supply of goods & services of centalised Airconditioning systems for the plant on turnkey basis, project duration is approximately 4 months. Do we need to take seperate registeration in Himachal Pradesh? If No, kindly let us know how are we going to claim TDS deductions, what certificate will be issued by service recepient . Also let us know about reqt. of E way bill for movement of goods which are required for execution works contract.With Warm Regards,Dinesh V – Reply By YAGAY and SUN – Th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Clarifications on refund related issues – order to clarify these issues and with a view to ensure uniformity in the implementation of the provisions of the law across the fiel

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Customs – Sanction of pending IGST refund claims where the records have not been transmitted from the GSTN to DG Systems – CBIC prescribed the procedure to be followed. – TMI Updates – Highlights

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Levy of GST on rent payable by a Hospital, catering life saving services – GST is leviable on the rent paid / payable for premises, taken on lease by the applicant. – AAR – TMI Updates – Highlights

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Classification of supply – supply of goods along-with supply of services – Composite Supply u/s 2(30) of the GST Act – supplies as that of the applicant’s should be construed

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – CAHitesh Patel – Dated:- 30-5-2018 Last Replied Date:- 30-5-2018 – Please Help, Can builder (construction of residential homes and complex) get input tax credit of input goods and services. ?? Please specify section or any description? – Reply By Alkesh Jani – The Reply = Sir, Please refer Section 17 (c) and (d) of the CGST Act,2017, which is as under (c) works contract services when supplied for construction of an immovable property (other than plant and machinery) except where it is an input service for further supply of works contract service; (d) goods or services or both received by a taxable person for construction of an immovable property (other than plant or machinery) on his own account inclu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Special Drive to liquidate all pending IGST Refunds by observing a special drive IGST Refunds Fort-night beginning from 31.05.2018 to 14.06.2018 – Customs – TRADE NOTICE NO. 07/2018 – Dated:- 30-5-2018 – OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS GST BHAVAN, 41/A, SASSON ROAD, PUNE-411001 F. No. VIII/Cus/Tech/PN&SI/48-47/2016 Pune Dated: – 30.05.2018 TRADE NOTICE NO. 07/2018 Sub:- Special Drive to liquidate all pending IGST Refunds by observing a special drive "IGST Refunds Fort-night"

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Customs – PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 20/2018 – Dated:- 30-5-2018 – GOVERNMENTT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR CARGO), CHENNAI – VII COMMISSIONERATE, NEW CUSTOM HOUSE, MEENAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI – 600027. F. No.: S.Misc.09/75/2017- EXP. (Air) Dated: 30.05.2018 PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 20/2018 Sub: Reg. Attention of Exporters/ Customs Brokers/ Steamer Agents/ Other Stakeholders and the Trading Public is invited to Board Circular No. 08/2018- Customs dated 23.03.2018. In Consonance with Para 2(ii) of the said Circular, an option has been made available in ICES for sanctioning IGST refund in respect of those cases where the exporter has erroneously declared that the shipment is without payment

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

porter has either declared a different GSTIN in the SB or has only declared PAN, can also be sanctioned through the Officer Interface. In such cases, an undertaking may be obtained from the GST registered unit which has filed the returns that they have no objection to the refund being granted to the exporter who has filed the Shipping Bill and that they will not claim any IGST Refund for exports under that SB separately. Once satisfied, the officer may sanction the applicable IGST Refund through the Officer Interface. 4. Exporters are hereby advised to utilize this opportunity as detailed above, to sort out all cases of Refund of IGST paid on Exports. (N. PADMASRI) COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS COMMISSIONERATE VII (AIR CARGO) – Circular – Trade N

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Customs – PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 16/2018 – Dated:- 30-5-2018 – OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS (PREV.), JAMNAGAR SARDA HOUSE , OPP.PANCHAVATI SOCIETY, BEDI BUNDER ROAD, JAMNAGAR – 361008 F.No.VIII/48-168/Cus-T/2017 Date: 30.05.2018 PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 16/2018 Subject: reg. Attention of the Exporters, Customs Brokers and other stake holders is invited to various efforts being made by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) to liquidate pendency in IGST refund claims. Attention is also invited to CBIC Circular No. 12/2018 dated 29.05.2018 which is issued for the pending IGST refund claims where the records have not been transmitted from the GSTN to DG Systems. 2. A number of representations have been received from the exporters / trade associations seeking resolution of problems which have hindered sanction of refund of IGST paid on exports. From time to time, Board has provided solutions to a number of issues because of which refunds were held up. However, there is still

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

, the transmission of records from GSTN to Customs EDI system has not happened and consequently IGST refunds could not be processed. The problem is compounded by the fact that the facility to adjust GSTR-3B in subsequent months is not available in all cases. 4. In view of the above following procedure is being prescribed to overcome the problem of refund blockage. This would be an interim solution subject to undertakings/ submission of CA certificates by the exporters as given below and post refund audit scrutiny. The proposed procedure is as under: A. Cases where there is no short payment: (i) The Customs policy wing would prepare a list of exporters whose cumulative IGST amount paid against exports and interstate domestic outward supplies, for the period. July 2017 to March 2018 mentioned in GSTR-3B is greater than or equal to the cumulative IGST amount indicated in GSTR-1 for the same period. Customs policy wing shall send this list to GSTN. (ii) GSTN shall send a confirmatory e-mai

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

processed as above shall be sent to DG (Audit)/ DG (GST) by the Board. B. Cases where there is short payment: (i) In cases where there is a short payment of IGST i.e. cumulative IGST amount paid against exports and interstate domestic outward supplies together, for the period of July 2017 to March 2018 mentioned in GSTR-3B is less than the cumulative IGST amount indicated in GSTR-1 for the same period, the Customs policy wing would send the list of such exporters to the GSTN and all the Chief Commissioner of Customs. (ii) e-mails shall be sent by GSTN to each exporter referred in para (i) above so as to inform the exporter that their records are held up due to short payment of IGST. The e-mail shall also advise the exporters to observe the procedure under this circular. (iii) The exporters would have to make the payment of IGST equal to the short payment in GSTR 3B of subsequent months so as to ensure that the total IGST refund being claimed in the Shipping Bill/GSTR-1(Table 6A) is pai

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ist of exporters (GSTIN only), who have come forward to claim refund after making requisite payment of IGST towards short paid amount and complied with other prescribed requirements. (vii) The compiled list may be forwarded to Customs policy wing, DG (Audit) and DG (GST). Customs policy wing shall forward the said list of GSTINs to GSTN. On receipt of the list of exporters from Customs policy wing, GSTN shall transmit the records of those exporters to Customs EDI system. (viii) The exporters whose refunds are processed/ sanctioned as above would be required to submit another certificate from Chartered Accountant before 31st October, 2018 to the same Customs office at the port of export to the effect that there is no discrepancy between the IGST amount refunded on exports and the actual IGST amount paid on exports of goods for the period July 2017 to March 2018. A copy of the certificate shall also be submitted to the jurisdictional GST office (Central/ State). The concerned Customs zon

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Customs – PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 17/2018/CCP/JMR – Dated:- 30-5-2018 – OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS (PREV.), JAMNAGAR SARDA HOUSE , OPP.PANCHAVATI SOCIETY, BEDI BUNDER ROAD, JAMNAGAR – 361008 PHONE NO.: 0288 2757509/10, FAX NO.: 0288 2757538/39 WEBSITE: www.jamnagarcustoms.gov.in E-Mail: custechjmr@gmail.com F.No.VIII/48-168/Cus-T/2017 Date: 30.05.2018 PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 17/2018/CCP/JMR Subject: regarding. Attention of all the Importers/exporters, Customs Brokers, members of the Trade and all other concerned is invited to Board s Circular no. 08/2018 dated 23.03.2018. A Special Drive Fortnight was launched during 15TH March to 31st March, 2018 that resulted in sanction of huge amount of IGST refunds by way of rectification of error code

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

pending cases of export related refund claims, in addition to special camp at Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Customs(Prev.) Commissionerate, Sarda House , Bedi Bunder Road, Jamnagar for disposing off the IGST refund on export stuck up on account of above error codes. 4. In case of any difficulties faced during this Special Drive, the exporters / stake holders may contact the below mentioned Nodal Officer: Name and designation of the Nodal Officer Email Id Shri P.K. Rameshwaram, Joint Commissioner prabhat.rameshwaram@icegate.gov.in 5. The exporters and other stake holders are requested to avail the advantage of the said Special Drive for pending claims of IGST refund. Sd/- (M.K. Srivastava) Commissioner – Circular – Trade Notice – P

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Special Drive IGST Exports Refund fortnight beginning from 31st May, 2018 to 14th June, 2018 – Customs – 14/2018 – Dated:- 30-5-2018 – OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITY CUSTOMS COMMISSIONERATE, P.B. NO. 5400, C.R. BUILDING QUEEN'S ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. C.NO.VIII/09/06/2018 City Cus. Tech Dated: 30.05.2018 PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 14/2018 Subject: Special Drive "IGST Exports Refund fortnight" beginning from 31st May, 2018 to 14th June, 2018 -Reg. Attention of all Customs Brokers, Exporters, Importers, Members of the Trade and other stake holders is invited to the IGST export refund fortnight held from 15.03.2018 to 29.03.2018. 2. The Board has decided to further intensify the efforts to liquidate all pending IGST refund

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =