Goods and Services Tax

Sh. Rishi Gupta Versus M/s. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.
GST
2018 (7) TMI 1490 – NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – 2018 (17) G. S. T. L. 623 (N. A. P. A.)
NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY – NAPA
Dated:- 18-7-2018
Case No. 5/2018
GST
MR. B. N. SHARMA, CHAIRMAN, MR. J. C. CHAUHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER AND MR. R. BHAGYADEVI, TECHNICAL MEMBER
ORDER
1. The brief facts of the case are that an application dated 11.01.2018 was filed by the above Applicant before the Standing Committee, constituted under Rule 123 (1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 stating that he had ordered a Godrej Interio Slimline Metal Almirah through the Respondent vide his order No. OD 110666745976477000 on 04.11.2017 and a tax invoice dated 07.11.2017 was issued to him for an amount of Rs. 14,852/- by M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai (here-in-after referred to as the Supplier). At the time of delivery, another invoice dated 29.11.2017 was issued by the Supplier

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nd on the gross amount, a discount of Rs. 500/- was given to the applicant by the Supplier. He had also found that the discounted price of Rs. 14,852/- could be further broken into Rs. 11,603.13/- as the base price and Rs. 3248.87/- as the GST@ 28%. Therefore the DGAP had stated that the base price of the supplier was Rs. 11,993.75/- with discount of Rs. 500/-. He had also stated that in the case of the invoice dated 29.11.2017 it was apparent that the Supplier had charged GST at the reduced rate of 18% on the base price of Rs. 11,993.87/- and hence the price charged to the Applicant was Rs. 14,151.87/-. The DGAP had therefore concluded that the Supplier had charged GST at the prescribed rate of 18% on the base price of Rs. 11,993.87/- and thus he had not increased the earlier base price after coming in to force of the GST. He had also concluded that the discount of Rs. 500/- which was offered earlier had been withdrawn by the Supplier vide his invoice dated 29.11.2017 which did not am

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

27.4.2018 received from the Respondent the excess amount of Rs. 700/-collected from the Applicant had been refunded to him on 18.01.2018. The Respondent had also stated that he was only offering a market place which enabled the sellers to offer their products for direct sale to the customers for which it was charging commission and the sellers were entirely responsible for the supply of goods and services and for the payment of taxes. The Respondent had also informed that there were 7254 cases in which the rate of GST at the time of booking of the orders on his platform was higher than the rate of GST prevalent at the time of delivery and the Respondent had initiated the process of refund of the differential amount as per the instructions of the sellers.
5. It was decided to hear the Applicant as well as the Respondent on 29.05.2018 during which Sh. Gopi Krishna Obulam, Director, Sh. Prasanth Bhat, authorized representative and Sh. Pankaj Bathla, Sr. Manager appeared for the Responde

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ondent was not a Supplier and hence the refund of excess tax was distinct from profiteering and hence it did not fall under the ambit of Section 171 of the Act.
7. We have carefully heard the Respondent and have also perused the material placed on the record and it is revealed that the Applicant had placed an order for supply of a Godrej Interio Slimline Metal Almirah on the Supplier through the Respondent on 4.11.2017 for which a tax invoice was issued by the Supplier on 7.11.2017. The gross amount of Rs. 15,352/- shown in the invoice could be broken up into Rs. 11,993.75/- as base price and Rs. 3358.25/- as GST @ 28%. It is also revealed that on this gross amount a discount of Rs. 500/- was offered and the discounted price of Rs. 14,852/- was further broken up into Rs. 11,603.13/- as base price and Rs. 3248.87/- as GST @ 28%. Therefore it is apparent that the base price of the Supplier was Rs. 11,993.75/- and on the cum tax price a discount of Rs. 500/- was offered. It is also revea

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the above Act is not established.
8. It is also apparent that the Respondent was not the Supplier/manufacturer of the Almirah and was only an agent who had offered his platform to the Supplier to sell the Almirah by charging commission, and was also not responsible for collection or refund of GST and hence he cannot be held accountable for contravention of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. It has also been found that the Supplier has refunded an amount of Rs. 700/- through the Respondent which was charged as tax in excess from the Applicant at the time of the placing of the order. It has also come to the notice from the perusal of the letter dated 27.4.2018 that the Respondent had charged 28% GST in the case of 7254 orders which were placed on his platform by the various buyers before 15.11.2017 and in which the supply was made after reduction of GST to 18%. The Respondent has claimed that he had already initiated the process of refund of excess tax collected from the recipients. Ke

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s Incopac Parts Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE & CGST, Jaipur
Central Excise
2018 (7) TMI 1366 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – 2018 (362) E.L.T. 904 (Tri. – Del.)
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 18-7-2018
Excise Appeal Nos. 51200 – 51201 of 2018 – Final Order No. 52538 – 52539/2018
Central Excise
Hon'ble Sh. V. Padmanabhan, Member ( Technical )
Sh. Somesh Arora, Advocate for the appellant
Sh. K. Poddar, AR for the respondent
ORDER
Per : V. Padmanabhan
The present appeals are challenging the Orders-in-Appeal Nos.32-33 (SJ)/CE/JPR/2018 dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central GST and Central Excise, Jaipur. The period of dispute is April to September, 2014.
2. The appellant is a 100% EOU. For manufacture of goods in the EOU, the appellant procured various inputs on payment of duty and availed cenvat credit of duty paid on such goods. The dispute pertains to the refund claims made by the appellant under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Part of the ref

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

arised below:
(i) Ld. Advocate submitted that the inputs were procured on payment of duty. The department is not justified in denying the cenvat credit of duty paid on such inputs for the reasons that the exemption notification which was available for procurement of such goods i.e. Notification No. 22/2003 dated 31.03.2003 is a conditional notification and the exemption in terms of such notification will be available only subject to fulfilment of such condition. In view of the conditions in the notification, he submitted that the provision of Section 5A(1) cannot be held against the appellant.
(ii) In this connection, he relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore-II vs. Federal Mogul TPR India Ltd. -2016 (334) ELT 476 (Kar.). In the above decision, he argued that the Hon'ble High Court has taken the view that Section 5A(1A) cannot be cited in the case of job work exemption under Notification No. 8/2005-ST.
4. Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue j

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

iscussed the issue on merit and has rejected the refund claim and hence the appeal filed by the appellant on merits may be considered.
6. After hearing both sides and on perusal of record, I find that the crux of the dispute is whether the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs procured by them for use in the manufacture of final product in the EOU. It is not in dispute that the inputs have been procured on payment of duty, even though the appellant could have procured the same without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 22/2003 dated 31.03.2003. The concurrent finding of both the authorities below is that the cenvat credits are irregular and hence the refund of such credits under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rule will not be admissible.
7. The provision of Section 5A (1A) of the Central Excise Act is reproduced below:
“where an exemption under sub-section (1) in respect of any excisable goods from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon has

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

on unconditionally. The appellant, being EOU was entitled to procure inputs without payment of duty under Notification No. 22/2003. A reference to this notification indicates that the exemption is granted subject to various conditions including the condition that the procedure contained in Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001. The above clearly reveals that the exemption is conditional and is not absolute. In view of the above, it is to be concluded that provision of Section 5A(1A) as well as the Circular dated 26.11.2010 are not applicable for procurement of goods under Notification No. 22/2003. Consequently, there is no infirmity in the availment of credit by the appellant on duty paid. Further, the appellant will also be entitled to refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules subject to satisfaction of conditions for claim of such refund.
10. Ld. AR has raised the ground that the impugned order has been pas

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Jaypee Sidhi Cement Plant Versus CGST C.C & C. E-Jabalpur And Hindustan Zinc Ltd Versus CE & ST-Udaipur
Central Excise
2018 (7) TMI 1279 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 18-7-2018
Appeal No. E/50633/2018-SMC, Appeal No. E/51064/2018-SMC – Final Order No. 52540-52541/2018
Central Excise
Hon'ble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
Sh. Hemant Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant
Sh. P. Juneja, H.C. Saini & K. Poddar, DR for the respondent
ORDER
Per: V. Padmanabhan
1. The present appeals have been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 494/2017-18 dated 29/11/2017 (for appeal E/50633/2018) and Order-in-Appeal No. 323/2017 dated 07/02/2018 (Appeal No E/51064/2018). The issue involved in both the cases are identical and hence are being disposed through this common order.
2. The brief facts for purposes of the present appeals are that the appellants purchase coal from various subsidiary companies of M/s Coal India Ltd., like M/s South Eastern Co

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the Cenvat Credit availed on the basis of supplementary invoices issued by Coalfields. Aggrieved by the decisions the present two appeals have been field.
3. In the above background we heard Shri Hemant Bajaj, Ld. Counsel for the Appellants as well as Shri P. Juneja & Shri H.C. Saini, Ld. DRs for the Revenue.
4. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants by Ld. Advocate are summarized below:-
i. He contended that the case of the Department is that the differential duty paid by the Coal Companies was on account of fraud, suppression etc alleged against them and hence the prohibition contained in Rule 9(1)(b)) applies to the appellants. In this connection he submitted that proceedings against the coal companies have not attended finality and are subjudice before the Apex Court. The appeals filed by the coal companies before the Tribunal have been disposed off with a direction to approach the Tribunal again after the outcome of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

turer on account of willful misstatement, suppression of facts etc. Proceedings against the coal companies have been initiated by the Revenue by alleging suppression and hence the supplementary invoices cannot be the basis for availing credit as has been held by the lower authorities. Hence it is prayed that the appeal may be dismissed.
6. Further he submitted that the case law in the case of Birla Corporation may not be applicable to the present case but the fact whether there is suppression on the part of the present appellant is required to be considered by Tribunal.
7. After hearing both sides and perusal of record I note that the issue involved in the present appeals is whether the appellants are entitled to Cenvat Credit on the basis of supplementary invoices issued by the coal companies. Such credit stands denied in terms of Rule 9 (1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules which denies the credit if such supplementary invoices are issued for duties which became payable by the manufact

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai [sought to be changed as CGST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate Chennai] Versus Vasanth & Co.
Service Tax
2018 (7) TMI 1220 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 18-7-2018
Application No. ST/Misc [CT]/41475/2017 & Appeal No. ST/524/2011 – Final Order No. 42030 / 2018
Service Tax
Hon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member ( Judicial ) And Hon'ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical )
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) For the Appellant
Shri K. A. Parthasarathy, Advocate For the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The facts of the case are that M/s.Vasanth & Co., the respondents herein, are engaged in the business of trading in consumer durables like TV, Refrigerators, Washing Machines etc. in the show rooms. Pursuant to investigations carried out by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), it appeared that respondents had tie up with various financial institutions like GE Countrywide

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ority by an order dt. 08.09.2010 confirmed the proposals regarding tax demand in the SCN with interest, and also imposed penalties of Rs. 2000/- under Section 77 and equal penalty of Rs. 35,23,936/- under section 78 ibid. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dt. 17.06.2011, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of original authority and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved, Revenue is before this forum.
2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the Revenue Ld. A.R Shri B. Balamurugan reiterates the grounds of appeal and also made the following submissions :
i) The issue in question has been decided against the respondents in the Larger Bench of the Tribunal decision in Pagariya Auto Center Vs CCE Aurangabad – 2014 (33) STR 506 (Tri.-LB).
ii) The customers of respondents were directed to approach only such banks / financial institutions who have tie up with them and not to others.
iii) The representative of income by financial institutions

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

siness Auxiliary Service'. Being an restricted activity, the Tribunal also held that for concluding that BAS has been provided, the transactional documents and other evidence on record should indicate the substantial activities falling within the contours of any of the integers of the definition of “Business Auxiliary Service'.
ii) However, in the instant case, no transactional documents have been relied upon by the original authority as well as by Commissioner (Appeals) and only statement of Shri S. Jeyaraj, Accounts Manager has been relied upon.
iii) All that the respondents did was to direct prospective customers to representatives of banks / financial institutions operated from the place of business of the respondents.
iv) The Department has sought various particulars on 1.10.2007 to which they had given reply on 10.10.2007 along with copies of General Ledger for the years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. Further in response to summons dt. 15.11.2007 they had submitted a letter dt.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nal authority was passed on 08.10.2010 and the impugned order of lower appellate authority was passed on 17.6.2011. Discernably, the lower authorities would obviously not have had the benefit of Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal Pagariya Auto Center Vs CCE Aurangabad – 2014 (33) STR 506 (Tri.-LB) which was passed only on 12.09.2013. In fact, the SCN has largely relied upon the single statement of Shri S. Jeyaraj, Accounts Manager of respondent to support the allegations made therein. There is no reference to any agreements or communications between the respondents and the financial institutions made in the body of the SCN. However, in the list of relied upon documents supplied along with SCN a reference has been made to sample copies of communications with ICICI Bank and GE Countrywide (Annexure-II) and also to worksheets containing details of payments received towards commission by respondents (Annexure-III). All the same, both the lower authorities have not done any analysis of t

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

or financial institution would per se amount to BAS. The identification of the transaction and its appropriate classification as the taxable BAS or otherwise must clearly depend upon a careful analysis of the relevant transactional documents. Only such scrutiny and analysis would ensure rational classification of the transaction.
21. Where mere space is provided along with furniture for facilitating accommodation of representatives of financial institutions in the premises of an automobile dealer and consideration is received for that singular activity, such consideration may perhaps constitute a rent for the provision of space and associated amenities. Such restricted relationship/transaction may not amount to BAS. If on the other hand, the transactional documents and other evidence on record indicates a substantial activity falling within the contours of any of the integers of the definition of BAS, spelt out in Section 65(19), then it would be legitimate to conclude that BAS is

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ustice require that the matter should be remanded for de novo consideration by the original authority to apply the tests laid down by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Pagariya Auto Center Vs CCE Aurangabad (supra) as discussed above. So ordered.
8. At the same time, we find merit in the alternative contention of the Ld. Advocate that in a number of Tribunal decisions, which have applied the ratio laid down by Larger Bench in Pagariya Auto Center (supra), have consistently set aside penalties even while upholding the tax liability with interest. We find that this is the ratio adopted by the Tribunal in Sharya Motors Vs CST Mumbai – 2016 (43) STR 158 (Tri.-Mumbai) where it has been held as follows :
“6. In short, the appeal is disposed of by upholding the tax liability with interest, under the Business Auxiliary Services for commission received from the financial institution, while the tax demand on amount received as target incentive is set aside. Interest liability on the tax con

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

es imposed under Sections 76, 77 and 78, we find that as per our above discussion on limitation, there is bona fide belief of the appellant for non payment of service tax, the appellant has been able to reasonable cause for invocation of Section 80. We are therefore of the view that considering the facts and circumstances as well as discussion made herein above with regard to the demand being time bar penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 require to be set aside invoking Section 80. As result we pass following order :
(a) Demand from July, 2003 to March, 2005 in respect of Business Auxiliary Services (service relate to HDFC bank) is set aside being time bar.
(b) Service tax demand for April and May-2005 require to be re-quantified as per our above discussion by the Adjudicating Authority.
(c) As regard the demand of Rs. 1,42,114/- relates to Business Auxiliary Service (Commission on sale of car) require to be re-considered applying the Notification No. 14/2004-S.T. by the Adj

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Southern Erectors (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax [sought to be changed as CGST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate Chennai]
Service Tax
2018 (7) TMI 1219 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 18-7-2018
Application No. ST/Misc[CT]/41703/2017 & Appeal No. ST/515/2011 – FINAL ORDER No. 42029 / 2018
Service Tax
Hon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) And Hon'ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate For the Appellant
Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR) For the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The appellants are engaged in providing service under “Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services”. During the course of audit, it was found that during the period 2007-08, the appellants had realized labour charges covering the period from 12/06 to 5/07 during 4/07 July/2007 towards erection, commissioning or installation services rendered to their clients, but had not discharged service tax on such

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

eceived by them were barely enough to pay staff / workers and their salaries. Despite this financial crunch, appellant had taken all efforts to realize the payments but could not succeed. When the payments were received, the appellants remitted the same along with interest. The delay in making the payment of service tax was only due to the delay in receiving payments. He points out that the amount of service tax along with interest was paid much before issuance of show cause notice. Only the differential amount as calculated by the department due to change in the rate of service tax from 12.24 % to 12.36% was to be paid. The same was paid within one month after issuance of SCN i.e. 15.11.2008. Thus, appellant had paid the entire service tax liability along with interest before passing of the OIO dt. 13.3.2009. Apart from the allegation that appellant has suppressed facts, there is no evidence to establish that appellant suppressed facts with intention to evade payment of tax. There was

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

7) STR 343 (Tri.-Bang.) and argued that penalty is unwarranted when there is mere delay in payment of service tax. The facts put forward before us as well as the records would show that other than delay in payment of service tax, there is no evidence to show that appellant has suppressed facts with intention to evade payment of tax. The figures required for quantification of the demand of service tax has been taken from the accounts maintained by the appellant and there is nothing unearthed by the department to show that there was any positive act of suppression on the part of the assessee. We therefore find this is a fit case for invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 as the appellant has put forward reasonable cause for non-payment of service tax during the disputed period. We therefore hold that the penalty imposed under Section 78 is unwarranted and requires to be set aside. The impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside penalty imposed under Section 78 of the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund of IGST on export of goods on payment of duty-Clarification in case of SB003 errors and extension of date in SB005 & other cases using officer Interface for rectification of errors-reg.
22/2018 Dated:- 18-7-2018 Circular
Customs
Circular No. 22/2018-Customs
F. No: 450/119/2017-CusIV
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
(Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs)
*****
Room No.227-B, North Block,
New Delhi dated 18th July, 2018
To,
All Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner of Customs/ Customs& Central Tax / Customs (Preventive)
All Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Customs/ Customs & Central Tax / Customs (Preventive)
All Director Generals under CBIC.
Subject: Refund of I

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

xamined. As PAN is embedded in the GSTIN, CBIC has decided to accord similar treatment to such cases also as are already covered under Para 2 of Circular 15/2018-Customs. The conditions prescribed in para 2 of the said circular shall apply mutatis mutandis.
3. CBIC has issued circulars 05/2018-Customs dated 23.02.2018, 08/2018-Customs dated 23.03.2018 and 15/2018-Customs dated 06.06.2018 wherein an alternative mechanism with an officer interface to resolve invoice mismatches (SB005 error) was provided for the shipping bills filed till 30.04.2018. Despite wide publicity and outreach programmes to make exporters aware about the need to have identical details in invoices given in shipping Bills and GST returns, it has been observed that a few

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund of IGST on export of Goods on payment of duty-Setting up of Help Desks -reg.
21/2018 Dated:- 18-7-2018 Circular
Customs
Circular 21/2018-Customs
F. No: 450/119/2017-CusIV
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
(Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs)
*****
Room No. 227B, North Block,
New Delhi dated 18th July, 2018
To,
All Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner of Customs/ Customs & Central Tax / Customs (Preventive)
All Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Customs/ Customs& Central Tax / Customs (Preventive)
All Director Generals under CBIC.
Subject: Refund of IGST on export of Goods on payment of duty-Setting up of Help Desks -reg.
Sir/ Madam,
Various representations ha

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

abin Space etc. would be made available to the officers by FIEO/AEPC.
3. The Directorate of Systems shall provide the status of each pending IGST refund claim with specific error due to which it is being held up, on Antarang. The icegate email ID of the officer(s) deputed at the Help Desk may immediately be informed to Team.ICES@icegate.gov.in to enable access to the data. The officers deputed at Help Desks would use this data to inform the exporters about the documents required, if any, and guide them to resolve the errors. The exporters can provide details related to any port of export at the Help Desk near their location. The Help Desk shall act as an extended office of the Port of export and collect documents/ information on behalf of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Gst on exempted service tax works contract
Query (Issue) Started By: – Bijay Bharat Dated:- 17-7-2018 Last Reply Date:- 24-7-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 5 Replies
GST
Dear Sir/Madam,
Our company has went into a works contract agreement with state govt which mentions specifically that all taxes are included except service tax which will be reimbursed as per actual but now after GST coming into force when we had claimed the Cgst part as exemption or to be borne by client I.e state govt their is ambiguity and confusion kindly help out in this regard is their any law or way to claim the part to service tax which was rembursable .
Thank you
Reply By Alkesh Jani:
The Reply:
Sir,
In this regards, my point of view is th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

notified. This does not stipulates, from registration, But….
In view of above, it can be said that Government is liable to GST and should pay GST. Alternately, you can raise the Invoice including GST , supply to un-registered person and pay tax. Any other view is appreciated.
Thanks
Reply By YAGAY and SUN:
The Reply:
In our view Government cannot deny to pay you the statutory dues/levies.
Reply By ANITA BHADRA:
The Reply:
Sir
There are two important points in your query :-
Time of Supply and GST payable by State Government .
What is time of supply ?
GST will not applied, in case invoice raised or supply made ( whichever is earlier ) pre GST period . In that condition , service tax is reimbursable by State Government as pe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Interest rates under CGST Act.
Query (Issue) Started By: – Alkesh Jani Dated:- 17-7-2018 Last Reply Date:- 21-7-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 6 Replies
GST
Sir,
In terms of Section 50 (3) of CGST Act, If ITC is wrongly taken or utilized, on reversal interest @ 24% is to be paid. However, if refund is delayed for more than 60 days, interest rate @6% will be paid in terms of Section 54(12) of CGST Act, 2017.
Moreover, in terms of Section 2(84) of CGST Act, 2017, person includes Central Government or State Government.
The query is :- Section 54(12) of the Act, can be held to be ultra vires to Article 14 of Constitution of India.
Thanks
Reply By YAGAY and SUN:
The Reply:
In our view it is not ultra vires to Article 14

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of interest. Govt. pays @ 6% but recovers @ 24 % or 18% depending upon the nature of contravention. Govt. is a 'Ruler' and an assessee is a 'Ruled' as per Constitution of India. Nicely explained/ replied by both experts. I agree with the views of both experts.
If Central Govt. or State Govt. is a taxable person, that Govt. will also get interest @ 6% on the delayed refund. If we peruse decisions of various Courts, penal interest is also imposed on Central Govt. and State Govt., if contravened any provision of Act.Hence question of 'ultra vires' of Article 14 of the Constitution does not arise. All persons are equal in the eyes of law.
Reply By Alkesh Jani:
The Reply:
Sir,
I appreciate the views expressed by our e

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ding rate of interest say 6% which is less than the Bank Interest while 24% or 18% is like imposing penalty. Even money lenders are abid by the rate of 18%, then why 24% for taxpayers.
We are in Independent India, these kind of rate of interest and taxes were levied during British Rule. If Govt. is for the people, why not to keep 24 % instead of 6% for delayed refund.
I also acknowledge the views expressed by Sh. Rajagopalan Ranganathan Sir, with request that 24% is 4 times higher than delayed refund rate of 6%, without any doubt, it is undue hardship to any taxpayers or any citizen. Here, we are to keep in our mind the business man having turnover of just more than 20 or 10 lakhs, as the case may be. Please re-offer your comments.
Thank

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CBIC to observe Third Refund Fortnight to clear pending refunds
GST
Dated:- 17-7-2018

Refunds of GST have been a concern for the Government and Trade for the past several months. In this regard, the CBIC has observed two special drives cum refund fortnights in the Month of March, 2018 (15th to 31st March, 2018) and June, 2018 (31st May to 16th June, 2018) respectively. These refund fortnights have provided a lot of relief to the trade. In the 1st refund fortnight, ₹ 4265 Crore IGST refunds and ₹ 1136 Crore ITC refunds were sanctioned by field formations of CBIC. Similarly, during the 2nd refund fortnight, ₹ 6087 Crore IGST refunds and ₹ 1548 Crore ITC refunds were sanctioned by CBIC. In case of IGST ref

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

FIRST APPELLATE ORDER IN ADVANCE RULING
By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal
Goods and Services Tax – GST
Dated:- 17-7-2018

In March, 2018, Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), Maharashtra had pronounced a ruling on job work vis-à-vis manufacture in relation to supply of goods (electricity). The advance ruling under reference is in the matter of In Re JSW Energy Ltd. [(2018) 13 GSTL 92; (2018) 5 TMI 763; ] with reference to scope of 'supply' under section 7 of the GST law.
Advance Ruling
Accordingly, it was ruled that where applicant-power company i.e. JSW Energy Ltd. (JEL) generates power from coal supplied by JSL, a steel company, and JEL supplies power to Jindal Steel Ltd. (JSL), activity under taken by JEL amounts to manuf

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ase, the end product i.e., 'electricity' had a distinct name, character and use than the inputs i.e., “coal”. Thus, when the Legislature had provided for the definition of 'job work' as well as 'manufacture', the meaning as understood by the definition of 'manufacture' cannot be read into the words 'treatment or process' as found in the definition of 'job work'. 'Treatment', 'Process' and 'Manufacture' are three different activities recognized by the Legislature. The intent of the Legislature was to restrict the scope of 'job work' to 'treatment' or 'process' and not to extend the same to 'manufacture'.
It was therefore, held that the activity under

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

cant i.e. JEL regarding conversion of coal (to be levied by JSL) into electricity, the Authority decided the same as supply of goods and not as job work. The main ground for decision of the Authority lies in the fact that definition of job work covers process and treatment on goods, whereas in the instant case the operations carried out by JEL are beyond the process and treatment, and thus not covered under the definition of job work.
The Appellate Authority discussed in detail the interpretation on meaning of job work and manufacture and whether activity involved was supply of goods and/or job work or not. The Appellate Authority concluded that the activity undertaken by JEL to convert coal, to be supplied by JSL, in electricity is not co

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Hyundai Steel Pipe India Pvt. Ltd. Previously known as (M/s. Automated Steel Pipe India Pvt. Ltd.) Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer Commissionerate
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 1121 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 17-7-2018
E/EH/40400/2018 and E/41201/2018 – Final Order No. 42027/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri K. Raju, Authorized Representative for the Appellant
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The above application for early hearing is filed by the appellant seeking to hear the appeal out-of-turn.
2. On behalf of the appellant, Shri K. Raju, who is

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ndoned the delay and accepted the appeal. The appellant therefore seeks out of turn hearing of the appeal.
3. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supported the findings in the impugned order and also concurred to the early disposal of the appeal. He submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dismissed the appeal which is beyond the condonable period of the Commissioner (Appeals). As per the statute, the Commissioner (Appeals) can condone the delay only upto 30 days and the present appeal having been filed with a delay of 208 days, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ja

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund Disposal Fortnight to handhold trade & Industry in clearing pending GST refund claims from 16th July 2018 to 31st July 2018
Trade Notice No. 10/2018-19 Dated:- 17-7-2018 Madhya Pradesh SGST
GST – States
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, GOODS & SERVICES TAX HQRS.
GST BHAWAN, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) 482001
C.No. IV(16)02/Trade Notice/HQ/MP/Tech/2018-19/
Trade Notice No. 10/2018-19
Dated 17.07.2018
Sub: Refund Disposal Fortnight to handhold trade & Industry in clearing pending GST refund claims from 16th July 2018 to 31st July 2018-reg.
After the successful completion of ITC/ IGST Refund fortnights in the month of March 2018 (15th to 31st March 2018) & June 2018 (31st May to 16th June 2018) & Special ITC/IGST refund week

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ll 15th June 2018.
3. The Trade is requested to avail the golden opportunity and approach the jurisdictional Divisional office (Refund Cell) for processing of the pending ITC/IGST refund claims. The asseessees are encouraged to report any difficulties and obstacles in processing of their refund claims, The Department is committed to resolve all the issues at the earliest.
4. The exclusive camps/refund cell has been set up at all divisions of this Commissionerate to deal with the cases of pending ITC related refunds claims from 16th July 2018 to 31st July 2018. All the Taxpayers are advised to contact the following Nodal Officers of the concerned divisions of their jurisdiction to resolve their issues related to refund claims:
S.No.
Divi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

My Car Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST CE & CC, Bhopal
Service Tax
2018 (8) TMI 691 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 17-7-2018
Appeal No. ST/50756/2015-CU[DB] – ST/A/52711/2018-CU[DB]
Service Tax
Shri C.L. Mahar, Member (Technical) And Ms Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial)
Shri Milind Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri G.R. Singh, AR for the Respondent
ORDER
Per C.L. Mahar:
1. The brief facts of the matter are that the appellant is engaged in the business of trading and servicing of four wheeler motorcars as an authorised dealer of Maruti Udyog Ltd. and they are also doing the servicing of the automobile cars. It has been the allegation of the Department that the appellant is availing Cenvat Credit on the Service Tax paid on various input services such as telephone, advertising, renting, insurance, banking, maintenance and repairs, security services, and other financial services etc under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the trad

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

trading has come to be included as an exempted category service only w.e.f. 01/04/2011 by way of amendment carried out in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 vide Notification No. 13/2011-CE (NT) dated 31st March, 2011 and therefore the activity of trading has to be considered as an exempted service only after 1st April, 2011 and Cenvat Credit of input services cannot be demanded prior to 01.04.2011.
3. We have heard both sides. It is a matter of record that the appellant has been engaged in trading of automobile cars along with servicing of the cars and other automobile from the same premises and they have availed Cenvat Credit of various common input services which has been utilised towards both taxable services as well as for trading activity.
4. We are of the opinion that trading activity abinitio cannot be considered as a “service” because the trading in the cars only involves transfer of property on financial consideration from the appellant dealer to various buyers of automobile car

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the relevant period.”
We have also relied upon the order of this Tribunal in case of Lally Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi 2018 (10) GSTL 310 (Tri.-Del). The relevant extract of the judgment are reproduced herein below:-
“6. We have heard both the sides and perused appeal records. The admitted facts are that the appellants availed Cenvat credit on input services and they had considerable turnover and income in trading activities. It is also admitted that the services on which credit have been availed are partly relatable to trading activities also. We note that the appellants contested the reversal of credit, to a proportionate extent, on the ground that trading is not an exempted service prior to the insertion of explanation and as such the provisions of Rule 6(3) will not apply. One main aspect is missed by the appellant in such argument. The case of the appellant is that trading cannot be considered as exempted service. It is clear that trading is not

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Third IGST Refund Fortnight to clear pending refunds-reg.
109 /2018 Dated:- 17-7-2018 Trade Notice
Customs
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (NS-II)
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU CUSTOM HOUSE, NHAVA SHEVA,
TAL. URAN, DIST-RAIGAD, MAHARASHTRA – 400 707
F. No. S/12-Misc-Gen/790/017-18 DBK JNCH
Date: 17.07.2018
PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 109 /2018
Subject: Third IGST Refund Fortnight to clear pending refunds-reg.
Attention of all the exporters, their authorized representatives and all export promoti

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Evershine Wood Packaging Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Greenwood Trading Company, and M/s. VKR Impex Versus The GST Council, The State Tax Officer, Tambaram
GST
2018 (8) TMI 65 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 577 (Mad.)
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 17-7-2018
WP. Nos. 17836 to 17838 of 2018
GST
MR. T.S. SIVAGNANAM J.
For Petitioners: Mr. S. Sathiyanarayanan
For Respondent-1: Mr. V. Sundareswaran, SPC
For Respondent-2: Mr. M. Hariharan, AGP
COMMON ORDER
Heard both.
2. The sum and substance of the prayer of the petitioners is that they are unable to upload Form GST TRAN-1 to take credit of the input tax/ service tax/central excise duty availed by them at the time of migration within the time stipulated.
3. The petitioners would state that they were unable to upload Form GST TRAN-1 within the time stipulated on account of some error. Therefore, the petitioners seek for appropriate direction in this regard.
4. Similar prayers were made before the High Cour

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ispose of the same following the procedure laid down in para 8 of the circular dated 3.4.2018 and would take decision accordingly keeping in view that this writ petition remained pending since 26.3.2018.
8.With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stand finally disposed of.”
5. So far as the High Court of Delhi is concerned, the Delhi High Court, in W.P(C) No.1300 of 2018 etc. batch by order dated 09.4.2018, directed the petitioners therein to approach the concerned Nodal Officer with brief representations outlining their grievances and the Nodal Officer or the Redressal Committee was directed to appropriately deal with representations in accordance with the circular dated 03.4.2018.
6. So far as the Kerala High Court is concerned, in W.P.No.17348 of 2018 by order dated 14.6.2018, the following direction has been issued:
“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case as also the orders passed in similar matters, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

f tax payers owing to technical glitches on the GST and representations were given by the petitioners. Therefore, the CBIC is setting up a Grievance Redressal Mechanism vide Circular No.39/13/2018-GST dated 03.4.2018. Paragraph 8 of the said circular would be relevant for the purpose of the cases on hand, which reads as under :
“8. Resolution of stuck TRAN-1s and filing of GSTR-3B
8.1 A large number of taxpayers could not complete the process of TRAN-1 filing either at the stage of original or revised filing as they could not digitally authenticate the TRAN-1s due to IT related glitches. As a result, a large number of such TRAN- 1s are stuck in the system. GSTN shall identify such taxpayers who could not file TRAN-1 on the basis of electronic audit trail. It has been decided that all such taxpayers, who tried but were not able to complete TRAN-1 procedure (original or revised of filing them on or before 27.12.2017 due to IT glitch, shall be provided the facility to complete TRAN-1 fi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

by 31st May 2018.”
9. Further, paragraph 5.1 of the said circular would state that GSTN, Central and State Government would appoint Nodal Officers in requisite number to address the problem a taxpayer faces due to glitches, if any, in the common portal. This would be publicized adequately.
10. An argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the assessees that paragraph 5 of the said circular dated 03.4.2018 is confined to non-TRAN-1 issues. However, this Court finds that there is no such specific distinction brought about in paragraph 5 of the said circular. Therefore, it can be safely held that the procedure of appointment of Nodal Officers and identification of issues are to be done in the manner provided in paragraph 5 of the said circular. Unless the Nodal Officers are appointed, the Jurisdictional officer of the Assessee, namely Assessing Officer would not be in a position to forward the representations/applications filed by the assessees pointing out the glitches they are f

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Cubex Tubings Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax INV) D-002) & Ors.
GST
2018 (8) TMI 64 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 643 (Bom.)
BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 17-7-2018
Writ Petition No. 7390 of 2018
GST
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.
Mr. Dhopatkar i/b Santosh Vhatkar & Associates for the Petitioner.
P.C. :
1. The petitioner has approached this Court complaining that the consignment, which was loaded on a vehicle, was intercepted during the course of its transport from the petitioner's office and factory to the State of Gujarat. The petitioner claims that they are manufacturers of copper and copper alloy products. They are holding the necessary Central Excise registration till migration to Goods and Services Tax (GST). They are also admitting that the product is covered by Chapter Heading 74 and the petitioners are holding a GST identification, details of which are set out in their letter Exhibit-F page 3

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

r assurances to the ultimate user. The material be, therefore, released, otherwise the consignees export will be hampered and they will suffer huge losses. An alternate request is made that the vehicle can be detained, but at least the goods be released.
2. Mr. Dhopatkar appearing for the petitioners does not dispute that the power to detain and seize and release goods and conveyances in transit is conferred by section 129 of the Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. That sub-section (1) of section 129 confers an overriding power and the authorities can proceed to detain or seize and equally after detention or seizure, release the goods.
However, there is a complete procedure, in the sense, the release can be directed provided the concerned person complies with clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 129. Thus, to the satisfaction of the officer detaining the seizing the goods, the goods can be released. It is common ground before us that the seizure has not been challenged.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the release of the goods. The conduct of the petitioner shows that it is not ready and willing to comply with these conditions, but desires that this Court should interfere and direct unconditional release of goods.
We are not inclined to agree with Mr. Dhopatkar given that there are disputed about questions of fact.
4 In the circumstances, the petitioner is aware of the consequences which would follow post such detention and seizure and if it still desires to approach the concerned official with a proper request and express its readiness and willingness to comply with all the conditions permissible in law, we have no doubt in our mind that the release would be granted.
5 In the teeth of an alternate, equally efficacious remedy, we do not think that we should interfere in this writ petition.
6 We do not wish to start a trend which was prevalent during the earlier regime. On most occasions, people would rush to this Court and invoke its extra ordinary, discretionary and equitable j

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Consolidated Premium Retailers, The R & R Marketing Company Versus The Principal Commissioner, GST and Central Excise, Government of Tamil Nadu, Union of India, The Chairman, GSTIN
GST
2018 (7) TMI 1825 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 179 (Mad.)
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 17-7-2018
W. P. Nos. 11878 & 11879 of 2018
GST
T. S. Sivagnanam, J.
For the Petitioners : Mr.Adithya Reddy
For the Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, SPC, Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri, GA, Mr.V.Sundareswaran
ORDER
Heard both.
2. The sum and substance of the prayer of the petitioners is that they are unable to upload Form GST TRAN-1 to take credit of the input tax/ service tax/central excise duty availed by them at the time of migration within the time stipulated.
3. The petitioners would state that they were unable to upload Form GST TRAN-1 within the time stipulated on account of some error. Therefore, the petitioners seek for appropriate direction in this regard.
4. Similar prayers wer

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ty would consider and dispose of the same following the procedure laid down in para 8 of the circular dated 3.4.2018 and would take decision accordingly keeping in view that this writ petition remained pending since 26.3.2018.
8.With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stand finally disposed of.
5. So far as the High Court of Delhi is concerned, the Delhi High Court, in W.P(C) No.1300 of 2018 etc. batch by order dated 09.4.2018, directed the petitioners therein to approach the concerned Nodal Officer with brief representations outlining their grievances and the Nodal Officer or the Redressal Committee was directed to appropriately deal with representations in accordance with the circular dated 03.4.2018.
6. So far as the Kerala High Court is concerned, in W.P.No.17348 of 2018 by order dated 14.6.2018, the following direction has been issued:
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case as also the orders passed in similar matters, I deem it appropriate to disp

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

by a section of tax payers owing to technical glitches on the GST and representations were given by the petitioners. Therefore, the CBIC is setting up a Grievance Redressal Mechanism vide Circular No.39/13/2018-GST dated 03.4.2018. Paragraph 8 of the said circular would be relevant for the purpose of the cases on hand, which reads as under :
8. Resolution of stuck TRAN-1s and filing of GSTR-3B
8.1 A large number of taxpayers could not complete the process of TRAN-1 filing either at the stage of original or revised filing as they could not digitally authenticate the TRAN-1s due to IT related glitches. As a result, a large number of such TRAN-1s are stuck in the system. GSTN shall identify such taxpayers who could not file TRAN-1 on the basis of electronic audit trail. It has been decided that all such taxpayers, who tried but were not able to complete TRAN-1 procedure (original or revised of filing them on or before 27.12.2017 due to IT glitch, shall be provided the facility to com

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

hall be completed by 31st May 2018.
9. Further, paragraph 5.1 of the said circular would state that GSTN, Central and State Government would appoint Nodal Officers in requisite number to address the problem a taxpayer faces due to glitches, if any, in the common portal. This would be publicized adequately.
10. An argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the assessees that paragraph 5 of the said circular dated 03.4.2018 is confined to non-TRAN-1 issues. However, this Court finds that there is no such specific distinction brought about in paragraph 5 of the said circular. Therefore, it can be safely held that the procedure of appointment of Nodal Officers and identification of issues are to be done in the manner provided in paragraph 5 of the said circular. Unless the Nodal Officers are appointed, the Jurisdictional officer of the Assessee, namely Assessing Officer would not be in a position to forward the representations/applications filed by the assessees pointing out the g

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

RATHEESH PROPRIETOR, M/s. KBM AGENCIES Versus SECRETARY TAXES, GOODS & SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE UNION SECRETARY, NEW DELHI, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & STATE TAX OFFICER CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA, THEMATIC NODAL OFFICER, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VAZHUCHERRY, THEMATIC NODAL OFFICER AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), VAZHUCHERRY
GST
2018 (7) TMI 1489 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 17-7-2018
W. P. (C) No. 21833 of 2018 (D)
GST
MR. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : Adv. Sri. A. Krishnan
For The Respondents : Sri. N. Nagaresh, Assistant Solicitor General And Smt Thushara James
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was a registered deale

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

dal Officers is to follow. It reads:
5. Nodal officers and identification of issues
5.1 GSTN, Central and State government would appoint nodal officers in requisite number to address the problem a taxpayer faces due to glitches, if any, in the Common Portal. This would be publicized adequately.
5.2 Taxpayers shall make an application to the field officers or the nodal officers where there was a demonstrable glitch on the Common Portal in relation to an identified issue, due to which the due process as envisaged in law could not be completed on the Common Portal.
5.3 Such an application shall enclose evidences as may be needed for an identified issue to establish bona fide attempt on the part of the taxpayer to comply with the due p

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Radico Khaitan Limited Versus Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Delhi
Central Excise
2018 (7) TMI 1280 – DELHI HIGH COURT – 2018 (17) G. S. T. L. 582 (Del.)
DELHI HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 17-7-2018
SERTA 19/2018
Central Excise
MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA JJ.
Appellant Through: Mr. L. Badri Narayanan, Advocate with Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Karan Sachdev, Mr. Shrey Ashat, Ms. Apeksha Mehta and Mr. Kunal Kapoor, Advocates.
Respondent Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for respondent with Mr. Suresh Chaudhary, Advocate.
MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (ORAL)
CM APPL. 27730/2018 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
SERTA 19/2018 & CM APPL. 27729/2018 (for stay)
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondent accepts notice.
4. The appellant's grievance in the present proceedings under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is that the final order of the Customs, Excis

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

t part of the order reflecting this aspect is as follows:-
“32. Now, the noticee has submitted the legal agreement dt : 30-06-2006 duly signed by them as well as by M/s Jefferies with their reply to the show cause notice and has also produced the same for my perusal at the time of personal hearing. I find in the fact and circumstances of the present case the very first issue before me is whether the agreement dated : 30-06-2006 is a legal document are not as alleged in the impugned SCN, in as much as classification of services received by the noticee depends upon the sanctity of the said agreement as the same was discarded by the department ab-initio on failure of the noticee to produce the signed copy during the course of investigation.
33. I find it is an admitted fact that according to the balance sheet for the year 2006-07 the noticee had raised foreign currency convertible bonds of US dollars 50 millions and had incurred a foreign currency expenditure of Rs. 11.47 crorres for ra

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d introduce potential purchasers to the company in connection with the purchase of securities.
35 to 43    xxx    xxx    xxx
44. Further I find the ibid letter of engagement dated 20-04-2006 was translated into a further legal agreement MOU between the parties vide subscription agreement dated 30-06-2006, duly signed, dated and delivered and is legally binding upon both the parties.
45. The subscription agreement dated 30-06-2006, inter alia, provides for the following clauses –
(a) Preamble/Details
The issuer proposes, subject to the compliances all conditions set out herein. To issue US $ 4,00,00,000 3.5% convertible bonds due 2011. In addition, the issuer grants the manager an option to subscribe or procure subscription for up to an additional US $ 100,00,000 3.5% convertible bonds due 2011.
(b) Issue of the bonds (Clause 3)
The issuer undertakes to the manager (subject to the terms and in accordance with provisions of this agreeme

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

is as per the provision of clause 5 of subscription agreement).
49. I further find that the subscription agreement dt : 30-06-2006 is the authentic, genuine and legally binding agreement and the so called agreement (letter of engagement) dated 20-04-2006 was not a binding agreement which is clearly evident from the following paras/language in the said letter dt : 20-04-2006.
(A) The final terms and conditions governing the transactions shall be mutually agreed between the company and Jefferies.
(B) The terms of the transaction will be governed by one or more definitive agreements. This agreement is not intended to constitute a binding agreement to consummate the transaction or to enter into any agreement in relation to the transaction nothing in this agreement shall give rise to any underwriting or purchase obligation on the part of Jefferies in relation to the transaction. Similarly, nothing in this agreement shall give rise to any obligation on the part of the company to issue or

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

consider that the said letter dated 20.04.2008 was a relevant evidence in the present case and established the fact that the foreign service provider was indeed engaged and appointed by the notice as lead manager and sole placement agent for certain purpose and provision of services for raising FCCB of US$50 Millions in the FY 2006-07. The adjudicating authority erred in taking into account only the agreement MOU between the said parties dated 20.04.2006. It is pertinent to take note of the relevant fact that the transaction between the parties were initiated only through letter agreement dated 20.04.2006 and it is relevant as to the purpose, the motive and the intention behind the transaction to be carried out between the parties. Also, it is not disputed that only the letter agreement dated 20-04-2006 was translated into a further agreement MOU between the parties vide subscription agreement dated 30-06-2006.
The adjudicating authority further failed to consider the essence and sub

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

service provider in relation to the raising FCCB of US $ 50 Millions. Therefore, the findings of the Adjudicating Authority were perverse to the extent that in terms of the later and binding agreement dated 30.06.2006, the service provided were 'underwriting service' and not 'Banking and Other Financial service'.”
8. In the impugned order the CESTAT noticed this aspect and remitted the matter for de novo fresh consideration by the Commissioner in the following terms.
“7. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that in the instance case the main controversy is pertaining to the agreement between the service provider and service recipient. It is the allegation that in the memorandum of understanding, the scope has been enhanced and the new document has been given at the time of adjudication. The contention of the department is that both the agreements has different contents. When it is so, then we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the or

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

on both the genuineness of the document (agreement dated 30.06.2006) as well as on its interpretation. Given these facts, if the Tribunal was in doubt as to whether the document was genuine, the least that it could have done was to limit the findings on remand while retaining Revenue's appeal on the file. This Court notices that CESTAT has been repeatedly passing remand orders virtually abdicating its responsibility as an Appellate Court. This trend is unhealthy given that it is the final Court of fact and is required to adjudicate both on the issues of fact and law, especially in matters such as the present one i.e. where the appeal before it was by way of the first appeal.
11. In these circumstances, this Court hereby sets aside the impugned order. The Tribunal is hereby directed to render specific findings on the issue after taking into account the submissions of the parties and calling for a limited remand findings on the issue of genuineness of the document alone.
The appeal st

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ITC ON CANTEEN
Query (Issue) Started By: – SURYAKANT MITHBAVKAR Dated:- 16-7-2018 Last Reply Date:- 21-7-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 4 Replies
GST
We have provide CANTEEN facility to our employees free of cost.
Whether we are eligible for ITC Credit on purchase of goods for CANTEEN.
Reply By SHIVKUMAR SHARMA:
The Reply:
No.you are not eligible for ITC on purchase of goods for canteen, Which you are running for provide facility to your employee.
Reply By ANITA BHADRA:
T

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Tax rate for used machinery
Query (Issue) Started By: – Tharini R Dated:- 16-7-2018 Last Reply Date:- 18-7-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 2 Replies
GST
We want to sell used plastic injection moulding machineries, kindly let me know the tax rate for the same.
Reply By Alkesh Jani:
The Reply:
Sir,
If the said machinery is older than 5 years and if you have not availed any credit in erstwhile law, than the value shall be the transaction value. The Rate is 18%. Sl.No. 330 Ch.8

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Custom Paddy Milling Not an Intermediate Plant Cultivation Process; GST Rate Set at 5.
Circulars
GST – States
Clarification on taxability of custom milling of paddy – Milling of paddy is not

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST Exemption for State Govt General Insurance: Employees, Police, Electricity Dept, and Students Covered.
Circulars
GST – States
GST is not leviable on General Insurance policies provided by

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 25: GST Applies to Transactions Between Related Parties in Business, Even Without Consideration.
Circulars
GST – States
Supply of goods or services or both between related persons or

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =