Goods and Services Tax – Rate of tax – standing rubber trees – rubber trees are agreed to be severed before supply and hence, comes under the definition of goods – There is no differentiation between
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – GST – Dated:- 12-4-2018 – Ministry of Finance Posted On: 11 APR 2018 7:42PM by PIB Delhi With a view to remove any doubt or uncertainty regarding rate of GST applicable on supply of food and drinks in educational institutions, it is clarified that: – i. GST rate on supply of food and drinks in a mess or canteen in an educational institution attracts GST at 5% without INPUT Tax Credit (ITC). ii. If schools up to higher secondary level supply food directly to students, th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – GEE LIMITED – Dated:- 12-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 27-9-2018 – QUERY REGARDING GST APPLICABILITY ON PAYMENT OF WAGES TO INDIVIDUAL LABOURERS LABOUR CONTRACTOR PROVIDES WORKERS TO A FACTORY FOR MANUFACTURING OF GOODS. HE IS ISSUING THE FOLLOWING MONTHLY BILLS TO THE FACTORY BILL NO.1 (APRIL 2018) Total Mandays Amount REIMBURSEMENT OF WAGES (ACTUALS WITH EMPLOYEE WISE DETAILS) 1664 670844 EPF – EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION (ACTUALS) 39969 ESI – EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION (ACTUALS) 31866 TOTAL 742679 BILL NO.2 (APRIL 2018) Total Working Days Rate Amount CHARGES FOR PROVIDING LABOUR 1636 20 32720 (Total Mandays – Paid Holidays = Total Working Days) WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR IS LIABLE TO CHARGE GST ON BOTH THE BILLS OR WHETHER BILL NO.1 FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF ACTUAL WAGES, EPF AND ESI PAYMENTS WILL BE EXEMPTED FROM THE APPLICABILITY OF GST IN THE LIGHT OF SCHEDULE III (Section-7) – ACTIVITIES OR TRANSACTIONS WHICH SHALL BE TREATED NEITHER AS A SUPPLY OF GOODS NOR A S
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Chapter, the expenditure or costs incurred by a supplier as a pure agent of the recipient of supply shall be excluded from the value of supply, if all the following conditions are satisfied, namely,- (i) the supplier acts as a pure agent of the recipient of the supply, when he makes the payment to the third party on authorisation by such recipient; (ii) the payment made by the pure agent on behalf of the recipient of supply has been separately indicated in the invoice issued by the pure agent to the recipient of service; and (iii) the supplies procured by the pure agent from the third party as a pure agent of the recipient of supply are in addition to the services he supplies on his own account. Explanation.- For the purposes of this rule, the expression pure agent means a person who- (a) enters into a contractual agreement with the recipient of supply to act as his pure agent to incur expenditure or costs in the course of supply of goods or services or both; (b) neither intends to hol
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ent' of you as per the definition given in the rule. Therefore the contractor is correct in charging gst on the entire amount charged by him towards supply of manpower. – Reply By Susheel Gupta – The Reply = Employer of the contractual labour shall be the contractor not company. Moreover,as per ESI and PF records the employer shall be contractor. Therefor the transaction cannot be covered under Schedule III. Labour contractor cannot be treated as pure agent since as per rule 33(iii) the supplies procured by the pure agent from the third party as a pure agent of the recipient of supply are in addition to the services he supplies on his own account . In your case the contractor is not taking any additional services from the labour instead this is the primary services which the contractor is providing and charging for this. GST applicable on entire amount. – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = Beautifully explained by all experts. Appreciable for the quality. hard labour, precious ti
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – nandankumar roy – Dated:- 12-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 16-4-2018 – DEAR SIR, WHILE GONG THROUGH RECONCILE BETWEEN RETURN 3B AND GSTR 1 FOR 17-18 FOLLOWING ITC MISMATCH FOUND IN TOTAL TILL FEBRUARY ARE AS UNDER: IN GSTR1 LESS COMPARE TO 3 B RETURN IN IGST RS -11930 AND IN CGST AND SGST RS -5459 EACH NOW PL HELP TO HOW TO ADJUST IN MARCH'18 RETURN. IF ANY DISCRIPANCY WILL CREATE PROBLEM AT THE TIME OF AUDIT AND FOR THAT PL PROVIDE WHAT TO DO IN MARCH RETURN AS WELL AS MARCH HSN SUMMARY EFFECT ALSO. REGARDS, N K ROY 9427181604 – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = (i) At present problem of audit is not a matter of concern. This may arise later on. This will take one or more years. Meanwhile you hav
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
y By Ganeshan Kalyani – The Reply = GSTR 3B of March 2018 can ve filed on or before 20th Apr 2018. GSTR 1 of March is also yet to filed. Thus you can match rectify the error in March month return. In GSTR1 you have shown less amount of taxes. Means you have missed to include sales invoice of the value mentioned in your query. Include that invoice in March month GSTR1. Before filing return check the impact in excel working and after ensuring that the correction will make figures correct. Thanks – Reply By Alkesh Jani – The Reply = Sir, In continuation to the views expressed by our experts, i Just wish to add that Annual Return is awaited you can also rectify the omission or addition. – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = Desr Alkesh Jani Ji
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
h(s) or quarter(s). However, the amendment is for subsequent month or quarter. As we know that the quarterly filing of return GSTR-1 or GSTR-3B was not the intention of the Govt. Therefore, if any omission or rectification required, which were not done in the subsequent month or quarter, due to any reason, the Annual Return, where such reconciliation can be made and tax if any to be paid is required to be paid along with interest. As you might have noticed that Govt. intention was change the Accounting year from January to December. In this regards, Section 44 may please be referred. When the designed structure of GST has been distorted due to various factor, many ambiguity has arises. Now it the duty of the intellectuals to bring to the no
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Thevarkonda Suresh – Dated:- 12-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 12-4-2018 – Respected sirWhat will be GST Rate for construction of Single Residence Unit through contract andwhether inputtax can be claimed under contractregardsT S Suresh9940040892 – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = Exempted vide Notification No.12/17-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.17 as amended . Serial No.11 refers. Extracted below:- Rate Condition 11 Heading 9954 Services by way of pure lab
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (7) TMI 265 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Commercial Training and Coaching Services – the assessee M/s. National Maritime Academy (renamed as Indian Marine University since 2008) were rendering training on various courses to the officials of the Major Ports, Minor Ports and National Highway of India – Held that:- The courses offered by the assessee are recognized by law being courses run under approval of Government, the demand is without legal basis – demand cannot sustain – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – ST/647/2011, ST/Misc./41113/2017 and ST/687/2011 – Final Order Nos. 41126-41127/2018 – Dated:- 12-4-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate for the Assessee Shri r. Subramanian, AC (AR) for Revenue ORDER The issue arising for consideration in both these appeals being the same, they were heard together and are disposed by this common order. The parties herein are referred to as
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ppeal No.ST/647/2011 against confirmation of demand and department has filed Appeal No. ST/687/2011 against setting aside the penalties. 3. On behalf of the assessee, ld. counsel Shri M.N. Bharathi submitted that the marine courses are approved by Government of India authorities and no further statutory approval is required. He submitted the activity would not fall under Commercial Coaching or Training Service. The ld. counsel explained that the National Maritime Academy was set up for the purpose of providing training to the officials / employees of departments of major ports, minor ports and National Highway Authority of India. The courses conducted are attended by the participants nominated from ports and port related organisations. The academy is not set up with the commercial intention and the deficit in operating expenses for running this organization is being met by Indian Ports Association, New Delhi which is a registered society functioning on No Profit – No Loss basis under t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ort has granted approval to conduct Proficiency Medical First Aid and Elementary First Aid course. On perusal of the certificates issued for various courses, we find that these are issued under the auspices of Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport and Directorate General of Shipping. It is also submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee that vide Order-in-Appeal No. 118/2015 dated 19.5.2015, the Commissioner (Appeals) for the subsequent period has dropped the proceedings. Taking note of these as well as the fact that the courses offered by the assessee are recognized by law being courses run under approval of Government, the demand is without legal basis. Similar issue was analyzed by Tribunal in Final Order No. 43104/2017 dated 6.12.2017. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the demand cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with consequential relief, if any
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (6) TMI 109 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2018 (12) G. S. T. L. 353 (Guj.) – IGST on the imported goods – warehoused goods – Point of Taxation – sale of warehoused goods between the importer and any other person – Validity of Circular issued by CBEC dated 24th November 2017 – According to the petitioners, IGST on the imported goods can be levied only at the time of clearance of goods and the Government of India has no authority to levy such tax at the time of sale of warehoused goods before the customs clearance?
–
Notices issued. – R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5637 of 2018 Dated:- 12-4-2018 – MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. B. N. KARIA, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr Anand Nainawati (5970) ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (5) TMI 490 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Validity of service tax inquiry summons – Production of documents concerning the enquiry against the first petitioner relating to their liability to pay service tax under the Finance Act, 1994 – case of petitioner is that the first petitioner Board has no liability to pay service tax in respect of its transactions under the Finance Act, 1994 – Held that: – the issue to be decided in the said appeals as also in the writ petition is one and the same. In the circumstances, I am of the view that it may not be appropriate to permit the petitioners to raise the said issue collaterally in this proceedings – it would have been appropriate for the petitioners to approach the Appellate Tribunal referred t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
mentioned therein concerning the enquiry against the first petitioner relating to their liability to pay service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. Ext.P9 summons is under challenge in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The jurisdiction of the second respondent to issue a summons in the nature of one impugned in the writ petition under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, is not in dispute. On the other hand, the petitioners challenge the impugned summons on the ground that the first petitioner Board has no liability to pay service tax in respect of its transactions under the Finance Act, 1994. 4.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (4) TMI 1545 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 557 (All.) – Error in GST registration number of petitioner – migration from VAT to GST – Held that: – there are no reason why the authorities are not opening the portal to enable the petitioner to correct the particulars which are wrongly reported in the registration – necessary steps should be taken to redress the grievance of the petitioner – writ petition disposed off commanding the respondents to carry out necessary correction in the form of the petitioner. – WRIT TAX No. 631 of 2018 Dated:- 12-4-2018 – Hon'ble Krishna Murari And Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, JJ. For the Petitioner : Rahul Agarwal For the Respondent : C.S.C.,A.S.G.I. ORDER Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learne
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ax under the signature of one of its Directors namely Shri Dheeraj Jain and in support of the documentation the PAN card was appended. The petitioner was allotted a registration number for the purpose of Goods and Services Tax. However, in the registration the legal name of the petitioner has wrongly been mentioned as Dheeraj Jain. The GST registration number, user ID and password has been connected to the PAN number of Dheeraj Jain, who is one of the Director of the company. The migration process was completed using registration number and password allotted to the petitioner though it was incorrect. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite repeated request, reminder and also personal meeting with the officials the error is not being
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
of the petitioner (PAN No. AACCL0519Q) and for the purpose, if requires, the migration portal be opened. We see no reason why the authorities are not opening the portal to enable the petitioner to correct the particulars which are wrongly reported in the registration. Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India under whose control Goods and Services Tax Network function, has assured the Court that necessary steps should be taken to redress the grievance of the petitioner. Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel has also no objection to the prayer being granted. In the interest of justice, we dispose of the writ petition commanding the respondents to carry out necessary correction in the form of the petitione
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (4) TMI 1232 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 448 (Mad.) – Jurisdiction for investigating the service tax matter – centralized registration does not mention any place other than Chennai- transfer of files pertaining to the petitioner's case to the Jurisdictional Authorities/ Officers, viz., the respondents 3 and 4 for further proceedings – Circular No.1056/05/2017-C.X. dt. 29.07.2017 – Held that: – It is settled position that summons cannot be quashed or injuncted and this court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. M.M.Exports [2007 (3) TMI 265 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that the writ petition was not maintainable to quash the summons and dismissed the writ petition.
–
The respondents 1 and 2 have categorically stated that investigation is being carried out and the petitioner was carrying on business in Mumbai and in the Centralised Registration Certificate the Mumbai office was not registered – further, the Circular referred by the petitioner do
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
of "M/s.Meena Advertisers". In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the summons dated 02.01.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to transfer the files pertaining to the petitioner's case to the Jurisdictional Authorities/ Officers, viz., the respondents 3 and 4 for further proceedings. 3. The petitioner's case is largely based upon a circular issued by the Central Board on 29.07.2017 in Circular No.1056/05/2017-C.X. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to para 3.2 of the Circular, submitted that as far as show cause notice issued to the assessees having Centralised registration is concerned, the jurisdictional authority in the re-organised CGST/Central Excise Commissionerate exercising control over the business location, which had taken Centralised Registration (in the previous regime), may take up the adjudication of the legacy notice irrespective of the fa
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner were doing business in Mumbai and also issuing invoices from their Mumbai office, which was not mentioned in their Centralised Registration Certificate as Service Tax, it is imperative on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct investigation to safeguard the interest of Government Revenue. The learned counsel also referred to various other circulars in support of his contentions, which empowered the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct the investigation. 5. In the aforesaid factual background, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. It is settled position that summons cannot be quashed or injuncted and this court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. M.M.Exports reported in 2007 (212) E.L.T.165 (S.C.) held that the writ petition was not maintainable to quash the summons and dismissed the writ petition. Similar issue was considered in W.P.Nos.30066 & 30094 of 2017, dated 07.01.2017 and the w
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
unsel appearing for the petitioners is that the goods were imported through Chennai Port cleared by the Customs Authorities at Chennai and the second respondent being an Officer situated in Ahmadabad, would have no jurisdiction to summon the petitioners. In Ram Narain Bishwanth & Ors.,(supra), goods were imported by the respondent therein, which was cleared at Paradip Port in the State of Orissa, the goods were then transported to Howrah in State of West Bengal where they were seized by the Customs Authorities on the ground that they had been imported on the strength of fictitious licences. The Department held that the goods were liable for confiscation, which was challenged before the CEGAT which held that the Customs Authorities in West Bengal, had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and the appeal was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by directing the Customs Authorities at Paradip, State of Orissa to initiate proceedings against the respondent on the ground that th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ghtly pointed out by the learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondents both the decisions arose out of the proceedings under the Customs Act, where the jurisdiction of the Officer/Commissionerate was subject matter of consideration for which purpose, the Port of import was determined as the jurisdictional Commissionerate. In the instant case, the exercise done by the second respondent is investigation and it does not pertain to a single consignment imported by the petitioners. By the summons, dated 06.11.2017, the petitioners have been called upon to produce documents pertaining to the imports done for the period from 2013-14 to 2016-17. Infact, this Court in the earlier Writ Petition specifically directed that the summons should set out reasons for which the petitioner is being summoned. This has been explicitly stated with summons dated 06.11.2017. Therefore, it is not a singular transaction, which is being investigated, but past transaction as well. This has been held to be pe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
on on the enquiry or investigation under a statute is uncalled for. We have no doubt that such type of interference would impede the even course of enquiry or investigation into the serious allegations now pending. For what purpose the Division Bench made such interference with the functions of the statutory authorities, which they are bound to exercise under law, is not discernible from the order under challenge. It is not the function of the court to monitor investigation processes so long as such investigation does not transgress any provision of law. It must be left to the investigating agency to decide the venue, the timings and the questions and the manner of putting such questions to persons involved in such offences A blanket order fully insulating a person from arrest would make his interrogation a mere ritual [vide State rep by the CBI v. Anil Sharma, JT (1997) 7651]- 14. It was argued that the notification No.17/2002-Cus.(NT), dated 07.03.2002, though confers all India juris
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he Gazetted officer. Hence that question is concluded against the appellants. 10. A glance at Sec.108 of the Customs Act, under which the summons is given, would suggest that it is a power given to any Gazetted officer of the Customs Department to summon any person during any enquiry which the officer would make in connection with the smuggling of any goods. A summons can be for the production of the documents or those in possession or under the control of the persons summoned and such a summoned person is bound to attend and to state the truth upon any subject respecting which he is examined by the summoning officer. These powers are given obviously with an idea to check the smuggling. The definition of 'smuggling' is to be found in Sec.2(39) of the Act, which is as under: "smuggling in relation to any goods, means any act or omission which will render such goods liable to confiscation under Sec.111 or section 113" When Sec.111 is seen, it is clear that any goods bro
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ent of customs duty on certain conditions then, the Customs Officer will have all the powers to enquire as to whether the conditions, subject to which the said duty is exempted, have been followed or not and it is obvious that, in case of the breach of those conditions, those goods will be smuggled goods. We, therefore, do not see as to how a simple summons issued under Sec.108 of the Act could be termed to be a proceeding without jurisdiction, when it is the inherent power of the every Gazetted officer of the Customs Department to enquire into the matter of smuggling. 6. By applying the above decision to the facts of this case, the only conclusion that has to be arrived at is to dismiss the writ petition. The respondents 1 and 2 have categorically stated that investigation is being carried out and the petitioner was carrying on business in Mumbai and in the Centralised Registration Certificate the Mumbai office was not registered. Further more, the Circular referred by the petitioner
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Krishna V – Dated:- 11-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 15-4-2018 – Sir,A Tax payer is liable to pay duty for last 4 months and did not file returns. Now he is ready to pay with int. and file returns. If he takes registration now,(1) is it possible to file return for the past periods(2) if not how to handle the situation.Request the experts to offer their suggestions to resolve the issue – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = GST return can be filed only from th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – MistralSolutionsPrivateLimited – Dated:- 11-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 12-4-2018 – Dear All, Overseas customer wants to send few specific components (FOC) to our production unit and wants us to integrate the components into the final product. The final product will be exported to him . In this scenario, we will have to pay IGST at the time of import. This is clear. The question is whether the importer can avail the ITC. As per section, serial # 2D of section 16 of GST act, ITC is not eligible if the payment is not made to the supplier. Since we are not going to make the payment to the supplier as the components are supplied free of cost. Please clarify in this scenario, can we avail the ITC or not. re
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
er. Since we are not going to make the payment to the supplier as the components are supplied free of cost. Please clarify in this scenario, can we avail the ITC or not. – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = You will do assembling which is manfacturing process. How will you arrive at correct transactional value for the purpose of payment of GST ? May be for the purpose of export. Full value of goods including IGST to be paid, if you want ITC. This is my view. I would like oher experts to intervene. – Reply By Susheel Gupta – The Reply = Dear SirIGST on import is paid on reverse charge basis. condition of payment to supplier is not their when tax is to be paid on RCM basis. You can take the ITC.RegardsCA Susheel Gupta9811004443 – Discussion
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – lakush jain – Dated:- 11-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 15-4-2018 – Do I need to register for IEC code or can I just use GSTIN number? Below memo states that I can use GSTIN number but it is confusing that whether I still need to register with DGFT for IEC to consider my PAN number as IEC? http://dgft.gov.in/Exim/2000/TN/TN17/TN0918.pdf – https://www.taxmanagementindia.com/visitor/detail_circular.asp?ID=55882&kw=Changes-in-IEC-with-the-introduction-of-GST-regd – Reply By Alkesh Jani – The Reply = Sir, As GSTIN itself is pan base number, you do not require to register with DGFT. which clear from the para 2 of the said TN. Moreover, only in case where compulsory registration under Section 24 of CGST Act
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
6-2017 has stated that PAN would be the Import Export Code (IEC). However, while PAN is identifier at the entity level, GSTIN would be used as identifier at the transaction level for every import and export. Further, in scenarios where GSTIN is not applicable, UIN or PAN would be accepted as IEC. It is advised that all importers need to quote GSTIN in their Bills of Entry in addition to IEC. In due course of time IEC would be replaced by PAN/GSTIN. – Reply By YAGAY AND SUN – The Reply = Please also check Trade Notice No. 02/2018-19 dtd. 11th April 2018 Launch of facility to check status of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) application made to DGFT. IEC holders may please note that IEC is ready for Import/ Export of goods only after IEC details g
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal – Dated:- 11-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 14-4-2018 – Goods and Services Tax (GST), introduced from July 1, 2017 is over nine months old now but has resulted in operational and implementation disruptions affecting all stakeholders. GST law, as drafted and legislated, is not free from the interpretational hassles. GST Council his however, making regular changes to fix the anomalies and hardships faced by taxpayers. There were no legislative changes in the Union Budget -2018. Taxpayers have already started challenging various provisions of GST laws and rules framed there under with more than 100 writs being filed in different courts. High courts and Supreme court have taken a liberal stand so far in view of the fact that law is new and is yet evolving. However, CBIC may move to Supreme court where the verdict is against the Government. This has been indicated in Circular No. 39 dated 03.04.2018 wherein it is has been hinted in relati
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
egime to GST regime, some arrangements were required to be made and conditions with respect thereto be imposed. Further, Court referred to SC ruling in Jayam & Co., where it was held that when concession in form of Input Tax Credit is given by a Statute, Legislature has power to make provision stating the form and manner, in which such concession shall be allowed and there was no right, inherent or otherwise, vested with dealers to claim ITC benefit. In Age Industries Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant State Tax Officer, SGST Department, Kochi, [ 2018 (1) TMI 1116 – KERALA HIGH COURT ] where the assessee had sent goods to three parties for quality appraisal on job work basis against a series of delivery challans, it was held that detention of goods for reasons that they were not accompanied by document provided under rule 138(2) of Kerala GST Rules (e way bill) and were intended to be supplied to an unregistered firm was not sustainable. Therefore, it was decided that the Department was not abl
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
es Tax Council are in violation of Election Code of Conduct. In R.R. Agro Industries v. State of U.P. – 2018 (2) TMI 608 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , the assessee was transporting the consignment of goods from one State to another State and the department seized the consignment at Ghaziabad under section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017 but the assessee contended that the transaction in question was covered under the IGST Act, 2017 and the provisions of the UP GST Act, 2017 would not be applicable. Such consignment was not liable to be seized under the UP GST Act, 2017 and thus the assessee filed the writ petition in the High Court. It was held that in the matter of seizure under the provisions of the IGST Act, 2017, the provisions of Central GST Act, 2017, such as Section 129, would apply mutatis mutandis. The impugned order of seizure could not be held to be bad, in law, only for the reason that the wrong provision of Act had been mentioned. Hence, the impugned order was to be t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ructure Limited v. The Union of India through the Commissioner (GST) , The Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, (2018) 3 TMI 1268 (Rajasthan), where the assessee filed GST Tran-1 by electronic mode but returns filed by the electronic mode are not generated on the website of the Department and thus, were not accepted. By placing reliance in the case of Padmavati Enterprise, Abicor and Binzel Technoweld Pvt. Ltd. v The Union of India & Another [(2018) 3 TMI 539 Bombay High Court] it was directed to accept the returns on provisional basis. In Special Ashoka Beedi Works v. GST Officer, Madanpalle 2018 (3) TMI 739 – TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, it was held that since the seized vehicle was not liable for confiscation in default of payment of tax that may be determined/already determined, no purpose will be served by keeping the said vehicle under continued detention and was ordered to be released. In Shankar Mohan v. Intelligence Inspector, Ernkulam 2018 (1) TMI 179
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – lakush jain – Dated:- 11-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 18-4-2018 – I want to export some items to Nepal. The total amount of export is 1,00,000. I do not have any LUT yet so I will include IGST in the invoice which comes out to be 18,000.Now my total invoice amount becomesNet – 1,00,000IGST – 18,000Grand Total = 1,18,000 INRNow the person in NEPAL will not pay this GST to me because he has nothing to do with this 18% tax which I included in the invoice. What should I show in the invoice to credit this 18,000 INR because the person in NEPAL will only pay me 1,00,000 even though the invoice amount is 1,18,000.Please tell me how to show 18,000 pre-paid in the invoice for export with IGST?Thanks, – Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani – The Reply = In Tax invoice show the breakup of basic + tax. In commercial invoice shown total amount . Tax invoice is for GST compliance purpose and commercial invoice is for the importer. – Reply By SHIVKUMAR SHARMA – The Reply =
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
which is sufficient for export of your goods. – Reply By lakush jain – The Reply = This ARN number generated by online LUT portal, can I use just this with transport company to send my goods or do I need any other supported documents while sending my goods?Also do I need any Import Export Code (or IC code) before sending my goods to NEPAL or to generate LUT? – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = For export also, Import Export Code is must. – Reply By lakush jain – The Reply = but according to below MEMO , it says that if you have GSTIN number then IEC code is not necessary ? Going forward only GSTIN number will be used for transaction. I do have GSTIN number then do I still need to register for IEC code?http://dgft.gov.in/Exim/2000/TN/TN17/TN0918.pdf – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = PAN is to be treated as IEC if the goods to be exported are fully exempted. – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = Pl.read PAN based GSTIN instead of PAN. – Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani – The Reply = GS
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
cuments are required to be physically submitted to the jurisdictional office for acceptance of LUT. The Circular also stated that if an exporter s LUT has been accepted and later if it was discovered that the exporter was ineligible to furnish a LUT in place of a bond, then the LUT will be liable for rejection and such LUT shall be deemed to have been rejected from the very beginning. The Circular was issued upon receiving various queries from the field formations and exporters regarding a technical glitch that the LUTs submitted via online in FORM GST RFD-11 on the common portal were not visible to the jurisdictional officers of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) and of a few states. – Reply By Subhash Modi – The Reply = You need IEC, PAN, GSTIN whether the export is without payment of IGST under LUT or on payment of IGST under claim of refund, You can prepare 1) commercial invoice (international format both for exports and for IGST paid or not paid under LUT detai
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Vandana M – Dated:- 11-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 15-4-2018 – I am registered in Delhi and I get a service contract from outside India.As per the contract I have to provide services in India (Delhi and outside Delhi as well).What will be the GST liability in this case ? – Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani – The Reply = What is the nature of service? – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = GST applicable. – Reply By Alkesh Jani – The Reply = Sir/Madam, I agree with
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST – States – Trade Notice No. 01/2018-19 – Dated:- 11-4-2018 – OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, GOODS & SERVICES TAX HQRS.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the decision,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ns for resolution of the problem.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
o IT-glitch, shall be provided the facility to complete TRAN-1 filing. It is clarified that the last date for filing of TRAN-1 is not being extended in general and only these identified taxpayers shall be allowed to complete the process of filing TRAN-1.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (7) TMI 1421 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING – HARYANA – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 123 (A. A. R. – GST) – Levy of GST – amount of issuance fee retained/forfeited by LSRPL – scope of the term “actionable claim” – supply of services – Whether the value of points forfeited of the applicant on which money had been paid by the issuer of points on account of failure of the end customers to redeem the payback points within their validity period would amount to consideration for 'actionable claim' other than lottery, gambling or betting and therefore would not qualify as supply of either goods or services?
–
Whether the value of points forfeited of the applicant on which money has been paid by the issuer of points on account of failure of the end customers to redeem the payback points within their validity period can be treated as “supply” of any other goods or services and consequently be chargeable to GST under the CGST, HGST or IGST Act?
–
Held that:- Rewards points earned by the e
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
, under such circumstances.
–
The money equivalent to these reward/payback points, i.e. issuance fee given by partners and lying with LSRPL, which is retained by LSRPL in the name of forfeiting reward/payback points is nothing but revenue of LSRPL coming from the respective “partners” which has been earned by them owing to the activities of their providing services to the said “partners” through the loyalty programmes run by LSRPL – this amount is liable to be considered as consideration for supply of services by LSRPL to its partners in the normal course of business and becomes part of remuneration for LSRPL for providing services.
–
LSRPL is already charging service/management fee from the partner, on which LSRPL is paying GST. Thus, the retention of amounts received from partners as issuance fee by LSRPL and retained by LSRPL on account of non-redeeming of reward/payment points by end-customer would be liable to be added to the value of services being provided by LSRPL to th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the end customers to redeem the payback points within their validity period is to be treated as “supply” of services and consequently be chargeable to GST under the CGST, HGST or IGST Act as the case may be. – ADVANCE RULING NO. HAR/HAAR/R/2017/18/4 Dated:- 11-4-2018 – Sangeeta Karmakar (Member CGST) and Vijay Kumar Singh (Member) Present for the applicant : Sh Sandeep Chilana & Sh Atulya Kishore, Advocate (POA) Ruling The applicant namely M/s Loyalty Solutions and Research Pvt. Ltd. (LSRPL). owns and operates a reward point based loyalty programme that is integrated towards it partners and their customers. Under this programme, LSRPL is providing certain services to its clients/partner, such as M/s Nice Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (NICE). The applicant is managing the customer loyalty programme for its clients/partners such as NICE, which is based on issuance of reward points, also known as payback points by the applicant to end customers. These reward/payment points have value of 0.25
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
urchases of products of ''partners". c) in pursuance to these reward points management, "partner" transfers amount equivalent to 0.25 of INR, per reward point, as issuance charges to LSRPL d) Whenever any purchase is made by end customer, by using/redeeming rewards points, LSRPL transfers amount equivalent to 0.25 INR per reward point used to the concerned store and the concerned store gives discounts the payment to be received from end customer to this extent. e) The rewards points have a validity period of 36 months, meaning thereby that the customer cannot redeem these reward points, after expiry of 36 months from the date of issuance. f) It may happen that the customer does not or is not able to redeem the rewards points, within their validity period of 36 months from the date of issue. g) in such cases, as per the agreement, the rewards points are forfeited by LSRPL and the amount equivalent to 0 25 INR per reward point is being retained by LSRPL 4. The ques
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
to redeem the payback points within their validity period can be treated as "supply" of any other goods or services and consequently be chargeable to GST under the CGST, HGST or IGST Act? Comments of the concerned officer U/S 98(1) OF THE CGST/HGST ACT, 2017 5. The Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (ST), Gurgaon (East), vide letter No.3086 dt.22.03.18, submitted the requisite comments on both the above questions raised by the applicant, as under: (a) The applicant recovers the underlying value of 0.25 INR per reward point to the Customers of the partners enrolled under the loyalty programme and on issuance of such points the applicant charges issuance fees . However , the applicant nowhere submits that the amount received by the applicant in return of issuing points are returned back to the partners when such points are not used within validity period. Therefore, it is not an actionable claim as the applicant fails to meet all the characteristics as stated by the appl
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
, the above stated transaction will attract GST. Record of Personal Hearing 6. Personal hearing in the case was conducted on 11.04.2018 which was attended by Sh. Sandeep Chilana & Sh. Atulya Kishore, Advocates (POA). They had reiterated the submissions made in their application. After detailed discussions the application was admitted being covered by clause (e) & (g) of section 97 (2) of the CGST/HGST Act 2017 On the merit of the case they were heard in detail. Their main contention is that the redemption points issued to their clients for further distribution to the participant/end customers is in the nature of actionable claim and as per exclusion entry 6 of schedule-III of the CGST/HGST Act, these are not leviable to GST. Any amount of forfeited redemption points thus, also does not attract any GST. After hearing them in detail the judgment was reserved which Is being released today DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITY 7. As per Section 2(i) of the CGST/HGST Act, 2017,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
tions which shall be treated neither as supply of goods nor as supply of services. Point 6 in schedule III includes actionable claims other than lottery, betting and gambling. Therefore, such actionable claims which are not lottery, betting, gambling, though are goods under Section 2(52) of the CGST Act, but are excluded from levy of GST in terms of Schedule III to CGST Act. 9. Rewards points earned by the end customers for purchase of products of "partners" to loyalty programme are indeed "actionable claim". However, the question arises that, when these reward/payback points are not redeemed by the customer for the reasons that their validity period has expired, do such reward points continue to be actionable claim? 10. In this regard, it is observed that after the expiry of validity date, these reward/payback point can no longer be redeemed/encashed by the end customer and the end customer loses any right over them. Also, as per the definition of "actionable
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
s" which has been earned by them owing to the activities of their providing services to the said "partners" through the loyalty programmes run by LSRPL 12. Even from the clauses of agreement between LSRPL and the "partners", it is evident money equivalent of reward points expired/ not redeemed by customers/forfeited after expiry, would be retained by LSRPL. Thus, the agreement itself provides for revenue to LSRPL, in shape of retaining the issuance fee. In the event of the forfeiture, the Issuance fee received by the applicant from the partner in relation to such lapsed payment points, is retained by the LSRPL. Thus, the agreement between LSRPL and the partner specifically provides that it is actually the issuance fee that is being retained by LSRPL in the event of non-redemption of loyalty points by customers Thus, this amount is liable to be considered as consideration for supply of services by LSRPL to its partners in the normal course of business and become
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ted of the applicant on which money had been paid by the issuer of points on account of failure of the end customers to redeem the payback points within their validity period would amount to consideration received in lieu of services being provided by LSRPL to its clients and thus would be outside the scope of being considered as 'actionable claim' other than lottery, gambling or betting and therefore would qualify as supply of services in terms of Section 7 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017/Haryana Goods and Services Act, 2017 and therefore would be within the scope of levy of GST. 14.2 The value of points forfeited of the applicant on which money has been paid by the issuer of points on account of failure of the end customers to redeem the payback points within their validity period is to be treated as "supply" of services and consequently be chargeable to GST under the CGST, HGST or IGST Act as the case may be. – Case laws – Decisions – Judgements – Ord
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (7) TMI 1334 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS HARYANA – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 132 (A. A. R. – GST) – Place of supply – sourcing (on a worldwide basis)) of goods from India – export or not – sourcing (on a worldwide basis)) of goods which includes wearing apparel, shoe & accessories and fabric – sub-contract – refund of GST paid on inputs and input services used in export of services – Jurisdiction.
–
Taxability of above stated services provided by Esprit India to its associate concern in Hong Kong EDCFE under GST regime? – Held that:- As per Explanatory Notes to the Scheme of Classification of Services read with N/N. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dt. 28/07/2017 (as amended), the services enumerated by the applicant in tabular form as given above, qualify as taxable services – taxability upheld.
–
Whether the above stated services provided by Esprit are covered under Export of Services having Zero rated taxability? – Jurisdiction – Held that:- Whether a transaction is “export
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
es made thereunder is the competent authority for the same – However, with regard to giving Advance Ruling on this question, it is observed that as the earlier question relating to export of services is dependent upon the definition of “place of supply”, which is out of jurisdiction of the authority, this instant question too, being corollary to earlier question, cannot be taken up for pronouncing any ruling due to lack of jurisdiction.
–
Ruling:- The services provided by Esprit India to its associate concern in Hong Kong EDCFE are taxable supplies.
–
The above stated services being taxable supplies, the question as to whether they qualify as “export of services” and accordingly “zero rated supply”, is out of jurisdiction of this authority.
–
The same proposition applies to the question as to whether Esprit India is eligible for seeking refund of GST for the taxes paid on input services or goods, due to lack of jurisdiction. – AAR No. HAR/HAAR/R/2018-19/6 Dated:- 11-4-2018
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
. Under the agreement, Esprit is appointed by EDCFE to provide services to EDCFE in relation to goods and merchandise including wearing appreal, shoes & accessories and. A brief description of the functions/responsibilities of EDCFE and Esprit Germany and Esprit India is listed below; S.No. Functions/Activities Role of EDCFE/Esprit Germany Role of Esprit India 1. Market research No role Esprit India conducts market research to understand market dynamics, gather pricing information from different suppliers and advise on the best available combination of price, quality and delivery of the goods for Esprit Germany. 2. Purchase of goods and trademark protection Esprit Germany directly purchases goods from Indian suppliers Esprit India performs its functions as a sub-sourcing contractor of and does not purchase the goods or trade its own name. It assists in protection of trademark which includes ensuring that suppliers execute all trademark confirmation letters, comply with the trademar
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
dopted during manufacturing, stock keeping in warehouse and transportation Esprit India based on the guidelines received from EDGE conducts quality checks at various stages of production. it also checks whether the goods meet the specification, quality, delivery time, and other requirement of Esprit Germany. 6. Logistics Products are dispatched by the suppliers to Esprit Germany. Esprit India makes logistics arrangement for the goods in accordance with the instructions of Esprit Germany received through EDCFE and assure that all documents related to shipment of the goods Esprit Germany are proper. 7. Contract conclusion No Role Esprit India does not participate in activities which bring supplier and Esprit Germany into binding contract of purchase of goods. 8. Involving and payment Suppliers directly invoice to Esprit Macao and it makes payment directly to the suppliers No role in the invoicing and payment process as all invoices are sent directly by suppliers to Esprit Germany without
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ided by Esprit India to ITS associate concern in Hong Kong EDCFE under GST regime, it is observed that as per as per Explanatory Notes to the Scheme of Classification of Services read with Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dt. 28/07/2017 (as amended), the services enumerated by the applicant in tabular form as given above, qualify as taxable services, in the following manner and chargeable to GST under forward charge. S.No. Functions/Activities Role of EDGE/Esprit Germany Role of Esprit India SAC & Description Taxability 1. Market research No role Esprit India conducts market research to understand market dynamics, gather pricing information from different suppliers and advice on the best available combination of price, quality and delivery of the goods for Esprit Germnay. 998371 Market research services. This service code includes market analysis, analysis of competition and the behaviour of consumers, use of research monographs, statistics, econometric models surveys, e
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
iers EDCFE provide guidelines and instructions to Esprit India regarding vendor selection process Esprit India responsible for collecting data for the purpose of vendor evaluation. Esprit India undertakes vendor evaluation on various parameters including experience, reputation, quality of product, price etc. based on which the vendor is selected. Esprit India is also responsible for maintaining the existing and new supplier base in India. 998599 support Other services n.e.c. This service code includes business brokerage and appraisal services other than for real estate; Taxable under forward charge @ 18% [S.No. 23(ii) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dt. 28.07.2017] 4. Negotiation with the suppliers Esprit Germany directly negotiate and contract with supplier in respect of goods sourced from India. Esprit India only communicates the terms and conditions to the extent of instructions and requirements received from Esprit Germany {through EDCEF) but is not involved in negot
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ax (Rate) dt. 28.07.2017] 6. Logistics Products are dispatched by the supplier to Esprit Germany. Esprit India makes logistics arrangement for the goods in accordance with the instructions of Esprit Germany received through EDCFE and assure that all documents related to shipment of the goods Esprit Germany are proper. 998311 Management consulting and management services including financial, strategic, human resources, marketing, operations and supply chain management This Service code includes services provided in relation to logistics management. Taxable under forward charge @ 18% [S.No. 23(ii) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dt. 28.07.2017] 7. As regards the question of above stated services provided by Esprit India, also being covered under export of services having zero rated taxability, it is observed that zero rated supply has been defined under Section 16(1) of the integrated Goods and Services Act, 2017, as under: zero rated supply means any of the following supp
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
bath supplied, in accordance with the provisions of section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act or the rules made thereunder. Further, as per Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017, export of services is defined as under: 2 (6) export of services means the supply of any service when- (i) the supplier of service is located in India; (ii) the recipient of service Is located outside India; (iii) the place of supply of service is outside, india; (iv) the payment for such service has been received by the supplier of service in convertible foreign exchange; and (v) the supplier of service and the recipient of service are not merely establishments of a distinct person in accordance with Explanation 1 in section 8; From the above, it is evident that whether a transaction is export of services or not, is dependent upon the tact as to whether the place of supply of service is out of India or not. Consequently, if the advance ruling authority proceeds ahead with examination and consideratio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
supply (which is not among the issues which can be decided by AAR], the question cannot be taken up by the authority for lack of jurisdiction, 8. As regards refund of GST paid on inputs and input services used in export of services, is dependent upon the fulfillment of conditions as prescribed under Section 2(6) and Section 16(1), both of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax, 2017. Such refund claims merit to be examined in terms of provisions of Section 54 of the CGST/HGST Act, 2017 and rules made thereunder. The proper officer under the CGST/HGST Act, 2017 and roles made thereunder is the competent authority for the same. However, with regard to giving Advance Ruling on this question, it is observed that as the earlier question relating to export of services is dependent upon the definition of place of supply , which is out of jurisdiction of the authority, this instant question too, being corollary to earlier question, cannot be taken up for pronouncing any ruling due to lack of j
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (7) TMI 1333 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS HARYANA – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 112 (A. A. R. – GST) – Levy of GST – Unit container – packing being considered as unit container or not? – Sheep/goat meat in carcasses of different weight and size in frozen Slate and similarly whole chicken of different weight and size is also supplied in frozen State to Army – case of applicant is that the dispatches made by them in LDPF/HDPE bags, both primary well as secondary packing do not qualify as unit container and therefore their product is not leviable to tax under GST.
–
Held that:- The items mentioned in tariff heading 0204 or 0207 [other than fresh or chilled] would be exigible to tax @ 5% if these are put up in a 'unit container' and bears a brand name or bears a brand name on which actionable claim or enforceable right in court of law is available [other than those where any actionable claim or enforceable right in respect of such brand name has been forgone voluntarily], subject to
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
n frozen state in different weight and size packed in LDPE bags without mentioning the weight and one or two such LDPE bags further packed in HDPE hags having mention of varying actual total weight of the carcasses packed in each such HDPE bags and supplied to Army Shall not quality as product put up in ‘unit Container'.
–
The products as mentioned at (a) and (b) above fall under exemption list as per entry no. 10 and 13 of N/N. 2/2017-lntegrated tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 upto 14th November 2017 and thereafter as per entry No. 9 of N/N. 44/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 14th November 2017. – AAR No. HAR/HAAR/R/2017-18/7 Dated:- 11-4-2018 – SANGEETA KARMAKAR AND VIJAY KUMAR SINGH, MEMBER Present for the Applicant: Sh. Ashok Misra, C.A. Sh. Aman Sharma, Manager Present for the department: Sh. Rakesh Dhaiya, ETO, Mewat. Factual Background M/s. AOV Agro Food Pvt. Ltd. ( AOV') is engaged in slaughtering and processing of poultry/sheep/goat meat and supplies products export
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
pplication for advance ruling on the following:- The product meat of sheep/goat attracts HSN 0204 and for meat and edible offal of the poultry the four digit HSN code is 0207. W.e.f. 1st July, 2017 to 14th November, 2017 the provision relating to taxability/exemption under GST law was as under:- Vide schedule-II of notification 1/2017 Integrated Tax (rate) dated 28.06.2017 the product of chapter heading 0204 and 0207, frozen and put in unit containers were taxable @ 12%. Vide schedule-I of notification no. 43/2017 Integrated Tax (rate) dated 14.11.2017 the product of chapter heading 0204 and 0207, other than fresh or chilled and in unit container and bearing a registered brand name or bearing a brand name on which actionable claim is available, were made taxable @ 5%. In view of the above, it is the applicant's case that the dispatches made by them in LDPF/HDPE bags, both primary well as secondary packing do not qualify as unit container and therefore their product is not leviable
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
l representative had stated that the applicant firm is packing the animal carcasses and the whole chicken in bags for supplying to their customers, i.e. Army, in unit containers and therefore it attracts GST @12% upto 14.11.2017 and thereafter @ 5%. The applicant had strongly argued that the packing done by them cannot be said to be unit containers as it is defined in the explanation to mean a package designed to hold a pre-determined quantity or number which is indicated on such package. The applicant had cited several case laws where the definition of unit container had been discussed and adjudicated. After hearing and discussion in detail. the decision was reserved which is being released today. Discussion and finding of the authority GST is chargeable as reference to value and at applicable rates. For the purpose of building a point of view reference is made to the IGST rate schedule. W.e.f. from 1st July, 2017 till 14th November, 2017 Schedule II of the Notification no. 1/2017-Int
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
thereon. Relevant extract is reproduced below: Schedule- Sr. No. Chapter/Heading/Sub-heading/Tariff item Description of Goods 10. 0204 Meat of sheep or goats, [other than frozen and put up in unit containers] 7. 0207 Meat and edible offal, of the poultry of heading 0105, [other than frozen and put up in unit containers.] W.e.f. from 15th November, 2017 onwards. Schedule I of the Notification no. 43/2017-Integrated Tax (rate) dated 14th November, 2017 deals with the products which are subject to 5% GST and entry No. 1 which pertain to sheep meat and poultry meat are provided below:- Schedule-I Sr. No. Chapter/Heading/Sub-heading/Tariff item Description of Goods 1. 0204 0207 All goods (other than fresh or chilled) and put up in unit container and- (a) bearing a registered brand name; (b) bearing a brand name on which actionable claim or enforceable right in court of law is available [other than those where any actionable claim or enforceable right in respect of such brand name has been
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ing/Sub-heading/Tariff item Description of Goods 1. 0204 0207 All goods, fresh or chilled 2. 0204 0207 All goods (other than fresh or chilled) and put up in unit container and- (a) bearing a registered brand name; (b) bearing a brand name on which actionable claim or enforceable right in court of law is available [other than those where any actionable claim or enforceable right in respect of such brand name has been voluntarily], subject to conditions as in the annexure I] ; A conjoint reading of the extracts of the above mentioned notifications reveal that on products of Chapter/Heading/Sub-heading/TarifT item 0204 and 0207 GST is chargeable subject to fulfilment of conditions as tabulated below: W.e.f. 1st July. 2017 to 14th November, 2017 Must be frozen Must be packed in unit container W.e.f. 15th November, 2017 Must be frozen Must he packed in unit container Must bear a brand. Since the applicant has sought advance ruling only on the question of taxability of the product viz a viz
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
acked in LDPE bag (primary packing) which is not sealed and no weight is mentioned on such LDPE bags. Thereafter. such LDPE bags are put in HDPE bags (secondary packing) which do not contain fixed number or primary packing and also no quantity is mentioned. Thus, the packing of the frozen carcasses and chicken done by them is only a medium of delivery and since these are not in pre-determined units, these packing cannot be termed as 'Unit Containers' To substantiate their view regarding unit container the applicant had cited several case laws. Reliance is placed on the case of CCE. Vs Shalimar Super Foods [2007 (210) ELT 695 (Tri-Mumbai) and Surya Agro Oils Ltd. vs CCE, Indore, 2000 (116) E.L.T. 514. In CCE. Vs Shalimar Super Foods [2007 (210) ELT 695 (Tri-Mumbai) the Hon'ble bench had considered the question of Unit Container' and observed in para 3: 3….However, unit container, as per the definitions contained in several dictionaries, is a container containing pre-de
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
dardised quantity done by the applicant cannot be regarded as Unit Container' since it is not standardised to hold a uniform pre-determined quantity. Also in the explanation appended to the Notification No. 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 a unit container means a package, whether or small (for example tin, can, jar, box, bottle, bag, carton, drum. barrel or canister) designed to hold a pre-determined quantity or number, which is indicated on such package. The explanation itself suggests that the make of the container should be such which can hold a predetermined quantity or number. It should he such that when packed it holds the predetermined quantity or the number for which it is designed. As shown to us the packaging by the applicant can weigh 10 Kgs or 11 Kgs or for that matter 10.5 or 10.25 kgs. depending upon the weight of two frozen carcasses or weight or 20-25 frozen chickens, as the case may be, packed in secondary packaging. Neither the packaging is unifo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (7) TMI 264 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Classification of services – hire charges collected towards letting out of the studio for shooting – whether for the period upto 1.6.2007, the respondents are liable to pay service tax for letting out the studio under the category of Video Tape Production? – Held that:- The activity of letting out the studio will not come within the definition of Video Tape Production.
–
The Board’s Circular dated 9.7.2001 referred to by the ld. AR has clarified so as to include the letting out of studio, other facilities such as lights, gadgets etc. falling under Video Tape Production services. The said Circular extends beyond the definition provided in the statute.
–
Appeal dismissed – decided against Revenue. – ST/Misc./41480/2017 and ST/518/2011 – Final Order No. 41095 / 2018 – Dated:- 11-4-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Appellant Ms.Cynd
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ard his arguments referring to the definition of Video Tape Production contained in section 65(120) and also Video Production Agency under section 65(119) of Finance Act, 1994. He also referred to the CBEC Circular F.No. B.11/1/2001-TRU dated 9.7.2001 and argued that the Board has clarified that the activity of letting out the studio premises would attract service tax under the category of Video Tape Production . 3. The ld. counsel Ms.Cynduja Crishnan appearing for respondent relied upon the decision rendered in their own case on identical facts wherein the Tribunal has held the issue in their favour. She submitted that the Tribunal in the said Final Order had taken note of the definition contained in the Finance Act and also the Board s Circular referred by the ld. AR. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue for consideration is whether for the period upto 1.6.2007, the respondents are liable to pay service tax for letting out the studio under the category of Video Tape Production. We have
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
as to include the letting out of studio, other facilities such as lights, gadgets etc. falling under Video Tape Production services. The said Circular extends beyond the definition provided in the statute. Needless to say that Circulars of CBEC are not binding upon the Tribunal. Moreover, the respondent has been discharging service tax liability on the rent received with effect from1.6.2007 when renting of immovable property service became taxable. 7. Following the decision in the respondent s own case, vide Final Order No. 43507/2017 dated 19.12.2017, we are of the considered view that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the demand. 8. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as devoid of merit. 9. The miscellaneous application filed by Revenue for change of cause title is allowed. (Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court) – Case laws – Decisions – Judgements – Orders – Tax Management India – taxman
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST – States – NO. CCT/CCW/GST/74/2015 – Dated:- 11-4-2018 – GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. CCT/CCW/GST/74/2015 DATED: 11-4-2018 In exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-rule 14 of rule 138 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the Chief Commissioner of State Tax hereby notifies that the proceedings issued vide CCTs Ref. in CCW/GST/74/2015, Dated 29-3-2018 exempting e-way bill generation for movement of goods within t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (4) TMI 1552 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Valuation – inclusion of subsidy amounts in the value of the goods cleared by the appellants – Revenue was of the view that VAT liability discharged by the utilisation of the investment subsidy granted in Form 37B actually paid, for the purpose of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act – Held that:- Identical issue decided in the case of SHREE CEMENT LTD. SHREE JAIPUR CEMENT LTD. VERSUS CCE, ALWAR [2018 (1) TMI 915 – CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that There is no justification for inclusion in the assessable value, the VAT amounts paid by the assessee using VAT 37B Challans – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – E/50001, 50041, 50152, 50153, 50158, 50159, 50185, 50186, 50188, 50189, 50193, 50225, 50226/2018-DB – Final Order No. 51427-51514/2018 – Dated:- 11-4-2018 – E/50001, 50041, 50152, 50153, 50158, 50159, 50185, 50186, 50188, 50189, 50193, 50225, 50226, 50235, 50257, 50260, 50263, 50269, 50270, 50271, 50294, 50295, 5029
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ecision India Pvt Ltd, Daido India Pvt Ltd, Rajasthan Flexible Packaging Ltd, Airtrax Polymers Pvt Ltd, Jaquar & Company Pvt Ltd, FCC Clutch India Pvt Ltd, Premier Bars Pvt Ltd, Jagdamba Tmt Mills Ltd, Shree Balaji Forgings Pvt Ltd, Shree Balaji Furnaces Pvt Ltd, Shera Energy Pvt Ltd, Crystal Polytech Pvt Ltd, Shiva Steelage Pvt Ltd, Budhia Steel, Pine Laminates Pvt Ltd, Sanwariya Furnaces Pvt Ltd, Shree Salasar Polyflex Pvt Ltd, Allied JB Friction Pvt Ltd, Aakriti Prime, Tokai Rubber Auto Parts Industries Pvt Ltd, Unik Dispoware Pvt Ltd, Takahata Precision India Pvt Ltd, Sanjo Forge India Pvt Ltd, Fine Products Pvt Ltd, TS Tech Sun Rajasthan Pvt Ltd, New Swan Enterprises (Unit IV), Inox Air Products Private Limited, Raghupati Casting P Ltd, Giri Raj Casting P Ltd, Galaxy Taps Private Limited Neemrana Steel Service Centre India, Trans Acnr Solutions P Ltd, Maruti Products Pvt Ltd, Sanjog Steels Pvt Ltd, BMI Industries, Fiem Industries Limited, Banglore Polycotters Pvt Ltd, Oji Jk P
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
atish Chandra: 1. The present appeals have been filed against the above mentioned Order-in-Appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants have established their factories in the State of Rajasthan and were operating under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme which was notified by the Government of Rajasthan with the objective of facilitating investment in the establishment of new enterprises under the various schemes of Rajasthan Government. The appellants (assessees) were eligible for subsidies as per the various schemes applicable to the assesses and they were required to deposit VAT/CST/SGST at the applicable rate with the Government and in terms of the scheme notified, will be entitled to disbursement of subsidy by the appropriated authorities. The subsidy concern is sanctioned and disbursed in Form 37B and as such challans in the form VAT 37B can be utilised for discharge of the VAT liability of the appellant for subsequent period. The Revenue was of the view that
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
scharge their VAT liability by making payment of the same. Out of such VAT credited to the Government, a certain portion is disbursed back to them in the form of subsidies. Such disbursement happens in the form of VAT 37 B, challan which can be utilized in subsequent periods to discharge VAT liability. The crux of the dispute in the present case is whether such subsidy amounts are required to be included in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellants, in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. As per the concept of transaction value outlined in Section 4, with effect from 01/07/2000, any sales tax/VAT actually paid can be deducted from the transaction value for payment of excise duty. Revenue has taken the view that payment of VAT using 37B Challans cannot be considered as actual payment of VAT. 8. Both sides have referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Super Synotex India Ltd. In the above decision the Apex Court has categorically held that
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
using such Challan are considered legal payments of tax. In view of the above, Revenue is not correct in taking the view that VAT liability discharged by utilizing such subsidy challans cannot be taken as VAT actually paid. 10. It is pertinent to reproduce the observations of the Tribunal in the Welspun Corporation Ltd. case 5.1 The Respondent company opted for Remission of Tax Scheme and was thus eligible for the Capital subsidy in the form of remission of Sales Tax subject to the conditions to be fulfilled…. The subsidy in the form of remission of sales tax was in fact a percentage of capital investment… Separate assessment orders were thus issued by the assessing officer of the sales tax department from time to time towards the incentive scheme amount. The Competent Authority was required to necessarily pass order for remission of such tax separately for each tax period. The remission of tax is thus directly related to capital investment in fixed asset. There was no op
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (5) TMI 526 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (12) G. S. T. L. 118 (All.) – Detention of goods with vehicle – E-Way Bill No.01 not available – Held that: – respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile SquadXI, Kanpur, U.P. is directed to appear before the Court on 13.04.2018 to explain as to under which authority of law he intercepted the vehicle and passed the seizure order despite E-Way Bill No.01 was generated and produced – respondents are directed to release the seized goods and vehicle forthwith – petition allowed. – Writ Tax No. 628 of 2018 Dated:- 11-4-2018 – Hon'ble Krishna Murari And Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, JJ. For the Petitioner : Niraj Kumar Singh,Amit Mahajan For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER Petitione
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
s issued on the ground that since the E-Way Bill No.01 is not available as such the physical verification of the goods loaded is to be made and fixed 02.04.2018 for physical verification and inspection at 11-00 a.m. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that E-Way Bill No.01 was generated on 01.04.2018 at about 09-57 a.m. and produced before the respondent no. 2, however, seizure order under Section 129(1) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (in short 'GST Act, 2017') has been passed on 02.04.2018 at about 8-55 a.m. much before the time fixed for physical verification and inspection of the goods. It is also submitted that it has wrongly been recorded in the seizure order passed under Section 129(1) of the GST Act, 2017
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
justify the impugned order in the facts and circumstances of the case. We are noticing that despite there being no requirement every day petitions are being filed challenging the interception and seizure made by the authorities for want of E-Way Bill No.01. In such circumstances, we require respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad-XI, Kanpur, U.P. to appear before the Court day after tomorrow (13.04.2018) to explain as to under which authority of law he intercepted the vehicle and passed the seizure order despite E-Way Bill No.01 was generated and produced. Considering the facts, effect and operation of the seizure order passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 129(1) of GST Act, 2017 (Annexure-6 to the writ peti
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (5) TMI 170 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 438 (All.) – Levy of advertisement tax – omission of clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 172 and Sections 192 and 193 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 – Held that: – Prima facie, the issue requires scrutiny – further proceedings to remain stayed till next date of listing. – WRIT TAX No. – 622 of 2018 Dated:- 11-4-2018 – Hon'ble Krishna Murari And Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, JJ. For Petitioner : Gulrez Khan,Javed Husain Khan For Respondent : C.S.C.,Sudhanshu Pandey ORDER Heard Shri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by J.H. Khan appearing for the petitioners and Shri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. It is contended that in view of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
