Goods and Services Tax

2018 (4) TMI 1447 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Manufacture – processing of iron ore – Revenue held a view that such conversion of iron ore into concentrates will amount to manufacture and liable to central excise duty – Held that: – the identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jains Mines and Minerals (India) Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Jabalpur [2017 (10) TMI 1283 – CESTAT, Delhi], where it was held that There is no special process facility with the appellant. Improvement in the content of “Fe” due to the processes undertaken by the appellant by itself will not make the resultant product as iron ore concentrate – the process do not amount to manufacture – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Excise Appeal No.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

n ore into concentrates will amount to manufacture and liable to central excise duty. So the demand of duty was raised along with penalty. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed a present appeal. 3. With this background, we heard Shri Z U Alvi and Shri S K Bansal, learned representatives of the parties and gone through the material available on record. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jains Mines and Minerals (India) Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Jabalpur [Final Order No. 57214/2017 dated 10.10.2017 ] where it was observed that- 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal record. The only dispute i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

India – 2003 (154) E.L.T. 65 (T) affirmed by Apex Court – 2012 (283) E.L.T. A112 (S.C.) (c) Indian Rare Earth Ltd. – 2002 (139) E.L.T. 352 (T) affirmed by Apex Court – 2009 (241) E.L.T. A70 (S.C.); and (d) Super Engineering – 1996 (82) E.L.T. 539 (T). 5. It is clear that process undertaken by the appellant do not amount to manufacture of new product as understood in the industry. Accordingly, we find the impugned order is without merit and the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. 5. In view of the above, following our earlier order (supra), we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) – Case laws – Decisions – Judgements – Orders – Tax Management India –

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Rupali Malik – Dated:- 3-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 9-4-2018 – If a seller A supplies goods to Buyer B And now the goods are to be returned. Are both parties liable to issue credit/Debit note respectively ?? – Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani – The Reply = In GST credit note / debit note are to be raised by the supplier of the goods. However, buyer can raise debit note. – Reply By YAGAY AND SUN – The Reply = Goods can be returned by the buyer on an invoice if ful

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Setting up of an IT Grievance Redressal Mechanism to address the grievances of taxpayers due to technical glitches on GST Portal – CBIC issues directions. – TMI Updates – Highlights

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Bhavya P – Dated:- 3-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 7-4-2018 – Dear Sir/Madam,While getting the LUT Bond from department we were submitting the proof of export,how about online submission do we need to submit the proof of exports. – Reply By SHIVKUMAR SHARMA – The Reply = No need to submit Proof of Export to the Deptt.but we have to keep our record updated at our end. – Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani – The Reply = It is online . – Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani – The Re

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – MohanLal tiwari – Dated:- 3-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 7-4-2018 – Dear Experts, As per section 16 of CGST act. – where a recipient fails to pay to the supplier of goods or services or both, other than the supplies on which tax is payable on reverse charge basis, the amount towards the value of supply along with tax payable thereon within a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of issue of invoice by the supplier, an amount equal to the input tax credit availed by the recipient shall be added to his output tax liability, along with interest thereon, in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided also that the recipient shall be entitled to avail of the credit of input tax on payment made b

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Bimal jain – Dated:- 3-4-2018 – Dear Professional Colleague, E-way bill provision of GST, first introduced on 1 February 2018 was initially made mandatory for inter-state transportation of goods, having consignment value of more than ₹ 50,000 through road, railways, airways and vessels. However, after the e-way bill portal crashed on the very first day due to technical glitches, the government extended the deadline and asked GSTN to develop a fool-proof system before the re-launch of the bill. Thereafter, the Central Government has substituted Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 ( CGST Rules ) vide Notification No. 12/2018- Central Tax, dated March 7, 2018 and notified April 01, 2018 as the date from which E-way bill Rules shall come into force for all inter-state movement of goods, having consignment value more than ₹ 50,000 vide Notification No 15/2018-Central Tax dated March 23, 2018. Further, E-way bill will a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ab, then, Click on Send OTP and verify the same, after checking the auto-filled details. Enter the OTP received on the registered mobile number and verify the same by clicking on the verify OTP button . Create a New User id and password by your own choice. The system validates and pops up a message if there is an error in the details entered by you. Once all the details are correctly filled, User ID and password will be created. *Note: Tips for creating Username & Password: The username should be of at least 8 characters with a combination of alphabets (A-Z/a-z), numerals (0-9) and special characters (@, #, $, %, &, *, ^) and can t exceed more than 15 characters. The password should be of at least 8 characters. When to generate E-way bill: Every registered person either consignor or consignee, who is causing the movement of goods of consignment value exceeding fifty thousand rupees- in relation to a supply (e.g. Sale, Purchase, etc.); or for reasons other than supply (e.g. Job

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

gnment value: Where goods are sent by a principal located in one State or Union territory to a job worker located in any other State or Union territory, the e-way bill shall be generated either by the principal or the job worker, if registered, irrespective of the value of the consignment. A person who has been exempted from registration under clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 24 and making inter-state movement of handicraft goods shall generate E-way bill irrespective of the value of the consignment. Meaning of Person causing the movement: Broadly, the movement of goods may either be caused by registered consignor (supplier) or registered consignee (recipient) or where the goods are supplied by unregistered person as consignor to a registered recipient, then, such consignee shall be treated as the person causing the movement of goods. Who can generate E-way Bill: E-way bill shall be generated by registered person either consignor or consignee, causing the movement of goods after furnish

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ing details in Part A, because unique number generated after furnishing details in Part A shall become invalid after 15 days. Generation of E-way bill – Optional: In certain cases, E-way bill may be generated at the option of consignor or consignee or transporter and these situations should be either of the following: Where consignment value is less than fifty thousand rupees; or Where movement of goods is taking place between unregistered supplier and unregistered recipient; Consolidated E-way bill: A transporter may, at his option, generate a consolidated E-way bill in Form EWB-02 by indicating serial number of all the e-way bills generated, where multiple consignments are intended to be transported in one conveyance. Details to be filled in Part A & Part B of Form EWB 01: Following data are to be furnished in Part A which may be used for furnishing details in Form GSTR-1: GSTIN of Recipient Place of Delivery Invoice/ Bill of Supply/ Delivery challan/ Bill of Entry – Document Num

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ted as: 1st day: Mid-night of the date following the date on which E-way bill is generated. All subsequent day: Mid night of the date. However, this period of one day may be extended by the commissioner for certain categories of goods which may be notified on recommendation of GST Council. Extension of Time Validity of E-way bill: Provided further that, where under circumstances of an exceptional nature, including trans-shipment, the goods cannot be transported within the validity period of the e-way bill, the transporter may extend the validity period after updating the details in Part B of FORM GST EWB-01, if required. Acceptance / Rejection of E-way bill: The details of e-way bill generated shall be made available to- supplier, if registered, where the information in Part-A of Form EWB-01 has been furnished by the recipient or the transporter; or recipient, if registered, where the information in Part-A of Form EWB-01 has been furnished by the supplier or the transporter, on the com

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ace of business of the consignor to the place of business of the transporter for further transportation; Where, goods are transferred from one conveyance to another, and goods are transported for a distance of upto fifty kilometres within the State or Union territory from the place of business of the transporter finally to the place of business of the consignee, the details of the conveyance may not be updated in the e-way bill. E- Way Bill – When not required: Certain categories of movements where E-waybill shall not be required to be generated and carried are as under: 8 Notified goods in Annexure to Rule 138 including LPG, postal baggage, jewellery, currency, used personal and household effects, etc. Where goods are transported in non-motorised conveyance From Port/ Airport/ Air cargo complex/ Land customs station to ICD/Container Freight station (for clearance by Customs) From ICD/container freight station to port/ airport/ air cargo complex/ and customs station under custom bond,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

r a local authority for transport of goods by rail; where empty cargo containers are being transported; Movement of goods from place of business of consignor to weighbridge and vice-versa, where the distance is upto twenty kilometres, however goods in this case must be accompanied by a delivery challan. Other important provisions pertaining to E-way bill: Shifting of goods from one conveyance to another Where the goods are transferred from one conveyance to another, the consigner or the recipient, who has provided information in Part A of the FORM GST EWB-01, or the transporter shall, before such transfer and further movement of goods, update the details of conveyance in the e-way bill on the common portal in FORM GST EWB-01: Provided that where the goods are transported for a distance of less than fifty kilometers within the State or Union territory from the place of business of the transporter finally to the place of business of the consignee, the details of conveyance may not be upd

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bill applicable from a date to be notified: Where the consignor or the consignee has not generated the E-way bill in FORM GST EWB-01 and the aggregate of the consignment value of goods carried in the conveyance is more than fifty thousand rupees, the transporter, except in case of transportation of goods by railways, air and vessel, shall, in respect of inter-State supply, generate the e-way bill in FORM GST EWB-01 on the basis of invoice or bill of supply or delivery challan, as the case may be, and may also generate a consolidated e-way bill in FORM GST EWB-02 on the common portal prior to the movement of goods: Provided that where the goods to be transported are supplied through an e-commerce operator or a courier agency, the information in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01 may be furnished by such e-commerce operator or courier agency. Documents to be carried by person in charge of conveyance The person in-charge of the conveyance shall carry tax Invoice or delivery challan or bill of supp

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

A of Form EWB-01 shall be auto-populated on the basis of information furnished in Form INV-1. Verification of Documents and Conveyance The commissioner or any officer empowered by him may authorize proper officer to intercept and carry physical or electronic verification of e-way bill and also verification of conveyance. However, on receipt of specific information on evasion of tax, physical verification of a specific conveyance can also be carried out by any other officer after obtaining necessary approval of the Commissioner or an officer authorised by him in this behalf. Where commissioner has notified certain transporter to embed RFID device in their conveyance, verification of movement of vehicle in such cases shall be carried by RFID reader. For this, commissioner shall get RFID reader installed at places where verification of movement of such vehicle is required. Inspection and verification of Goods After inspection of goods in transit, the proper officer shall prepare online,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (9) TMI 296 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – TMI – Jurisdiction of the Respondent No. 1 – power of Respondent No. 1 to pass an order under Section 63-A[1] of the Act pending reassessment proceedings under Section 39[2][e] of the Act.
–
Whether the Respondent No.1 acted without jurisdiction in invoking Section 63-A of the Act pending reassessment proceedings under Section 39[2][e] of the Act?
–
Held that:- When once a notice is issued for the purpose of making reassessment, the assessment proceedings would be reopened and the order of assessment ceases to operate. In the present set of facts, notices for reassessment were issued under Section 39[2][e] of the Act by the Respondent No.2 on 25.06.2016 whereby the proceedings initiated under Section 39[2] of the Act were dropped. Thus, it can be held that once notice dated 25.06.2016 was issued by the Respondent No.2 to initiate reassessment proceedings, against the reassessment order dated 16.08.2014 passed under Section 39[2] of the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

dated 8.2.2018 issued by the Respondent No.1 enclosed as Annexure-B to the writ petitions and the consequential endorsement dated 14.02.2018 issued by the Respondent No.2 enclosed as Annexures-C1, C2, C3 and C4 to the writ petitions. 2. Petitioner is engaged in execution of civil works contract of construction of buildings and other works contract for private parties and Government. The petitioner-company was registered both under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [ Act , for short] and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The business premises of the petitioner was visited by the Respondent No.2 on 14.11.2011 for the purpose of audit for the period April 2010 to March 2011. Pursuant to audit conducted, the reassessment order dated 22.11.2011 was passed by the Respondent No.2 under Section 39[1] of the Act wherein returns filed by the petitioner during the audit period were accepted and proceedings initiated under Section 39 of the Act were dropped. Further, based on intelligence report

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

again allowing deduction towards taxes collected to arrive at taxable works contract receipts resulted in excess allowance of labour charges on the taxes collected which resulted in short payment of tax. 3. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said proposition notices issued under Section 39[2] of the Act. Considering the objections filed by the petitioner, Respondent No.2 passed orders under Section 39[2] of the Act to the effect that there was merit in the objections filed by the petitioner and hence proposal made in the show cause notice dated 30.04.2014 was dropped. Again notice under section 39 [2][e] of the Act dated 25.06.2016 was issued by the Respondent No.2 to initiate reassessment proceedings for the period April 2010 to March 2013 on the same ground that claim of labour and like charges at 30% on the total contract receipts which include taxes collected and again allowing deduction towards taxes collected to arrive at taxable works contract receipts resulted in excess

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

69 of the Act which came to be rejected. These orders of the Respondent No.1 passed under Section 63-A[1] of the Act as well as endorsements issued by the Respondent No.1 rejecting the rectification application are impugned herein. 4. The main ground of challenge in these writ petitions is regarding the jurisdiction of the Respondent No.1 to pass an order under Section 63-A[1] of the Act pending reassessment proceedings under Section 39[2][e] of the Act. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petitions, would contend that subsequent to dropping of the proceedings initiated under Section 39[2] of the Act by the Respondent No.2, notices were issued on 25.06.2016 under Section 39[2][e] of the Act by the very same Authority, to initiate reassessment proceedings. Such being the position, the order passed by the Respondent No.2 on 16.08.2014 dropping the proceedings initiated under Section 39[2] of the Act ceases to exist. The Respondent No

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he interest of the revenue, it cannot be held that the Respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to invoke Section 63-A[1] of the Act, to revise such orders. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the Respondent No.2 failed to act upon the notices issued under Section 39[2][e] of the Act, which constrained the Respondent No.1 to proceed with the revisional powers under Section 63-A of the Act. Thus, he submits that the revisional proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.1 is justifiable and the same do not call for any interference by this Court. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. The crucial issue that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the Respondent No.1 acted without jurisdiction in invoking Section 63-A of the Act pending reassessment proceedings under Section 39[2][e] of the Act? 11. To collate the legal aspects on this issue, it is apt to refer to the Judgments of the Hon ble Ap

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ed in a notice under section 22[2] and may proceed to assess or reassess such income, profits or gains. It is, therefore, manifest that once assessment is reopened by issuing a notice under sub-section [2] of section 22 the previous under assessment is set aside and the whole assessment proceedings start afresh. When once valid proceedings are started under section 34[1][b] the Income-tax Officer had not only the jurisdiction but it was his duty to levy tax on the entire income that had escaped assessment during that year. 13. Similarly, in the case of KUNDAN LAL SRI KISHAN supra, it is held by the Hon ble Apex Court as under: 7. In reaching the above conclusion the Court relied upon three decisions of this Court, namely, CIT v.V. Jagan Mohan Rao & Others, [1970] 1 S.C.R. 726; CST. M/s. H.M. Esufali, [1973] 3 S.C.R. 1005 and International Cotton Corporation (P) Ltd. v. CTO [1975] 2 S.C.R. 345 was a case. The third of the above three cases, namely, International Cotton Corporation (

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

uld have to be made in respect of all matters including those matters in respect of which there is no allegation of the turnover escaping assessment. The same principle should apply even to a case like the present one where an application for rectification is filed after the completion of the reassessment proceedings . 14. In the light of these Judgments, it is crystal clear that when once a notice is issued for the purpose of making reassessment, the assessment proceedings would be reopened and the order of assessment ceases to operate. In the present set of facts, notices for reassessment were issued under Section 39[2][e] of the Act by the Respondent No.2 on 25.06.2016 whereby the proceedings initiated under Section 39[2] of the Act were dropped. Thus, it can be held that once notice dated 25.06.2016 was issued by the Respondent No.2 to initiate reassessment proceedings, against the reassessment order dated 16.08.2014 passed under Section 39[2] of the Act, the said order dated 16.08

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (4) TMI 1583 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Refund of CENVAT Credit – export of services – N/N. 27/2012-CE (N.T.) dated 18.06.2012 – Rule 6 A (e) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 – Held that:- The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that in CCE vs. Aam Services India Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (3) TMI 1049 – CESTAT MUMBAI], the Hon’ble Tribunal held that when entire turnover is exported and no other service is provided in domestic tariff area, hence ‘export turnover ‘ will be equal to ‘total turnover’ – the Revenue is silent upon the issue having been decided by the Tribunal in Aam Services India Pvt. Ltd. relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals).
–
Appeal dismissed – decided against Revenue. – Service Tax Appeal No.50301/2018 (SM) – Final Order No.51135

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ating authority admitted that the party provided services for ₹ 9,81,08,841/- but realized ₹ 1,70,97,480/- in convertible foreign exchange and held that the differential amount of ₹ 8,10,11,361/- falls under other services . It is clear that all other services in Total turnover means all services other than export services. The refund sanction authority has sanctioned refund keeping the view of the export turn over which is received in foreign convertible currency. Being aggrieved, the party has filed the present appeals both dated 20.03.2017. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) examined the meaning of all other services as mentioned in the definition of total turnover under Rule 5 (1) E of CCR, 2004 and observed that the defini

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

taxable territory is NIL. Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled to refund of full CENVAT Credit reduced by Cenvat Credit of ₹ 26,331/- along with interest. 5. Revenue in their memo of appeal has referred to Notification No.27/2012- CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 as also to the provisions of Rule 5 (1) D of Cenvat Credit Rules and Rule 5 (1)(E) of Cenvat Credit Rules to support their stand. However, the Revenue is silent upon the issue having been decided by the Tribunal in Aam Services India Pvt. Ltd. – 2016 (42) STR 760 (Tribunal-Mumbai) relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. I find that apart from the said decision, the Appellate Authority has also referred to the Hon ble High Court s decision in the case of CST Vs. Quintile

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (5) TMI 404 – CESTAT CHENNAI – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. J25 (Tri. – Chennai) – Business support services – collection of monthly licence fee – With effect from 1-2-2005, TASMAC granted permission to contractors to sell eatables in the bar and to collect the empty liquor bottles left in the bars for a monthly license fee payable by such contractors to it – It appeared to the department that the contractors can conduct their business only after issue of a licence by TASMAC, on payment of licence fee; that without the support of TASMAC in the form of giving permission to sell eatables and to collect empty bottles, contractors would have no business; therefore upto 30-06-2012, the services rendered by TASMAC is a taxable service under ‚Support Service of Business or Commerce‛ under Section 65 (104c) read with Section 65 (105) (zzzq) of the Finance Act, 1994; that after 1.7.2012, the services are continued to be taxable since they are not covered under the negative list or otherwis

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

to outsourcing of business, commerce, strategy planning, logistics planning and management, customer services, marketing assistance etc.
–
We are unable to fathom how permission to run a bar adjacent to TASMAC wine shop along with a responsibility cast on the successful contractor to sell eatables and collect empty bottles, albeit for a fee, can be said to be analogous and in immediate connection with the type of activities exemplified in the inclusive definition of ‚Support Services of Business or Commerce‛ – For the period October 2008 to 30.06.2012, the demand of service tax on the appellant under ‚Support of Business and Commerce Services‛ is not sustainable and is set aide
–
W.e.f. 1-7-2012, all services except those excluded by Section 65B (44), in particular, transfer of title in goods, deemed sale, transaction in money etc. will be liable to service tax or those falling in the negative list of services under Section 66D ibid or those which were specifically

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Hon ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri V. Vikram, Advocate For the Appellant Ms. P. Hemavathi, Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The MAs filed by Revenue for change cause title are allowed. As we take up the appeals themselves for hearing and disposal, the other MAs filed by Revenue for grant of early hearing get disposed of. 2. The facts of the case are that that the appellant, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as TASMAC) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 23.05.1983 with Registered Office at Chennai and it is a 100% Government of Tamilnadu undertaking. TASMAC is vested with the special privilege of wholesale supply of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) for the whole State of Tamil Nadu as per Section 17 (C) (1-A) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (Tamil Nadu Act X of 1937). Under Section 17-C(1-B)(a) of the said Act, TASMAC is vested with exclusive privilege of selling, by retai

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nt of licence fee; that without the support of TASMAC in the form of giving permission to sell eatables and to collect empty bottles, contractors would have no business; therefore upto 30-06-2012, the services rendered by TASMAC is a taxable service under Support Service of Business or Commerce‛ under Section 65 (104c) read with Section 65 (105) (zzzq) of the Finance Act, 1994; that after 1.7.2012, the services are continued to be taxable since they are not covered under the negative list or otherwise exempted. Accordingly, Show Cause Notices No.58/2014 to 90/2014 dt. 21.04.2014 were issued to the appellants proposing demand of service tax and considering the same as cum service tax value, under proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Act, along with interest under Section 75 ibid and also imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77 & 78 ibid. After due process of adjudication, the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai-I, vide Original-in-Original No.CHN-SVTAX-001-COM-01 to 33-2015-

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

(sit and drink) the same at the adjacent place which is called a Bar‛; the rules governing the Bar are also governed by Statute which prescribes the location, timings, holidays of the Bar too. iv) TASMAC is solely responsible for retailing liquor to pubic; while doing so it has responsibility to make sure liquor is consumed safely in bar s adjacent to it. Merely because these bars are run by third- parties selected by TASMAC through tender as opposed to being run by TASMAC itself cannot change the fundamental nature of TASMAC s activities to one of a support services provider. v) The very facts that these statutory rules have to be followed by bar contractors and enforced by TASMAC through the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act via filing FIR to the TN Police Department shows that these bars are merely a practical devolvement of power and rights of TASMAC and not a business support service‛ by the appellant. vi) TASMAC is nothing but an instrumentality of the State as recognized by

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

sing its sovereign rights. The definition of Business Support Service will clearly fall outside the ambit of appellant s activities and since services which are provided by a Government in terms of their sovereign right to business activities, and which are not substitutable in any manner by any private entity, are not support services. Examples of exercise of such sovereign functions would be grant of mining or licensing rights or audit of Government entities by CAG etc. Reference is made to Board s Circular No.89/07/2006 dt. 18.12.2006 and Circular No.159/10/2012-ST dt. 19.06.2012. ix) Ld. Advocate pointed out that as per GO (Ms.) No.20 dt. 29.03.2013, an amendment was brought in to the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 empowering the TASMAC to grant privilege of running bars to private parties by tender, to decide upset price and other terms and conditions of tender; to collect tender amount from successful tenderers and remit the same to Government. H

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ly such that are provided only in relation to business or commerce. (iv) The definition is an inclusive definition. Only few examples of similar activities which can be included under that service category have been included in the definition. (v) TASMAC have permitted the contractors to sell eatables and collect empty liquor bottles in the bars by way of tender. The fees so collected are in the nature of income for TASMAC and definitely cannot be considered as a statutory fee. (vi) In fact, the said charges are accounted by TASMAC in their audited balance sheets as income from operations‛. (vii) TASMAC cannot be considered as Government. It is only a limited corporation set up by the Tamil Nadu Government. TASMAC may have conducted auctions and entrusted the work of running the bars etc. to contractors based on Minutes of Board Meeting of their Board of Directors who are senior Government officers. However, such decisions by their Board of Directors cannot be said to be giving a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

r 2008 to March 2013. The impugned order has held that the activities of TASMAC would fall within the ambit of Support Service of Business or Commerce‛ defined under Section 65B (44) for the remaining period. 6.2 The core issue that therefore comes up for decision is whether this assertion of the adjudicating authority is correct or otherwise. 6.3 For the period upto 30.06.2012, the definition of Support Service of Business or Commerce‛ under Section 65 (104c) of the Finance Act, 1994 reads as under : Support Services of Business or Commerce means services provided in relation to business or commerce and includes evaluation of prospective customers, telemarketing, processing of purchase orders and fulfilment services, information and tracking of delivery schedules, managing distribution and logistics, customer relationship management services, accounting and processing of transactions, operational assistance for marketing, formulation of customer service and pricing policie

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nd tracking of delivery schedules etc. In our view, the intention of the legislature to bring within the ambit of Business Support Services only outsourced activities relating to management, logistics and customer relations etc. is vindicated by the Explanation to the said definition which exemplifies infrastructural support services‛ as providing office along with office utilities, lounge, reception with competent personnel to handle messages, secretarial services, internet etc. There, then is no doubt, in our mind, that all these examples indicated in the definition are those relating to outsourcing of business, commerce, strategy planning, logistics planning and management, customer services, marketing assistance etc. 6.4 Hence even in such an inclusive definition, the activities which have not been included, but which could be conceived as falling within the said taxable category will necessarily have to be like services‛ relating to similar outsourced services of busin

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

y reference to the meaning of words associated with it; such doctrine is broader than the maxim ejusdem generis. In fact the latter maxim is only an illustration or specific application of the broader maxim noscitur a sociis . It must be borne in mind that noscitur a sociis, is merely a rule of construction and it cannot prevail in cases where it is clear that the wider words have been deliberately used in order to make the scope of the defined word correspondingly wider. It is only where the intention of the Legislature in associating wider words with words of narrower significance is doubtful, or otherwise not clear that the present rule of construction can be usefully applied. The relevance of Noscitur a Sociis has been reiterated by Hon ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments. For example, in the case of K.Bhagirathi G. Shenoy v. K.P. Ballakuraya, (1999) 4 SCC 135 ; AIR 1999 SC 2143 it is held as under : A word in a statutory provision is to be read in collocation with its compa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

r the period upto 30.06.2012 under Business Support Service defined under Section 65 (104c) read with Section 65 (105) (zzzq) of the Finance Act, 1994. 6.8 However, the position changes after the introduction of the Negative List regime w.e.f. 1.7.2012, from which date the activities which were liable to service tax under Finance Act, 1994 were given a much wider and broad banded scope in Section 65B (44) as under : (44) service means any activity carried out by a person for another for consideration and includes a declared service, but shall not include- (a) an activity which constitutes merely,- (i) a transfer of title in goods or immovable property, by way of sale, gift or in any other manner; or (ii) such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods which is deemed to be a sale within the meaning of clause (29A) of article 366 of the Constitution; or (iii)a transaction in money or actionable claim; (b) a provision of service by an employee to the employer in the course of or in relati

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

use of money or its conversion by cash or by any other mode, from one form, currency or denomination, to another form, currency or denomination for which a separate consideration is charged. …. … …. 6.9 Then, w.e.f. 1-7-2012, all services except those excluded by Section 65B (44), in particular, transfer of title in goods, deemed sale, transaction in money etc. will be liable to service tax or those falling in the negative list of services under Section 66D ibid or those which were specifically exempted otherwise, would be exigible to service tax levy. 6.10 Ld. Advocate has been at pains to argue that the impugned activities of TASMAC is only that performed as a sovereign function and should be considered as a service‛ by government which are excluded from the purview of service tax. We are not able to agree with this contention. 6.11 On the other hand, we find merit in the argument made by Ld. AR that the decision by the Board of Directors of TASMAC giving permission to a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

/2007-ST dt. 23.08.2007, which is further reiterated by Circular No.89/7/2006 dt. 18.12.2006 where it is inter alia clarified as follows : However, if a sovereign / public authority provides a service, which is not in the nature of statutory activity and the same is undertaken for a consideration (not a statutory fee), then in such cases, service tax would be leviable as long as the activity undertaken falls within the scope of a taxable service as defined. 6.13 We find that the adjudicating authority has taken note of the decision of the Tribunal which has referred to the above Board s Circular in the case of Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation Vs CST Bangalore – 2010 (19) STR 32 (Tri-Bang.). In appeal filed by the department, the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in its judgement reported in 2011 (23) STR 126 (Kar.) with regard to taxability of the services provided by the Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation, while confirming that there would be no demand of tax beyond the norm

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

oration or an authority constituted under an Act passed by Parliament or State Legislature is Government‛ or Local authority‛ was addressed in para 2.4.7 which reads as follows : 2.4.10 Would various entities like a statutory body, corporation or an authority constituted under an Act passed by the Parliament or any of the State Legislature be Government or local authority ? A statutory body, corporation or any authority created by the Parliament of a State Legislature is neither Government nor a local authority as would be evident from the meaning of these terms explained in point nos.2.4.7 and 2.4.8 above respectively. Such statutory body, corporation or an authority are normally created by the Parliament or a Stage Legislature in exercise of the powers conferred under article 53 (3) (b) and article 154 (2) (b) of the Constitution respectively. It is a settled position of law Government (Agarwal v. Hindustan Steel – AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1150) that the manpower of such st

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

upset price and other terms and conditions of tender, from time to time, with the prior approval of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. The Corporation, as agency shall collect the tender amount from the successful tenders and remit the same to the Government on or before teh 25th of the following month and the Corporation may retain 1% of the amount so collected as agency commission . This amendment, in our view, has accorded statutory backing and authority to TASMAC under law to grant the privilege of running bars, selling eatables and collecting empty bottles to private entities by tender. The entire tender amount from such successful tenderers, except for 1% of the collected amount retained as agency commission by TASMAC is remitted to the Government of Tamil Nadu. 6.17 In the circumstances, from 29.03.2013, the impugned services of TASMAC would definitely fall in the negative list of services as statutory function being carried out by them based on authority of law. 6.18

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

MAC is liable to pay service tax of the licence fees received for the period 1.7.2012 to 28.3.2013. So ordered. 6.19 Coming to the matter of penalty, we find that the entire dispute is one of interpretation and even from the record, we find that there are at least two circulars before introduction of negative list regime and one subsequent to that, which have found it necessary to dwell upon the liability to service tax in respect of such activities performed by instrumentalities of the State. We also find that the issue of liability to tax in respect of such activities was also subject matter of litigation as evidenced from number of High Court judgements that have been cited supra. In this scenario, there cannot be any penalty imposed on the appellant. So ordered. 6.19 To sum up, (1) For the period October 2008 to 30.06.2012, the demand of service tax on the appellant under Support of Business and Commerce Services‛ is not sustainable and is set aide with consequential benefit,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – 18/2018-State Tax – Dated:- 3-4-2018 – COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, MAHARASHTRA STATE GST Bhavan, Mazgaon, Mumbai 400 010, dated the 3rd April 2018. NOTIFICATION Notification No. 18/2018-State Tax MAHARASHTRA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017. No. JC(HQ)-1/GST/2018/Noti/Returns/ADM-8.-In exercise of the powers conferred by the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 37 read with section 168 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Mah. XLIII of 2017) (hereinafter in this notification referred to as the said Act ), the Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra State, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby extends the time limit for furnishing the details of outward supplies in FORM GSTR-1 under sub-section (

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – 19/2018-State Tax – Dated:- 3-4-2018 – COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, MAHARASHTRA STATE GST Bhavan, Mazgaon, Mumbai 400 010, dated the 3rd April 2018. NOTIFICATION Notification No. 19/2018-State Tax MAHARASHTRA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017. No. JC(HQ)-1/GST/2018/Noti/Returns/ADM-8.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (6) of section 39 read with section 168 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Mah. XLIII of 2017) (hereinafter referred to as the said

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (4) TMI 1291 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – [2018] 2 GSTL 46 (Kar), 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 439 (Kar.) – Release of detained vehicle alongwith goods – KGST Act – CGST Act – detention of goods on the ground that the invoice and other documents not produced – grievance of the petitioner that despite the full tax amount pertaining to the tax invoice submitted before the second respondent has been deposited, no vehicle/conveyance and goods are released till date – Held that: – It is an admitted fact that no documents were carried by the driver/person in-charge of the goods vehicle at the time of interception of the goods vehicle on 08.03.2018. The ownership of the goods as well as quantum of penalty levied are also in dispute. These are all the factual disputes to be adjudicated before the Appellate Authority.
–
This Court deems it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the Appellate Authority without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case – appeal allowed by way of remand.

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

arried in the conveyance used as means of transport/vehicle was not available with the driver. The second respondent seized the vehicle/conveyance along with the goods and directed the driver to furnish the documents. Subsequently, the petitioner furnished the invoice on the next day i.e., on 09.03.2018. Considering the same, the Investigation Officer verified the goods and issued a notice computing the proposed tax and penalty under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Sect ion 129 of the CGST Act as well as KGST Act. On service of notice, the petitioner submitted reply through the counsel and on consideration of the same, second respondent passed the order imposing the tax and penalty under the KGST Act as well as under CGST Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the full tax amount pertaining to the tax invoice submitted before the second respondent has been deposited, no vehicle/conveyance and goods a

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

has been established by the petitioner to determine the tax and penalty under Section 129 (1) (a) of the CGST Act. Hence, the second respondent having no other option, determined the t ax and penalty under Section 129 (1) (b) of the Act. The petitioner has paid only a sum of ₹ 1,22,886/- towards the tax and penalty amount against the total amount of ₹ 18,47,300/- determined by the Authorities. Hence, the vehicle has not been released. Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner without exhausting alternative remedy, cannot approach this Court under the writ jurisdiction seeking the relief as sought for. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. It is prima facie apparent that the main dispute is relating to the valuation of the goods carried in the goods vehicle. It is an admitted fact that no documents were carried by the driver/person in-charge of the goods vehicle at the time of interception of the good

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (4) TMI 1076 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (12) G. S. T. L. 7 (All.) – Seizure of detained goods – Absence of E-Way bill – contention of petitioner is that without considering the e-way bill-02 which has been furnished immediately within 20 minutes from the time of the detention of the vehicle/goods, the respondent no.3 has illegally passed the seizure order after a gap of four days – Held that: – Rule 138 of the Rules framed under the Central GST provides that till such time e-way bill system is developed and approved by the Council, the Government by notification may specify the documents which are to be carried with the consignment of goods – even if the seizure is treated to be under Section 129(1) of the Central GST, as there was no provision of e-way bill on the relevant date under the Central GST, therefore, the seizure appears to be illegal.
–
Since the petitioner is registered dealer, there is no error at the hands of the petitioner, and therefore, the order of seizu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ed IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) @ 18%. The petitioner's unit is situated at Sikandrabad Road, District Bulandshahr from where goods were transported to be delivered to the consignee situated at Delhi. Admittedly, there was no e-way bill during the movement of goods from Bulandshahr to Delhi and while vehicle was crossing Ghaziabad, the same was intercepted/detained by the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad, IVth Unit, Ghaziabad on 24.03.2018 at 5.45 P.M. The objection of the respondent no.3, Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad was that since there was no e-way bill-02, which has been prescribed under UPGST Rules, hence the goods are liable to be seized. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no requirement to carry the e-way bill during the Inter-state movement of the goods, therefore, the same has not been handed over to the transporter at the time of delivery of the goods. It is further contended that the entire seizure proceedings ar

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ut violation of provisions of UPGST Act/Rules framed thereunder. Immediately after the seizure order passed under Section 129(1) of the Act, the respondent no.3 has issued the show cause notice under Section 129(3) of the Act dated 28.03.2018. The Seizing Authority directed the petitioner to appear on 04.04.2018 and explain as to why the tax @ 18% and equivalent amount of penalty may not be demanded. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that as admittedly the seized goods were in transit for outside the State the transaction would be covered by the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST) read with Central GST and that the provisions of the UPGST or its Rules or the notifications issued therein would not apply. Sri Tripathi, has submitted that actually the order of seizure has been passed under Section 6 of the IGST read with Section 129(1) of the Central GST and therefore, mere wrong mention of the provision on the order of seizure would not invalidate the same. T

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

n transit within the State of U.P. and not for goods brought from outside the State. Therefore, even if the seizure is treated to be under Section 129(1) of the Central GST, as there was no provision of e-way bill on the relevant date under the Central GST, therefore, the seizure appears to be illegal. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. We have noticed that both the parties namely consignee and consignor are registered dealers and goods are being transported from Bulandshahr to Delhi during transhipment the same are detained and seized. The sole ground of seizure of goods is non-production of e-way bill whereas there is no dispute with regard to issuance of invoice and charge of tax by the petitioner. In view of aforesaid peculiar facts and since the petitioner is registered dealer, we have seen no error at the hands of the petitioner, and therefore, the order of seizure passed under Section 129(1) of the Act as well as the notice issued under Section 129(3)

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (4) TMI 886 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 559 (All.) – Seizure order – wrong mention of the provision – case of petitioner is that the seized goods were in transit from outside the State the transaction would be covered by the IGST Act, 2017 read with CGST Acy and that the provisions of the UPGST Act or its Rules or the notifications issued therein would not apply – Held that: – even if the seizure is treated to be under Section 129(1) of the Central G.S.T., as there was no provision of E-Way bill on the relevant date under the Central G.S.T. prima facie the seizure appears to be illegal – the goods seized be released along with the vehicle subject to the petitioner furnishing indemnity bond and security – petition di

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

.S.T.) read with Central G.S.T. and that the provisions of the U.P. G.S.T. or its Rules or the notifications issued therein would not apply. Sri Tripathi, has submitted that actually the order of seizure has been passed under Section 6 of the I.G.S.T. read with Section 129(1) of the Central G.S.T. and therefore, mere wrong mention of the provision on the order of seizure would not invalidate the same. The provisions of U.P.G.S.T. are applicable to transactions within the State of U.P. whereas I.G.S.T. covers the interstate transactions. Section 20 of the I.G.S.T. makes applicable the provisions of Central G.S.T. in respect to matters relating to inspection, search and seizure under the said Act. Rule 138 of the Rules framed under the Centra

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

outside the State. Therefore, even if the seizure is treated to be under Section 129(1) of the Central G.S.T., as there was no provision of E-Way bill on the relevant date under the Central G.S.T. prima facie the seizure appears to be illegal. Sri Tripathi, may seek instructions and file counter affidavit within three weeks. List along with writ petition no. 87 of 2018 for admission/final disposal after the filing of the counter affidavit. In the meantime, the goods seized be released along with the vehicle subject to the petitioner furnishing indemnity bond and security (other than cash and bank guarantee) in respect of the proposed tax and penalty on the value of the goods shown in the documents accompanying the same. – Case laws – Dec

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (4) TMI 530 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (12) G. S. T. L. 137 (All.) , [2018] 1 GSTL 123 (All) – Seizure order – Section 129(1) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017 – goods seized on the ground that the goods was being transported without E-way bill-02, the GSTIN number written on the tax invoice belongs to another dealer situates at Allahabad – case of petitioner is that no opportunity of being heard has been afforded to the petitioner before passing the seizure order – principles of Natural Justice.
–
Held that: – Since the tax invoice indicating the tax charged and the same admittedly found during the course of inspection/detention and E-way bill-02 has been downloaded much before the seizure order, we see no justification in the impugned seizure order and therefore, we have no option but to allow the present writ petition – the seizing authority though has mentioned the GSTIN number of some dealer situates at Allahabad but no details of the said dealer has been given in the impu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

sued under Section 129(3) of the said Act dated 27.3.2018 respectively. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered dealer and has been allotted TIN by the Assessing Authority for carrying on the business for purchase and sale of Iron and Steel. The petitioner has affected the sale of Iron and Steel weighing 20 M.Ton for a sum of ₹ 6,00,000/- to one M/s Ram Naresh Ramakant, Bindiki, Fatehpur. The purchaser situated at Bindiki, Fatehpur is also a registered dealer to whom the petitioner has raised tax invoice No.60 dated 25.3.2018. The invoice aforesaid indicates that the goods worth of ₹ 6,00,000/- are sold on which the petitioner has charged the Central G.S.T. @ 9% to the tune of ₹ 54,000/- as also the State G.S.T. @ 9% to the tune of ₹ 54,000/- and the grand total therefore has been charged to the tune of ₹ 7,08,000/-. The said goods were being transported from Varanasi to Bindiki, Fatehpur and on bypass road Nawabganj at Allahaba

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ed as also the penalty be imposed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that that due to technical fault of the State Web-site E-way bill-02 could not be generated on 25.3.2018 before the movement of the goods from Varanasi to Fatehpur, however, the same was generated on 26.3.2018 in the morning which was much before the date of seizure order which has been admittedly passed on 27.3.2018 at 6 p.m. The counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that since both the consignor and consignee are registered with the respective Assessing Authority and are allotted requisite GSTIN number therefore there was no reason to disbelieve the contention of the petitioner. So far as the ground no.3 related to mentioning of the GSTIN number of dealer of Allahabad instead of Fatehpur, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said mistake was a bona fide mistake as such in fact a clerical error and the same was rectified while downloading E-way bill-02 in which the c

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 whereas the time has been granted for submission of reply and appearance of the person concerned before the respondent no.4 on the later date. There is no dispute with regard to quality and quantity of the goods and further that the invoice issued clearly indicates of charge of C.G.S.T. and S.G.S.T by the petitioner. We further noticed that there is no dispute with regard to registration of the seller (the petitioner) and the purchaser as also that the goods were being transported from Varanasi to Fatehpur which are detained in between the aforesaid two places. From perusal of the record we noticed that the E-way bill-02 has been downloaded/issued in favour of the petitioner on 26.3.2018 at 11.50 a.m. and admittedly seizure order has been passed on 27.3.2018 at 6 p.m. before which the E-way bill-02 has been produced by the petitioner. The submission of the learned counsel for the State is that the transaction has been made with one unknown person therefore there were some lacuna n

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

2018 (4) TMI 348 – KERALA HIGH COURT – [2018] 2 GSTL 75 (Ker) – Release of detained goods – Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act – Held that: – identical matter has been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in The Commercial Tax Officer And The Intelligence Inspector Versus Madhu. M.B. [2017 (9) TMI 1044 – KERALA HIGH COURT], directing expeditious completion of the adjudication of the matter and permitting release of the goods detained pending adjudication, in terms of Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 – the competent authority is directed to complete the adjudication provided for u/s 129 of the statutes – petition disposed off. – W. P. (C). No. 11146 of 2018 Dated:- 3-4-2018 – MR. P. B

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST – States – S.O. 163 – Dated:- 3-4-2018 – Bihar Government Commercial Tax Department Notification The 3rd April 2018 S.O. 163, dated 3rd April 2018- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereafter in this notification referred to as the Act), the Governor of Bihar, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby notifies the registered persons having aggregate turnover of up to 1.5 crore rupees in the preceding financial

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – 39/13/2018 – Dated:- 3-4-2018 – Circular No. 39/13/2018-GST F. No. 267/7/2018-CX.8 Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs New Delhi, dated the 3rd April, 2018 To The Principal Chief Commissioners/ Chief Commissioners/ Principal Commissioners/ Commissioner of Central Tax (All), The Principal Director Generals/ Director Generals (All). Sub: Setting up of an IT Grievance Redressal Mechanism to address the grievances of taxpayers due to technical glitches on GST Portal-reg. Madam/Sir, It has been decided to put in place an IT-Grievance Redressal Mechanism to address the difficulties faced by a section of taxpayers owing to technical glitches on the GST portal and the relief that needs to be given to them. The relief could be in the nature of allowing filing of any Form or Return prescribed in law or amending any Form or Return already filed. The details of the said grievance redressal mechanism are

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ee Any issue which needs to be addressed through this mechanism shall be identified by GSTN and the method of resolution approved by the GST Implementation Committee (GIC) which shall act as the IT Grievance Redressal Committee. In GIC meetings convened to address IT issues or IT glitches, the CEO, GSTN and the DG (Systems), CBEC shall participate in these meetings as special invitees. 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 identif

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

the decision. 7. Legal issues 7.1 Where an IT related glitch has been identified as the reason for failure of a taxpayer in filing of a return or form prescribed in the law, the consequential fine and penalty would also be required to be waived. GST Council has delegated the power to the IT Grievance Redressal Committee to recommend waiver of fine or penalty, in case of an emergency, to the Government in terms of section 128 of the CGST Act, 2017 under such mitigating circumstances as are identified by the committee. All such notifications waiving fine or penalty shall be placed before GST Council. 7.2 Where adequate time is available, the issue of waiver of fee and penalty shall be placed before the GST Council with recommendation of the IT-Grievance Redressal Committee. 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 authe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

who should be allowed this procedure. 8.3 GSTN shall communicate directly with the taxpayers in this regard and submit a final report to GIC about the number of TRAN-1s filed and submitted through this process. 8.4 The taxpayers shall complete the process of filing of TRAN 1 stuck due to IT glitches, as discussed above, by 30th April 2018 and the process of completing filing of GSTR 3B which could not be filed for such TRAN 1 shall be completed by 31st May 2018. 9. The decisions of the Hon ble High Courts of Allahabad, Bombay etc., where no case specific decision has been taken, may be implemented in-line with the procedure prescribed above, subject to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed therein. Where these conditions are not satisfied, Hon ble Courts may be suitably informed and if needed review or appeal may be filed. 10. Trade may be suitably informed and difficulty if any in implementation of the circular may be brought to the notice of the Board. (ROHAN) (Deputy Commissioner

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – ROHIT GOEL – Dated:- 2-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 7-4-2018 – How to generate e-way bill if goods are to be transported to the place of Clearing House agent for the purpose of exports.. – Reply By Rajagopalan Ranganathan – The Reply = Sir, As per Section 20 of IGST Act, 2017, e-way bill provisions prescribed by CGST Act, 2017 are not made applicable to IGST Act, 2017. Therefore e-way bill provisions are not applicable to removal of goods for export. – Reply

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – GST – Dated:- 2-4-2018 – As per decision of the GST Council, e-Way Bill system became mandatory from 01stApril, 2018 for all inter-State movement of goods. The implementation of the nationwide e-Way Bill mechanism under GST regime is being done by GSTN in association with the National Informatics Centre (NIC)and is being run on portal namely https://ewaybillgst.gov.in. On day-1, total of 2.59 lakh e-Way Bills were generated on the e-way bill portal. Till 2:00 pm today, 2,04,563 e-way bills have been generated. A total of 11,18,292 taxpayers have registered on e-Way Bill Portal till date. Further 20,057 transporters have enrolled themselves on the e-Way Bill Portal. To assist and answer queries of taxpayers and tran

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

hem. This way large transporters can declare their various offices as sub-users. There isa provision for cancellation of e-way Bill within 24 hours by the person who has generated the e-way Bill. The recipient can also reject the e-way Bill within validity period of e-way bill or 72 hours of generation of the e-way bill by the consignor whichever is earlier. – State-wise breakup of e-Way Bills generated Number of e-Way Bills Generated 01-04-2018 02-04-2018 (till 2PM) State Name No. of EWBs No. of EWBs JAMMU AND KASMIR 384 268 HIMACHAL PRADESH 2838 1716 PUNJAB 9342 2028 CHANDIGARH 1319 1000 UTTARAKHAND 6622 3016 HARYANA 21131 14985 DELHI 15376 11731 RAJASTHAN 20937 10822 UTTAR PRADESH 16891 8471 BIHAR 1598 697 SIKKIM 14 79 ARUNACHAL PRADESH

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – GST – Dated:- 2-4-2018 – The revenue collection figures under GST including CGST, SGST, IGST and cess for the period July 2017 – February 2018 paid in the period July 2017 – March 2018 is as follows: (Figures in Rs. Crores) Month GST Collection August 93,590 September 93,029 October 95,132 November 85,931 December 83,716 January 88,929 February 88,047 March 89,264 Total 7,17,638 Besides the above ₹ 27,811 crores were collected as IGST and cess on imports in the mo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – GST – Dated:- 2-4-2018 – In line with commitment of government to liquidate all pending GST refunds, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has successfully concluded refund fortnight cum special drive from 15th March, 2018 to 31stMarch, 2018. During the period, all field formations of CBIC worked hardto provide refund relief to the exporters. Special refund cells manned by experienced staff were put in place throughout the country. The exporter awareness campaigns using both print media and social media were carried out so that the benefit can be extended to maximum exporters. All field formations were tasked to go extra mile in order to facilitate the sanctioning of refunds. The Circulars, Instruc

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

h ₹ 9,604 crore have been sanctioned which is about 89.6% of those eligible claims transmitted by GSTN. As regards to ITC refunds, ₹ 1,136 crore has been sanctioned during the special drive making the total figure of ITC sanctioned equal to ₹ 5,510 crore by end of this fiscal. As per the latest available data: a. 1,61,325 refund applications have been filed in FORM GST RFD-01A on the common portal, in which an amount of ₹ 17,471crore has been claimed. Of these, 60,183 refund applications are in relation to zero rated supplies, in which an amount of ₹ 14,649 crore has been claimed. Taxpayers are required to submit a copy of these RFD-01A application to the jurisdictional tax office, along with all supporting doc

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Subir Bose – Dated:- 2-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 10-4-2018 – Dear sir,My partnership firm wants to sell a car purchased in the year 2009 to a unregistered person and also wants to buy a new car. So is gst applicable on sale and itc applucale on puchase of new car?Subir Bose – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = GST is payable on sale of old car. ITC is not admissible on purchase of a new car. Read Section 17(5) of CGST Act, 2017. – Reply By Ganeshan Kaly

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – VSV & Co VSV & Co – Dated:- 2-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 5-4-2018 – Dear Sir,My client has not applied for LUT online before 31st March,2018 , now he wants to export the goods tomorrow i.e. 3rd April 2018, what he suppost to do right now ? – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = Either LUT/Bond or payment of IGST and get refund. No other option. – Reply By MistralSolutionsPrivateLimited – The Reply = LUT online filing can be done anytime before export. – Reply By Amit Kumar – The Reply = Well, there are two types of taxes in India; they are Direct Tax and Indirect Tax. Income Tax is a direct tax, which is directly paid by the taxpayer to the government. Everyone who earns or receives an income must pay

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – AnilKumar Vyas – Dated:- 2-4-2018 Last Replied Date:- 4-4-2018 – Dear Experts,Please suggest, Is GST Applicable on following transactions: Payment to Employee for Vehicle running and maintenance charges at fix rate (example INR 8/- per KM) (Not part of Employee agreement and Salary offered) Example: We are paying INR 8/- per KM to X. during the month vehicle run 3,750 KM, Total amount paid INR 30,000/- Is company liable to pay GST on these reimbursement under RCM for supply from unregistered dealer? Payment to Employee for Vehicle petrol expenses at fix (Example 4,000/- per month) (It is part of salary offered but company separately paying for get income tax exemption by employee) Example: Mr. X month

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

………… – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = Query-wise reply is as under:-1. No doubt these fixed expenses are not part of salary or employee agreement but these are provided on account of performing duty or we say when employees are performing duties in the employment. Therefore we can say that these fixed amounts are provided in the course or in relation to employment and hence are out of the purview of GST/definition of supply.2. Not taxable, it being in the course or in relation to employment.3. It is taxable on the following grounds:-(i) it being in the course of business or in furtherance of business. (ii) It is supply of goods to the Company(employer), ultimate recipient of goods via employee. It is possible that that supplie

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rse of employment.2. Regarding point no3 .. there may be problem in claiming ITC if only cash memo is there, since gstn of reciepient company is not there. – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = Sh.Shukla Ji, Sir, Regarding query No.3, I agree with you. Regarding query no. 2 Yes. This is my view. – Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani – The Reply = 1. There is employer employee relationship so GST is not applicable. However, the same is not forming part of employment agreement and hence it may become taxable in the hands of the employee. But since his/her turnover would be below the threshold limit (based on the amount reimbursed the amount will not cross ₹ 20 lacs). And moreover GST on inward supply of taxable goods or services from an unregist

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =