Goods and Services Tax

Hetero Labs Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad, GST
Service Tax
2018 (5) TMI 884 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 25-4-2018
Appeal No.- ST/EH/30172/2018, ST/COD/30739/2016, ST/31175/2016, ST/COD/30740/2016, ST/31176/2016, ST/30741/2016, ST/31177/2016 – M/30081-30084/2018
Service Tax
Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Shri Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent
[Order per: M.V. Ravindran]
This application is filed for condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3.Since the delay has b

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Registration of Drawing & Disbursing Officers as TDS Authority under the GST Act
6509/CT., Pol-56/3/2018/Policy Dated:- 25-4-2018 Orissa SGST
GST – States
Commissionerate of CT GST. Odisha (At Cuttack)
(Finance Department, Government of Odisha)
Letter No. 6509/CT., Pol-56/3/2018/Policy
Dated: 25-04-2018
To
FAS / AFAS (All Departments)
Government of Odisha
Sub: Registration of Drawing & Disbursing Officers as TDS Authority under the GST Act
Sir/Madam,
In inviting a reference to the subject cited above, I am to inform you that TDS provision of the GST Acts is very likely to come into effect from 01.07.2018. As per Section 51 of the OGST/CGST Act, Tax Deducting Authorities shall have to deduct SGST @ 1% and CGST@ 1% of the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

/Establishments
(ii) Local authority
(iii) (a) an Authority/Board/any other body set up by an Act of Parliament/State Legislature or established by any Government with fifty-one percent or more participation by way of equity or control to carry out any function
(b) Society established by the Central Government or State Government or a Local Authority under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860)
(c) Public Sector Undertakings
Accordingly, there is a need for identifying the prospective TDS Authorities in your Department and ask them for registration much before 01.07.2018. The Registration Module is already available in the GSTN Portal (www.gst.gov.in) for registration of TDS Authorities. It is to be noted that some of the pr

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Authority to Complete Adjudication for Release of Detained Goods u/s 129 of CGST Act.
Case-Laws
GST
Release of detained goods – Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act – the com

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Orders Immediate Release of Vehicle Seized for Missing E-Way Bill; Petitioner May Contest Penalty Order.
Case-Laws
GST
Detention and seizure of goods with vehicle – non furnishing of the E-Way Bill immediately at the time of detention – The respondent is directed to release the loader/tipper without demanding any security from the petitioner forthwith leaving the order of penalty to be challenged by the petitioner if necessary – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marque

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Super India (Global) Logistics Ltd. Versus State of U.P. And Another
GST
2018 (10) TMI 1238 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (17) G. S. T. L. 373 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 24-4-2018
WRIT TAX No. – 686 of 2018
GST
Mr Krishna Murari And Mr Ashok Kumar, JJ.
For The Petitioner : Hari Nath Chaubey, Niraj Kumar Singh
For The Respondent : C.S.C.
ORDER
Heard Shri Niraj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Staterespondents.
Petioner-consignor is a registered dealer having GSTIN No. 23AAACJ1657R1Z9 and consignee is also a registered dealer having GSTIN No. 03AABCB2066P1ZP.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of certiorari

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

s having validity upto 28.03.2018. However, the Transaction Declaration Form (T.D.F.) was not attached with the consignments. The goods were being moved from Gwalior (M.P.) to Zirkpur (Punjab) and while the vehicle was passing through State of U.P. (Agra), it was intercepted by the respondent no. 2 on 23.03.2018 at around at 8-30 a.m. and an interception memo was drawn and the vehicle was seized on the ground that the goods loaded on the vehicle were being transported from the State of U.P. to outside the State of U.P. but while passing the vehicle outside the State of U.P. was without having any T.D.F. and thus, the consignment is needed physical verification. Physical verification of the consignment was carried out on the same date i.e. o

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bench judgment of this Court, at Lucknow, rendered in Misc. Bench No.5536 of 2018, Satyendra Goods Transport Corporation through Prop. Bhuwan Kohli & another Vs. State of U.P. and others thru. Principal Secretary Tax & Registration & others, dated 13.04.2018 wherein it has been held as under :
” Furthermore, we find that alongwith the consignment of goods the driver was carrying an invoice which mentioned that the goods were being taken from the State of Uttarakhand to the State of West Bengal, therefore, as of now, it was an inter-State trade and there is nothing on record to show otherwise. The assertion that I.G.S.T. had already been paid, has also not been denied by the opposite parties nor that both the consignor and consignee are re

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate Versus M/s. AVM Film Studios (Vice-Versa)
Service Tax
2018 (7) TMI 695 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 24-4-2018
ST/CO/30/2010 and ST/366/2010, ST/388/2010 – 41313-41314/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for Revenue
Ms.Cynduja Crishnan, Advocate for the Assessee
ORDER
Per Bench
The assessees were engaged in letting out their studio for the purpose of film shooting. They were discharging service tax under the category of renting of immovable property service for the said category with effect from 1.6.2007. Department was

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ered by the decision rendered in the assessee's own case vide Final Order No. 43507/2017 dated 19.12.2017 wherein the Tribunal has held the issue in favourof the assessee.
3. The ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy reiterated the findings in the impugned order.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The Tribunal in the appellant's own case vide the above stated final order has analyzed the issue and arrived at the conclusion that the activity does not fall under the category of video tape production service. Further, the assessees are also discharging service tax on the said activity under renting of immovable property service with effect from 1.6.2007. Following the said decision, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the assessee

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai Central Versus KKR India Advisor Pvt. Ltd.
Service Tax
2018 (6) TMI 999 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 24-4-2018
APPLICATION Nos. ST/Stay/93012-93016/2017, APPEAL Nos. ST/87590-87594/2017 – A/86140-86144/2018
Service Tax
Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Shri Dilip Shinde, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for appellant
Shri S. Thirumalai, Advocate, for respondent
Order
The issue involved in the present case is, for filing of refund claim under Rule 5 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012, whether the relevant date should be taken from the date of invoice or date of FIRC or end of the quarter wherein the FIRC is received.
2. Shri Dilip Shinde, learned

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of refund under Rule 5 and Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) issued thereunder is the end of the quarter wherein FIRCs are received. The facts of the present case are that the respondents filed refund claim for the quarter July 2012 to September 2012 on 9.7.2013, for April 2013 to June 2013 on 4.3.2014, for July 2013 to September 2013 on 24.6.2014, for October 2013 to December 2013 on 25.9.2014, for April 2014 to June 2014 on 28.3.2014 and for July 2014 to September 2014 on 30.6.2015. From this fact, it can be seen that the respondents have filed refund claim for each quarter within one year from the end of the quarter. Therefore, the refund is well within the prescribed time limit in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

KKR India Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai Central And Vice-Versa
Service Tax
2018 (6) TMI 797 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 24-4-2018
ST/88029/2017, ST/Stay/85082/2018 ST/85149/2018 – Order No. A/86146-86147/2018
Service Tax
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial )
Shri S. Thirumalai, Advocate, for assessee
Shri Vivek Dwivedi, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for revenue
ORDER
The issue involved in the present case is that –
(i) What should be the relevant date for filing the refund under Rule 5 / Notification 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012.
(ii) Whether the input services viz. general insurance services, real estate agent's services, stock broker services, online information and data access or retrieved services, club or association services and sponsorship services, are input services for the purpose of refund under Rule 5 and whether these services have nexus with the export of services.
2. Shri S. Thirumalai, l

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

vs. CCE&ST, Noida – 2016 (44) STR 97 (Tri.-All.);
(iii) Willis Processing Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Mumbai-II (Order No.A/85189-85205/16/SMB dated 1.1.2016) as affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in 2017 (7) GSTL 12 (Bom.);
(iv) D.E. Shaw India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad – Final Order No.A/30716/2016 dated 1.7.2016;
(v) Steria India Ltd. vs. CC&CEx., Noida – 2013-VIL- 21-CESTAT-DEL-ST;
(vi) Xilinx India Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE&ST, Hyderabad-IV – Final Order No.A/30309/2016 dated 7.4.2016.
3. As regards the Revenue's appeal, the refund claim was filed well within one year from the end of the quarter. Therefore, as per the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE& SST, Bengaluru ST-I vs. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. – 2018-VIL-107- CESTAT-MUM-ST-LB, the refund stands filed within one year from the end of the quarter, which is the relevant date in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable by Notification N

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

was submitted on 30.9.2013, which shows that the refund was filed within one year from the end of the quarter. Therefore, it is well within the prescribed time as provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, there is no substance in the Revenue's appeal. Hence the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
6. As regards the assessee's appeal, I find that the issue is whether the services such as general insurance services, real estate agent's services, stock broker services, online information and data access or retrieved services, club or association services and sponsorship services are admissible input services and have nexus with the services exported in term of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. As explained by the learned counsel, which is based on the invoices submitted, I find that general insurance is for the purpose of insurance policy for the entire premises, including fire, asset of the premises, a small part of the inputs, mediclaim for the employees. In

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

purpose of assessing the overall work of the company which is required for the purpose of business of investment banking. This issue is covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of D.E. Shaw India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Willis Processing Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Therefore, this service is directly used in providing the output service. As regards the online information and data access or retrieved services, from the invoice it is observed that this service is for subscription of website which is used for conducting their business. Therefore, it is directly used for providing the output service, hence the credit is admissible. As regards club or association services, the invoice shows that the membership is of business association. It is common that every membership is for business association which helps the assessee to promote their business by meeting the various members of the association who are into similar business. Therefore, the membership of a business assoc

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

New Steel Trading Pvt. Ltd., Dinesh Mehta Versus Commissioner of CGST, Thane Rural
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 769 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 24-4-2018
Appeal Nos. E/87995, 87998/2017 – Order No. A/86152-86153/2018
Central Excise
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Shri Sunil Agarwal, Advocate, for appellant
Shri S.J. Sahu, Assistant Commissioner (AR), and Shri Deepak Chavan, Superintendent (AR), for respondent
ORDER
The facts of the case are that the appellant is using their moulds for manufacture of their final product. After use for the substantial period, the moulds get damaged and defective, which are not capable of being used further. Therefore, the said defective/damaged moulds ar

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

in the case of Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. vs. CCE, Bombay – 2000 (120) ELT 218 (Tri.-LB). He also relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) La Prenca Industries Pvt. Ltd. – 2017 (346) ELT 412 (Tri.-Mum.);
(ii) La Prenca Industries Pvt. Ltd. – 2017 (349) ELT A27 (Bom.);
(iii) Shakti Wire Products – 2009 (241) ELT 223 (Tri.- Mum.);
(iv) Surya Colour Products Pvt. Ltd. – 2012 (280) ELT 455 (Tri.-Bang.).
3. Shri S.J. Sahu, learned Assistant Commissioner and Shri Deepak Chavan, learned Superintendent (ARs), appearing on behalf of Revenue, reiterate the finding of the impugned order.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides.
5. I find that the Revenue has sought to demand excise duty on the damaged/defecti

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

The Superintending Engineer Versus The Director General of Central Excise, The Director General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence, The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Service Tax
2018 (5) TMI 788 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 24-4-2018
W.P.No.6059 of 2018 & W.M.P.No.7472 of 2018
Service Tax
T. S. Sivagnanam, J.
For the Petitioner : Ms.Narmadha Sampath, Additional Advocate General for Mr.V.Selvasekaran
For the Respondents : Mr.V.Sundareswaran, Mr.S.R.Sundar
ORDER
Heard Ms.Narmadha Sampath, learned Additional Advocate General for Mr.V.Selvasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Chennai Corporation, Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.S.R.Sundar, learned  Standing Counsel, for the 3rd respondent.
2. The petitioner is the Superintending Engineer, Bus Route Roads Department, Greater Chennai Corporation and the challenge in this writ petition is to a show caus

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Further, the petitioner was to indicate in the written reply as to whether they wish to be heard in person before the case is adjudicated.
4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ petition as the impugned order in the writ petition is a show cause notice and submitted that the petitioner should be directed to file a reply to the show cause notice and participate in the adjudication process before the 3rd respondent.
5. In reply to the said preliminary objection, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the nature of services rendered by the Corporation of Chennai is services rendered to the general public and no service tax is payable. It is further submitted that the Telecom Companies, who are permitted to lay Optical Fibre Cables, are paying GST and the said payment is inclusive of all taxes and therefore, no separate payment for service tax is maintainable against th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ommissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance for the use of , renovation or alteration for the use of general public is wholly exempted from the payment of service tax and therefore, the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notice. Further, it is reiterated that the transaction has already suffered tax when the excavation is done and if the 2nd respondent is to adjudicate the impugned show cause notice and levy service taxation, it will amount double tax. On the above ground, learned Additional Advocate General sought for quashing the impugned show cause notice.
6. While reiterating the preliminary objection, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that on and from 01.07.1962, all activities are liable for payment of service tax except the services which are exempted. Referring to the averments/allegations in the impugned show cause notice, it is submitted that the nature of activity

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ause notice on the ground of jurisdiction. The petitioner has challenged the impugned show cause notice primarily on two grounds. Firstly on the ground that it performs public duty and in the process of doing so, there is excavation work and for the said excavation work the concerned contractor, is remitting tax, which is is inclusive of service tax. Secondly, jurisdictional issue is raised by placing reliance on Mega Exemption Notification dated 20.06.2012.
9. On a perusal of the impugned show cause notice, it is seen that what is being sought to be taxed is the renting of immovable property and not for excavation work. Therefore, if any remittance being made by the Contractor who has excavated the earth for the purpose of renting of immovable property, will not absolve the petitioner from the proposal made in the show cause notice. The second aspect is whether Mega Exemption Notification would be applicable to a particular nature of service is purely a question of fact. Therefore, i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

not be quashed.
10. For the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, it is made clear that the observation made in this order are only prima facie observations made while testing the legal question as to whether the writ petition is maintainable or not and these observations will have absolutely no impact in the adjudication process and the Adjudicating Authority shall decide the matter independently applying his mind and without being in any manner influenced by the observations made in this order. Considering the fact that the writ petition is pending since 14.3.2018 and time limit prescribed in the show cause notice for submitting reply has expired, this court directs the petitioner to submit their reply to the show cause notice within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The reply to be filed by the petitioner shall be in addition to the reply already filed by the petitioner dated 13.03.2018 and the adjudicati

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rivigo Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of U.P. And 3 Others
GST
2018 (5) TMI 367 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (14) G. S. T. L. 177 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 24-4-2018
Writ Tax No. 689 of 2018
GST
Hon'ble Krishna Murari And Hon'ble Ashok Kumar , JJ.
For the Petitioner : Suyash Agarwal
For the Respondent : A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.
ORDER
( Per: Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, J. )
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Avinash Chandra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the seizure order dated 16.04.2018 and the consequential penalty notice dated 16.04.2018 passed/issued under Section 129(1) and 129(3) of the Act respectively.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered company having its registered office at Gurugram, Haryana. The petitioner company is also registered under the GST Act, 2017 and is carrying on business of transpor

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

gistered firm. For the dispatch of the aforesaid two consignments namely for Telangana and for Deharadun, the consignor of Ghaziabad has booked the goods to be delivered both at Telangana as well as Deharadun against the Goods Receipt (GR) which has been prepared on 15.04.2018. The aforesaid consignment was loaded in Truck No. U.P.-14FT- 0643 from the premises of the consignor in small vehicle and the same are brought for transshipment Branch which is situate at Grater Noida, U.P. and the goods were reloaded in two different trucks for transportation for Telangana and Deharadun. The distance between the business place of consignor and the Grater Noida Branch of Transporter is approximately 25-30 KM.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the notification No.12 of 2018 dated 07.03.2018. By this notification, the Central Government has amended CGST Rules, 2017 by CGST (second amendment) Rules, 2018, by which new Rule 138 was substituted.
By another notification no.15 of 2018 iss

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

39;Part B' which pertains to details of truck/vehicle number was left blank to be filled by the transporter (in the present case the petitioner) when the goods will be reloaded in respective trucks at transshipment branch at Grater Noida for further journey upto Telangana and Deharadun respectively.
The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 15.04.2018 at late evening, that too after opening of no entry when the goods related to Telangana and Deharadun are loaded in Truck No. U.P.14-FT-0643 at the premises of the consignor for journey from Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad for the transshipment branch of the transport company situates at Greater Noida, and from where the aforesaid goods were required to be reloaded in respective vehicles for their individual destination, the respondent no.4 namely Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-III, Ghaziabad has intercepted the vehicle at 11.35 P.M. on 15.04.2018 and has issued the detention notice in the name of the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

for the petitioner, the notification no.12 of 2018 dated 07.03.2018 issued by CGST as well as the notification no. 487 dated 26.03.2018 issued under the UPGST Act, it is apparent that both the aforesaid notification are pari-materia and third proviso of Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 138 provides that where goods are transported for a distance upto 50 Km within the State from place of business of consignor to place of transporter for further transportation, the transporter may not furnish the details of conveyance in 'Part B' of GST e-way bill-01.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the distance was much below within the prescribed limit of 50 km in between the consignors place of business and transport company from where the goods were required to be reloaded in different transport vehicles for their onward journey. He has further submitted that since the department itself has issued the notification, therefore, the entire seizure proceeding is wholly illegal as also co

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of goods across the country is being introduced from 01st April, 2018. Few clarifications regarding the new e-way bill system are as follows:
1. Situation:- Consider a situation where a consignor is required to move goods from City X to City Z. He appoints Transporter A for movement of his goods. Transporter A moves the goods from City X to City Y. For completing the movement of goods i.e. from City Y to City Z, Transporter A now hands over the goods to Transporter B. Thereafter, the goods are moved to the destination i.e. from City Y to City Z by Transporter B. How would the e-way bill be generated in such situations?
Clarification:- It is clarified that in such a scenario, only one e-way bill would be required. PART A of FORMGST EWB-01 can be filled by the consignor and then the e-way bill will be assigned by the consignor to Transporter A. Transporter A will fill the vehicle details, etc. in PART B of FORMGST EWB-01 and will move the goods from City X to City Y.
On reaching City

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

WB-01 on Monday and the validity period of the e-way bill will start from Monday.
The aforesaid clarification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance stipulates the functioning of use of e-way bill system. In this clarification, it is clearly provided that on reaching city Y, transporter A will assign the said e-way bill to the transporter B. Thereafter the transporter B will be able to update the details of 'Part-B' of Form GST e-way bill-01 and transporter B will fill details of his vehicle and will move the goods thereafter.
In the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to downloading of e-way bill, which was downloaded on 15.04.2018. The vehicle proceeded from consignors place of business to the transporter's godown and from there the goods were supposed to reload in other vehicles and then to proceed to its ultimate destination namely Telangana and Deharadun. Until and unless the goods/vehicle reached at the place of transport company from where

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Padmavati Enterprise, Abicor and Binzel Technoweld Pvt. Ltd., Draeger Safety India Private Limited, AGS Transact Technologies Limited, M/s. Arihant Vatika Realty Private Ltd., M/s. Arihant Abode Limited, M/s. Arihant Aashiyana Pvt. Limited, M/s. Arihant Superstructures Limited, Sigma Electric Manufacturing Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India & Anr.
GST
2018 (4) TMI 1546 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 596 (Bom.)
BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 24-4-2018
Writ Petition (L) No. 424 of 2018, With Civil Writ Petition (ST. ) No. 2230 of 2018, 3695 of 2018, 3953 of 2018, 4584 of 2018, 4604 of 2018, 4613 of 2018, 4615, 5092 of 2018,
GST
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
→ WPL 424/2018 :Mr. Vinayak Patkar a/w. Mr. Ishaan Patkar, Mr. Shashank Dhond, Ms. Sneha Raut i/b. Roshni Naik for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Singh, Addl. Solicitor General a/w. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly and Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra for the respondents.
→ WPST 2230

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

IT related glitch would be a grievance definitely looked into and is being looked into by Grievance Redressal Committee. In his affidavit, he has indicated as to how Nodal Officers have been appointed in terms of several circulars, copies of which are at Exhibits 'A', 'B' and 'C' to this petition. The tax payers can make an application to the Field Officers or the Nodal Officers where there was a demonstrable glitch on the common portal (GST portal) in relation to an identified issue due to which the tax payer could not comply with the provisions of law. The Nodal Officer, upon receipt of such an application, even online but with some proof or evidence therewith, would definitely look into the same and take the remedial steps. He would forward it to the GST network. Though, the Nodal Officer would give a formal acknowledgement, even online, beyond this he would not assist the applicant so as to enable the tax payer / applicant to make a record for himself and th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

and would not delay the tax collection.
5. The Additional Solicitor General, after speaking to the officers present in Court, stated that presently there is nothing which has been evovled as a time frame within which the grievance raised before the Nodal Officer could be finally resolved and determined.
6. In relation to both these matters, we feel that this Court ought not be flooded with writ petitions and particularly more in number than what is already on our file. We find that in today's affidavit it is indicated that the tax payers shall complete the process of filing of TRAN-1 stuck due to IT related glitches by 30th April, 2018 and the process of complete filing of GSTR3B which could not be filed for such TRAN-1 shall be completed by 31st May, 2018.
7. We are not disturbing the date which has been determined for filing of GSTR-3B for that is prescribed as 31st May, 2018. Presently that is adequate and sufficient for redressing the grievance of all those who could not acc

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

chnical glitches or a Information Technology related matter which prevented them from accessing the system earlier. This is not a facility which could be availed of for any other reason and not attributable to such glitches or system faults / errors. We accept and endorse this stand of the respondents. The writ petitions in which the complaint was that the petitioners could not access the system on account of no fault of theirs but due to the technical glitches / IT related glitches are disposed of in these terms. We clarify that our order and direction are not a expression of opinion on the legal or other factual issues related to the returns. If the return is in any way otherwise deficient or defective in the opinion of the revenue, but not so in the submission of the assessee, then, such issues have to be resolved independently and on their own merits. Their outcome shall not be influenced by our directions. In other words, whether strict or substantial compliance is contemplated in

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rescinds the Notification issued vide F. No.3240/CTD/GST/2018/2 dated the 29th March, 2018.
F.No. 3240/CTD/GST/2018/3 Dated:- 24-4-2018 Puducherry SGST
GST – States
Puducherry SGST
Puducherry SGST
F.No. 3240/CTD/GST/2018/3
GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY
COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT
Puducherry, the 24th April, 2018
NOTIFICATION
Sub: Puducherry Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Withdrawal of exemption given to intra-State movement of goods from generation of e-way bill – Reg.
In exe

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

M/s. Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central GST & Excise, Alwar
Central Excise
2018 (4) TMI 1389 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 24-4-2018
Excise Appeal No. 50771 of 2018 SM – Final Order No. 51629 /2018-(SM)
Central Excise
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Ms Rinky Arora, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri H C Saini, AR for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa :
After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellants, who is engaged in the manufacture of Auto parts, availed cenvat credit of service tax of Rs. 18 lakh approx. paid in respect of services of Industrial Construction and Architect pertaining to construction of factory building, during the period 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. A part of the credit amount around Rs. 15,000/- relate to repair and maintenance of drains lying outside the factory premises.
2. Inasmuch as in the year 2011, the construction services were excluded from the definition of input ser

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

repair and maintenance services, she submits that there is no  exclusion of the said service and even if they are availed outside the factory premises but within the industrial area, credit would be admissible. She also referred to various decision in support of her contentions.
4. Learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the grounds of rejection adopted by Commissioner (Appeals) and submits that in absence of details of services, in respect of which the credit has been availed, it is not possible for the Revenue to know about the said services, in which case, the extended period would be available to the Revenue. However, on being asked as to whether there is any provision in the law requiring the assessee to give the details of input services, he fairly agreed that no provision of law requires them to do so.
5. Inasmuch as the entire demand is barred by limitation, I propose to dispose of the appeal on the said issue. Admittedly, the show cause notice stand issued by i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

respect of which the credit was availed has not been reflected in ER 1 return and no document/ invoices stand given by the assessee. However, as is seen from the above observations of the appellate authority himself, no documents are required to be submitted by the assessee after 1996. If there is no legal obligation on the part of the assessee to do a particular act, non observation of that procedure / act cannot be held to be violative of law. If the law does not require documents / invoices, non submission of the same by an assessee is in accordance with the law and cannot be held to be a suppression or mis-statement, with an intent to evade payment of duty, thus  justifying the invocation of longer period of limitation.
7. Reference in this regard, can be made to Tribunal's decision in the case of Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut I [2014 (33) STR 305 (Tri-Del)] wherein it was observed as under:-
7. Apart from allowing the appeals on merits, I also note that demands sta

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

In the absence of the same, assessee cannot be held guilty of any mala fide. As such, I hold that the entire demand having been raised after the normal period of limitation is time barred.”
8. Apart from the above, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, NOIDA vs. Accurate Chemical Industries [2014 (310) ELT 441 (All)] has also observed that the short payment detected by audit team when the assessee has duly filed the ER 1 return on a monthly basis, cannot be considered to be a malafide and the Range Officer were required to carry out a detailed scrutiny of ER 1 returns and if the same would have been done, short payment would have been detected. In such a scenario, the Hon'ble High Court observed that there was no malafide intent and extended period was not available.
9. Identical are the facts in the present case also. The appellant have admittedly filed ER 1 returns declaring the quantum of credit availed by them and the Revenue had not take

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund of ITC on capital goods in case of export of services under cover of LUT
Query (Issue) Started By: – Archna Gupta Dated:- 23-4-2018 Last Reply Date:- 10-1-2019 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 7 Replies
GST
Dear experts
One company is in business of export of services (no domestic supplies). initially it exported services on payment of IGST. It utilised ITC at the time of payment of IGST on export of services. Later it applied for LUT and after that all supplies were done under LUT without payment of IGST. Since then it has huge balance of ITC in its credit ledger. ITC includes ITC on Inputs, Input services and capital goods (approx 40 lacs). As per Rule 89, the company can claim refund of ITC on Inputs and input servic

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

fore you have to take up the matter with authorities concerned.
Reply By Alkesh Jani:
The Reply:
Sir/Madam,
In my point of view, you can file refund claim under Rule 89(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 read with Section 54 (1) of GST Act,2017. However, till date the same is not available on portal but may be in future.
Our experts may correct me if mistaken.
Reply By Archna Gupta:
The Reply:
Dear Alkesh ji
Under Rule 89 in case of export we can claim refund of unutilised ITC on Inputs and input services only and not on capital goods.
Reply By Alkesh Jani:
The Reply:
Sir/Madam,
For more clarity let me reproduced the relevant rules of CGST Rules:-
"89 (1) Any person, except the persons covered under notification issued under section 55,

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Roll – out of e-Way Bill system for I ntra-State movement of goods in the States / Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Sikkim and Puducherry from 25th April, 2018
GST
Dated:- 23-4-2018

As per the decision of the GST Council, e-Way Bill system for ​I​nter-State movement of goods has been rolled​-​out from 01st April, 2018. As on 20th April, 2018, e-Way Bill system for ​Intra-State movement of goods has been rolled-out in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Telangana, Tripura, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. E-Way Bills are getting generated successfully and till 22ndApril, 2018 more than one crore eighty

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

E-way Bill Required for “Bill To Ship To” Model Under GST: Key for Compliance and Tracking Goods Movement.
News
GST
Procedure to issue E-way Bill – “Bill To Ship To” model under GST
TMI U

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Issues regarding “Bill To Ship To” for e-Way Bill under CGST Rules, 2017
GST
Dated:- 23-4-2018

A number of representations have been received seeking clarifications in relation to requirement of e-Way Bill for “Bill To Ship To” model of supplies. In a typical “Bill To Ship To” model of supply, there are three persons involved in a transaction, namely:
* 'A' is the person who has ordered 'B' to send goods directly to 'C'.
* 'B' is the person who is sending goods directly to 'C' on behalf of 'A'.
* 'C' is the recipient of goods.
2. In this complete scenario two supplies are involved and accordingly two tax invoices are required to be issued:
* Invoice -1, which would be issued by 'B' to 'A'.
* Invoice -2 which wou

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of 'A' are supposed to be filled.
4.
Ship to: 
In this field address of 'C' is supposed to be filled.
5.
Invoice Details:
Details of Invoice-1 are supposed to be filled
Case -2: Where e-Way Bill is generated by 'A', the following fields shall be filled in Part A of GST FORM EWB-01:
1.
Bill From:
In this field details of 'A' are supposed to be filled.
2.
Dispatch From:
This is the place from where goods are actually dispatched. It may be the principal or additional place of business of 'B'.
3.
Bill To:
In this field details of 'C' are supposed to be filled.
4.
Ship to: 
In this field address of 'C' is supposed to be filled.
5.
Invoice Details:
Details of Invoice-2 are supposed to be filled.
News – Pres

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Implication of GST on Lease Rent
Query (Issue) Started By: – Deepa Praveen Dated:- 23-4-2018 Last Reply Date:- 28-4-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 2 Replies
GST
Facts:
ABC Medical Sciences is a Partnership Firm engaged in Health Care Services.
A new Company, PQR Healthcare Co Pvt. Ltd has been formed as a Private Limited Company , for the management of ABC Medical Sciences. All the partners of ABC Medical Science are either directors or major shareholders of the new company.
PQR Healthcare Co Pvt. Ltd is willing to enter into an agreement with ABC Medical Science whereby PQR Healthcare Co Pvt. Ltd shall takeover Plant & Machinery and Land of ABC Medical Science, having market value of ₹ 40 crores at a monthly le

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

, as the monthly lease rent being charged is
₹ 1.50 Lakhs only, Can there be a chance of litigation in future with respect to value of supply?
Does acceptance of lease rent deposit of ₹ 20 crore which is nearly 50% of the market value of asset to be leased, justify the lower lease rent.
* Should ABC Medical Sciences go for GST registration , as the turnover of KIMS is only from Lease Rent which is less than threshold limit of ₹ 20 Lakhs?
Reply By Alkesh Jani:
The Reply:
Sir/Madam,
In my point of view, the reply is as follows:-
1. Deposit given in respect of the supply of goods or services or both shall not be considered as payment made for such supply unless the supplier applies such deposit as consideration for th

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

E-way bill
Query (Issue) Started By: – MohanLal tiwari Dated:- 23-4-2018 Last Reply Date:- 29-4-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 2 Replies
GST
Dear experts,
We have dispatched / removed consignments on 29th & 30th March but transporter has kept the same in their godown due to year end pressure and non availability of vehicles. Now transporting is dispatching the goods, please advise :
1. There was no compulsion of way bill up to 31st March, no way bill was generated by us.
2

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Wrong credit availed in Excise how to reverse the same in GST?
Query (Issue) Started By: – Yatin Bhopi Dated:- 23-4-2018 Last Reply Date:- 30-4-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 6 Replies
GST
We have wrongly availed excise duty credit in the month of May 2017 and same has been reflected in May 17 ER-1. now we want to reverse the wrong credit.
I tried to reverse the credit in GSTR-3B in table 4, under column B, ITC reversed 2) Others. I inserted reversible amount in CGST column (since Trans Credit pertaining to excise and service tax had been reflected in CGST. but when I input figure in CGST, portal automatically posting the same figure in SGST column and not allowing to delete figures in SGST due to this reversible figure

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Composite Tax Dealer – Canteen
Query (Issue) Started By: – Praveen Nair Dated:- 23-4-2018 Last Reply Date:- 28-4-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 3 Replies
GST
Dear Experts,
Kindly suggest whether Canteen Services Provider, an outside agency providing exclusive service to a factory – providing food to the employees, be registered as a Composite Tax Dealer?
Currently he is registered as a Outdoor Catering Service provider and charges GST at applicable rate.
Thanks
Pravin Nair
Reply By Alkesh Jani:
The Reply:
Sir, In this regards, my point of view is that, person supplying outdoor catering service cannot opt for composition scheme in terms of Section 10(2)(a) of the CGST Act,2017. This query is raised with regards to s

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Accept/Reject Material without E-Way Bill
Query (Issue) Started By: – Shankar Nayakar Dated:- 23-4-2018 Last Reply Date:- 28-4-2018 Goods and Services Tax – GST
Got 2 Replies
GST
Sir,
Now E-way bill is mandatory for Gujarat.
Suppose vendor sent material exceeding rs. 50,000, but he did not create and provide E-Way Biil.
In this scenario what should we do ?
can we accept the material with out E-Way bill or reject ?
Reply By Praveen Nair:
The Reply:
Dear Shankar,
* Moving goods without the cover of an invoice and E-way bill constitutes an offence and attracts a penalty of ₹ 10,000 or the tax sought to be evaded (whichever is greater). Hence, the bare minimum penalty that is levied for not complying the rules is &#83

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Orders First Respondent to Finish Goods Detention Adjudication Process in One Month After Judgment Receipt.
Case-Laws
GST
Detention of goods – first respondent directed to complete the

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Court Dismisses Petition on Goods Seizure; E-Way Bill Downloaded Four Days Post-Seizure on January 7, 2017.
Case-Laws
GST
Seizure of goods – E-Way Bill itself was downloaded on 07.01.2017 i.e

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =