Central Excise – Procedure for manual disbursal of budgetary support under Goods and Service Tax Regime to the units located in States of Jammu & Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and North East
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – JAIPRAKASH RUIA – Dated:- 6-12-2017 Last Replied Date:- 6-12-2017 – Sir,which GST will be applicable for EOU to EOU Supply. IGST Only or CGST/SGST also as applicable on the basis of POS. – Reply By Ramaswamy S – The Reply = Supplies from one EOU to another EOU shall attract IGST (if inter state) and CGST+SGST if intra state. – Reply By KASTURI SETHI – The Reply = IGST only – Reply By JAIPRAKASH RUIA – The Reply = different view were expected from learned experts because if see the table 6c of gstr1, only IGST Column is there but we see the Form B format attached with circular in this reagrd, CGST/SGST, IGST and Comp Cess columns are there. However, I would like to know the reason for applicability of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
(like in the case of imports), the said para would have said on payment of IGST. But it says on payment of applicable GST. It means it depends on POS.RegardsS.Ramaswamy – Reply By JAIPRAKASH RUIA – The Reply = S Ramaswamy Sir, I fully agree with your interpretation sir, but what about the format of TABLE C of GSTR1 where supply as deemed export is going to be filled by supplier unit and there is no option for SGST/CGST and no amendment yet in the format. I am also looking for the logic which proves that only IGST is chargeable other that the format of GSTR1. Tax to be charged should be decided by act and rules not by format of one or other form. – Reply By Ramaswamy S – The Reply = Lets wait for the changes in the portal. – Discussion-Forum
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Narendra Soni – Dated:- 6-12-2017 Last Replied Date:- 6-12-2017 – Dear Experts,As per notification, Refund on deemed export is allowed to supplier.How it can be claimed, because sully against invalidation to domestic customer is made on payment of GST. Recipient paid invoice amount including the GST charged in bill. The recipient will also avail ITC of GST paid by him to supplier, then how supplier is entitled for refund under deemed export.Kindly suggest. – Reply By ANITA BHADRA – The Reply = Dear Sir , GST Refund of Deemed Exports Supply can be claimed by either Recipient or Supplier. Notification No. 47/2017-Central Tax, 18th October, 2017,- The supplier of deemed export supplies can claim refund i
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Narendra Soni – Dated:- 6-12-2017 Last Replied Date:- 14-12-2017 – Dear ExpertKindly suggest, whether, Only Sale invoices will be considered for Adjusted Total Turnover in formula of refund of accumulated ITC.Whether value of Debit notes and advance receipt on which GST has been paid in relevent tax period shall not be considered in Adjusted Total Turnover . – Reply By ANITA BHADRA – The Reply = Dear Sir Adjusted Total turnover means the turnover as define
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Richa Goyal – Dated:- 6-12-2017 Last Replied Date:- 7-12-2017 – My newly formed firm who has not applied for GST is paying advance to a company for services. That company will pay GST on advance. I will get GST number in 20 days as I have still just applied for PAN. that company will issue me a Bill in January. Now will I get GST credit in January or just because when that Company has paid GST when I was not having GST number, I will not be able to claim credit ? – Reply By ANITA BHADRA – The Reply = Dear Madam Section 18 of CGST Act 2017 states – If a person applied for registration within 30 days from the date on which he becomes liable – shall be entitled to get ITC from the day immediately precedi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – nandankumar roy – Dated:- 6-12-2017 Last Replied Date:- 6-12-2017 – DEAR SIR, PLEASE HELP TO FIND OUT THE PROBLEM WHERE IN STATUS SHOWING ERROR IN SUBMISSION , PL CONFIRM WHETHER IT IS SUBMITTED OR PENDING NOW POINT IS IN TOTAL DUTY PAYABLE SECTION WISE TOTAL SHOWING 70 LACS IN ALL TOGETHER INSTEAD OF 66.9 LACS NOW NEW JSON FILE GENERATED WHICH IS ALSO ERROR ,COMPLAINED TO HELP DESK THEY REPLIED PROBLEM SORTED OUT BUT SITUATION THE SAME AS EARLIER.GSTIN –
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal – Dated:- 6-12-2017 – Anti Profiteering, as the name suggests, is a check against profiteering – something which ought to be ethical but is now a legal issue in Goods and Service Tax. Concept of anti-profiteering measure While every business would like to earn more and more profits from business, given an opportunity, it is a fact that GST is a new concept being introduced in India for first time and claimed as a major tax reform and that experience suggests that GST may bring in general inflation in the introductory phase. The Government wants that GST should not lead to general inflation and for this, it becomes necessary to ensure that benefits arising out of GST implementation be transferred to customers so that it may not lead to inflation. For this, anti profiteering measures will help check price rise and also put a legal obligation on businesses to pass on the benefit. This will also help in instilling confidence in citiz
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ax credit to the consumer by way of commensurate reduction in prices. Authority for anti-profiteering regulation The power has been given to Central Government to constitute an authority to oversee whether the commensurate benefit of allowance of input tax credit or reduction in the tax rates have been passed on to the final customer. Section 171(2) of the GST Act provides for establishment of an authority for an anti-profiteering clause in order to ensure that business passes on the benefit of reduced tax incidence on goods or services or both to the consumers. The National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) shall be responsible for applying anti-profiteering measures in the event of a reduction in rate of GST on supply of goods or services or, if the benefit of input tax credit is not passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices. The National Anti-profiteering Authority shall be headed by a senior officer of the level of a Secretary to the Government of India
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
check any undue increase in prices of products of companies under GST. The NAA will work to check any undue increase in prices of products by taxpayer companies under the GST regime. It will work in a three-tier structure – a Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering as well as State-level Screening Committees. The National Anti-Profiteering Authority would consist of five members, including a Chairman. It will also constitute State-level Screening Committees, which will have one officer of the State Government, to be nominated by the Commissioner, and one officer of the Central Government, to be nominated by the Chief Commissioner. The Additional Director General of Safeguards will be the Secretary to the Authority. Various authorities under GST law for anti-profiteering shall, thus comprise of the following: National Anti-Profiteering Authority, Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering, and State level Screening Committee. Affected consumers may file an application, in the prescribed f
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nsequent to reduction in rate of tax or allowance of input tax credit. During the two years of initial transition into GST regime, Anti-Profiteering Authority (APA) will step in and may ask businesses that have not passed on full benefits of reduced tax burden to consumers to make up for such benefit, with interest. National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) shall act as a monitoring and regulatory authority to curb anti-profiteering practices of tax payers under GST regime. The NAA shall have powers to: Make company reduce the prices. Make company refund the money to the consumer alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. Order company to deposit the refund amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund (in case the buyer is not identifiable). Impose monetary penalty equivalent to amount involved in undue profiteering. Cancel registration of the assessee. However, such action would be based on the recommendations of the Directorate General of Safeguards. Also such powers would be used in extreme cases. Order
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
10 November, 2017, GST Council decided to lower the GST rates of about 200 items in different categories. In 178 cases, it was lowered from 28% to 18% including FMCG items. With this, there are now only 50 items in 28% bracket (w.e.f. 15 November, 2017). The National Anti-Profiteering Authority is an assurance to consumers. If any consumer feels the benefit of tax rate cuts is not being passed on, he can complain to the authority. The body is mandated to ensure that the benefits of GST rate reduction is passed on to consumers. The five-member anti-profiteering authority will have power to ask those not passing on the tax benefit to return the undue profit earned to consumers along with an 18% interest, reduce prices and if the consumer is not identifiable, deposit the amount in a Consumer Welfare Fund. In yet another move, CBEC has issued an advisory to major consumer product manufacturers to ensure that price reduction should take place wherever rates have been lowered so that benefi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
which has been possible with the use of technology to monitor billing / invoicing at retail level. Similarly, restaurants are also expected to pass on the benefit because of lower tax rate of 5% in place of 18% or 18% with input tax credit. Government had to take this step as restaurants were not passing on the benefit and there were complaints of undue profiteering. Lowering the rate also makes things simple for businesses as well as consumers. Though there is a legal provision in the GST law itself to take action against of undue profiteering, Government has taken various steps to ensure action on the part of manufacturers and suppliers so that the benefit is passed on to ultimate beneficiaries, i.e., the consumers. Even on existing stocks lying unsold, there is going to be revised prices put by way of stickers or otherwise. Since old and new (revised) prices would be displayed, a comparison thereof will show the benefit passed on due to lower tax cascading. One of the measures to cu
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Proper Officers Designation In GST. – GST – States – Circular No. 1718064/1093 – Dated:- 6-12-2017 Circular – Trade Notice – Public Notice – Instructions – Office orders
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (2) TMI 360 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI – Clandestine removal – excesses of raw material and finished goods – personal penalty u/r 26 of CER, 2002 on co-noticees – Held that: – Revenue has accepted that 21 Co-noticees were innocent – the entire Show Cause Notice for demand of Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 7,38,84,853/- was based on the statements and the said statements did not stand the scrutiny before the Original Authority – there was no evidence brought forward by Revenue in respect of procurement of raw-materials, engaging labourers, transportation of goods, buyers of the goods and realization of sale proceed in respect of goods alleged to have been clandestinely manufactured and cleared.
–
Demand set aside – appeal dismissed – decided against Revenue. – Appeal No. E/70545/2017-EX[DB] With MISC. Application No. E/MISC/70315/2017 – Final Order No. 70274/2018 – Dated:- 6-12-2017 – Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical)
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
respondents were called upon to show cause as to why excess finished goods valued at ₹ 7,14,533/- (MRP Value at ₹ 15,87,851/-) involving Central Excise duty of ₹ 6,32,933/- & raw-material valued at ₹ 1,36,83,980/- seized at the factory premises of respondent should not be confiscated under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. There were, further, proposals to confiscate unaccounted raw-material valued at ₹ 11,13,375/- & packing material valued at ₹ 1,07,307/-. Further there was a proposal to confiscate 295 Cartons of Bharat & Vani Brand Chewing Tobacco and 44 Cartons of Unbranded Chewing Tobacco valued at ₹ 20,79,122/- involving Central Excise duty of ₹ 18,40,688/- seized on 26/02/2015 at the premises of various transporters or during transit. Further there was a proposal to demand duty of Central Excise duty ₹ 18,40,688/- involved in said goods valued at ₹ 20,79,122/- On the basis of investigations and stat
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Kumar Sen, Shri Arun Kumar, Shri Govind Singh, Shri Devi Lal, Shri Ajay Sharma, Deepak Sehgal, Shri Gaurav Chawla, Shri Santosh Kumar Dubey, Shri Dilip Shah, Tapan Das & Shri Vaibhav Agrawal. The respondent contested the allegations in said two Show Cause Notices before the Original Authority. The respondents submitted before the Original Authority that no incriminating documents evidencing clearance of goods by them using invoices of any other firms or clearance without payment of duty were recovered, not even a single duplicate copy of invoice of any of the alleged fake/pseudo firms said to be used for transportation of clandestine clearances was recovered, there was no recovery of unaccounted cash. Further they submitted before the Original Authority that the transporters never open the packages booked for transportation when the goods are booked for transportation and stated that goods were generally booked by Shri Manoj and Shri Tiwari both of whom were booking agents and were
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
and executed bonds, they concluded the seized goods were not genuine after obtaining provisional release of same quantity and therefore refrained from obtaining provisional release of remaining goods. The Original Authority has found that the evidence for allegations in respect of Show Cause Notice dated 03/01/2017 was virtually non-existent. The Original Authority has also held that the demands supporting the allegations in the said Show Cause Notice dated 03/01/2017 were denied during cross-examination. He further held that there was no evidence in respect of the said Show Cause Notice and there were no Bills, Slips, any documentary evidence, evidencing such production and clearance and there was no unaccounted cash or any other hard evidence recovered from the factory premise of the appellant or their transporters or the buyers. He further held that the entire case was based upon the statements, which was denied during cross-examination. Therefore, he ordered confiscation of unacco
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
per and deserves to be set aside on the following grounds- 2.1 The Adjudicating Authority erred in deciding to ignore the entire body of evidence meticulously collected by the investigating officers over a period of time and from several geographical and placed its entire focus on various statements recorded during investigation by summing up its findings in Para-26 as under:- The entire case was predicated on the statements which were denied during cross-examination. 2.2 The above findings recorded in the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority are contrary to the facts and are at variance with the very spirit & thrust of investigations discussed in the Demand-cum-SCN wherein the statements of various witnesses are not the sole evidence but have merely been used as corroboration of physical and documentary evidence gathered during investigations. 2.3 Various findings with regard to the evidentiary value of statements recorded by investigating officers are not only contrary to t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
pplication of mind. 2.5 In a rather unusual, unheard of and unprecedented move, the Adjudicating Authority summoned one Shri Manoj Ji (No further details except a Mobile phone No. is available in the records of Adjudication proceedings) for Cross-examination by the main Noticee, although the said Manoj Ji neither figures anywhere in the investigations, nor his statement was recorded, nor any reliance placed on his any revelations. The said Manoj Ji, during cross-examination put forward a theory that the consignment seized by the officers on 26.02.2017 from the godown of M/s Jaipur Golden Transport Company Pvt. Ltd., situated at Naurangpur Village, Tauru Road, Sector 78, Gurgaon may have been fake goods (purportedly manufactured by someone other than M/s MPE). The said consignment, packed in 17 bags, was found to have finished goods valued at ₹ 4,35,600/-, the brand name on the goods i.e. VANI Premium, found on goods packed in 15 bags out of 17 bags pertains to M/s MPE and booked
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
orward address. The said Mukesh Tiwari never joined investigations. It is not clear if Shri Manoj Ji referred to the same Shri Tiwari. Prior to the deposition of the said Shri Manoj Ji before the A/A, the question of goods under seizure being fake/counterfeit never came up. The first SCN covering the seizure portion of the case was issued on 25.08.2015 which was duly received by the main Noticee and in which details of all goods placed under seizure were provided and all Panchnamas, Statements etc. were provided as RUDs. However, at no stage M/s MPE claimed the seized goods as fake/counterfeit/not belonging to them. They, in fact, applied for provisional release of the seized goods, submitted Bonds/Bank guarantees and got all the goods released provisionally except one consignment. However, based on this unusual deposition of someone who did not have the status of a witness, the A/A erred in holding all the finished goods seized at various places other than the factory premises as fake
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
with cogent reasons to be recorded in writing. The A/A has clearly travelled beyond the four walls of the SCN by calling Shri Manoj Ji for evidence, without recording any grounds for doing so. There is no harm if the A/A in the present case wanted to create a precedent of calling Defence witness for cross-examination in furtherance of justice and the department would always welcome any steps taken in furtherance of justice. However, equity required that a level-paying field should have been provided by giving an advance notice to the department in this regard before allowing the Defence witness . Moreover, grounds for taking such an unprecedented step, should have been recorded in writing and given due space in the OIO. Unfortunately, the A/A erred in neither recording any grounds to allow defence witness nor providing any opportunity to the department to examine the witness, based on whose deposition before the A/A, seizure of the entire finished goods seized outside the factory were
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
or during adjudication proceedings, the main notice offer any cogent explanation. The consignee of these goods was the same which has also been making recorded purchases. Contrary to its findings quoted above that statements are the only evidences in the case, the A/A also held presence of such enormous quantity of unaccounted finished goods as contrary to law and ordered confiscation of these goods. ii) Huge quantities of unaccounted raw material & packing material, collectively valued at over ₹ 1.36 crores was seized from the factory of the main Noticee. Further, unaccounted raw material & packing material collectively valued at ₹ 23.34 Lakh were also seized from a godown belonging to the main notice. Qty of raw tobacco, a perishable material, is 7225kgs. As in case of finished goods, packing material mainly comprising small tin boxes for packing of 10 gms, 50 gms of finished goods are of very low value and, therefore, the quantity is huge in term of nos. e.g. 94,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
landestine removal was corroborated by documentary evidence in the form of a file and a notepad recovered in November, 2014 during a search conducted in connection with another case, from the factory of the supplier of tin boxes revealing unaccounted supplies to M/s MP Enterprises, the main Noticees of this case and was further corroborated by the supplier himself as well as by Shri Atul Chaurasia, the authorized representative/Partner of the main Noticee in their voluntary statements. Even the A/A did not differ with the investigating officers regarding unrecorded nature of these goods. v) A consignment of 21 bags of finished goods, comprising 10,080 ready to sell tin container packed with finished goods were seized from a transporter in Ghaziabad. All the containers carried the Brand name of the main Noticee, name of the manufacturer printed on the labels is that of the main assessee and were covered by an invoice issued by the main assessee. However, on verification, it was revealed
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
from Delhi & Gurgaon which were at various stages of transit and were destined for buyers figuring in the recorded sales of M/s MPE. These consignments were mostly found booked under fake invoices of non-existent companies and were generally found mis-declared as Sweet Mix, Agarbattis etc. Some of these seizures were effected by Central Excise officers of various Commissionerates. viii) Investigations conducted under summon proceedings with another transporter, namely M/s M.S. Freight Carriers (P) Ltd., Ghaziabad revealed another modus operandi of the main Noticee. Scrutiny of records voluntarily submitted by the said transporter under summons revealed that, though most of the consignments booked by the main Noticee with the said transporter for delivery to a Mizoram based buyer were duly recorded by the main Noticee and were duty paid, there were several instances when more than one consignment was booked for transportation under invoices bearing the identical Nos. and Date of is
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he Adjudicating Authority, that the entire case is based only on statements, is contrary to the facts on record and all the aforementioned evidences have been brushed aside without giving reasons, thereby showing lack of application of mind on the part of the Adjudicating Authority. 2.8 The fact that the goods seized from the premises of M/s NECC, the transporter, were booked by M/s MPE on their own fake bills as well as on the fake bills of fake companies, was admitted by Shri Devender Singh, Booking Clerk of M/s NECC in his voluntary statement dated 26.02.2015 recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, wherein, he had, inter alia, admitted that the seized goods had been received from M/s MPE for transportation; that presently they (i.e. M/s MPE) were using fake bills of M/s Delite Trading Company and M/s Frontier Trading Company and that they had transported the goods of M/s MPE on the bills of M/s D. K. Enterprises, M/s MPE, M/s Delite Trading Company and M/s Frontie
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nvestigations with suppliers of raw/packing material and buyers of finished goods, including gist of statements recorded, are also given in the tables above. 2.10 That Shri Atul Kumar Chaurasia, Authorised Signatory of M/s MPE in his voluntary statements dated 26.02.2015 & 27.02.2015, inter alia, admitted that they had been manufacturing branded and unbranded chewing tobacco and clearing them clandestinely without payment of duty. Shri Atul Kumar was confronted with the Panchnamas dated 26.02.2015 drawn at the factory premises of M/s MPE and their godown at 56/10, Near Atlas Cycle, Site-IV, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad and he admitted that the unaccounted raw material and packing material were procured without bills for clandestine manufacturing and clearance of finished goods without payment of duty. He also admitted that the unaccounted finished goods seized from their factory premises were manufactured by them from the unaccounted raw material procured without bills. Shri Atul Kumar was
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
were fictitious and non-existent firms and were used for the purpose of clandestine transportation of unaccounted goods manufactured by them. 2.11 The statement of Shri Atul Chaurasia that firms like M/s Delite Trading Company, M/s D. K. Enterprises, M/s Waxpol General Merchant etc., the names of which were used by M/s MPE for booking their clandestine removed consignments with the transporters were fake & non-existent got corroborated from physical verification conducted at the addresses mentioned on these invoices which revealed that these firms/companies namely M/s Delite Trading Company, B-78, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Delhi, M/s D. K. Enterprises, B-12/5, Site-IV, Sahibabad Indl Area, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad and M/s Waxpol General Merchant, 1682, Gali Peepal Mahadev, Hauz Qazi, Delhi, were fake and non-existent. 2.12 In spite of there being overwhelming evidences on record, the Adjudicating Authority has vacated the seizures made at the premises of the transport companies as well
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
cted with the transportation/purchase of the party s goods during cross-examination, had stated their statements were obtained under coercion. 2.14 That the Adjudicating Authority has erred by ignoring the fact that Shri Atul Kumar Chaurasia had tendered his statements dated 26.02.2015, 27.02.2015 and 21.08.2015 voluntarily and similarly the other persons connected with transportation, purchase of M/s MPE s goods as well as the supply of raw materials to M/s MPE, had tendered their statements voluntarily and they had never retracted their statements. Moreover, the Adjudicating Authority in para 23 of the impugned Order-in-Original has himself admitted that the statements relied upon in the impugned show cause notices, were not retracted, which were recorded over a long period of time on various dates from February, 2015 to May, 2016. 2.15 That the Adjudicating Authority has erred in not considering the fact that all the statements relied upon in the impugned show cause notices were rec
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ex Court. 2.16 That the Adjudicating Authority has erred in not considering the fact that in the instant case the confessional statements are inculpatory and specific and had never been retracted, therefore, the said statements are admissible as evidence. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon ble CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur vs Hi Tech Abrasive Ltd. reported as 2017 (346) ELT 606 (Tri.-Del), wherein the Hon ble CESTAT has held that when the confessional statement is inculpatory and specific and was never retracted, said statement is admissible as evidence. The relevant portion of the above said judgment is reproduced below:- Demand clandestine removal Shortage of inputs and finished goods Evidence of Statement of Director admitting that clearances shown in chart, prepared by Department on basis of entries in loose sheets and note-books found on premises of assessee and sister concern, were made without payment of duty o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ng any duty paying documents. Further, it is on record that the buyers of M/s MPE had been purchasing both accounted and unaccounted finished goods and similarly, the suppliers of raw material had been supplying both accounted and unaccounted raw materials. Therefore, the collusion of the persons connected with the Transporters, buyers & suppliers of M/s MPE i.e. Co-Noticees in the present case, cannot be ruled out with the main Noticee i.e. M/s MPE and that this could be one reason as to why they, during cross-examination, had taken the stand that their statements were recorded under coercion and that too without bringing on record any documentary evidence to establish their allegation. Further, the Adjudicating Authority, without bringing on record any evidence, documentary or otherwise, regarding recording of statements under coercion and without considering the fact that before cross-examination, no statement was ever retracted by any of the persons connected with the Co-Notice
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
there is no need to call Panch witnesses for examination and cross-examination by the petitioner. In the instant case, the statements were recorded from February, 2015 to March, 2016 and the retractions were made only 27.02.2017 & 06.03.2017 during the cross-examination i.e. after lapse of a long period from the dates of recording of the relied upon statements. Similarly, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Telestar Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Special Directory of Enforcement reported as 2013 (289) ELT 3 (SC) had held that if the statements are based on consideration of relevant facts and circumstances and found to be voluntary, they can be relied on irrespective retraction and that subsequent retraction was mere afterthought to escape consequences of violations committed. The ratio of the case supra is squarely applicable in the present case as the relations made by the witnesses in their written statement are corroboration of facts already on record. 2.18 That the Adjudicating Aut
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he person who had actually recorded such statement, then no cognizance of such retraction is required to be taken. In this regard, reliance is place on the judgment of the Hon ble CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of ZAKI ISHRATI Vs. CCE, Kanpur [2012(255)ELT 545 (Tri. Del)], wherein the Hon ble CESTAT has held as under:- The retraction of any statement should be addressed to the officer to who the statement was given. The so called retractions addressed to the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur are at the most could be considered as a representation or complaint. Under these circumstances, the controversy whether the said communications were received in the office of the Collector of Central Excise or not need not be gone into. Similar view has been taken by the Hon ble CESTAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s P.B. Nair C&F Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai reported as 2015 (318) ELT 437 (Tri-Mumbai) by holding as under:- Evidence Statement Retraction of Confessional st
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
r Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were tendered by him voluntarily and, during his last statement dated his last statement dated 7.12.2016 he was again shown his previous 3 statements, he signed the same in token of having seen the same also in his agreement and recorded that he agrees with his previous statements. It was only with regard to statements of other witnesses shown to him that he gave a evasive reply. The findings of the Adjudicating Authority that Shri Atul Kumar Chaurasia retracted his earlier statements during his statement dated 7.12.2016 is, therefore, contrary to facts o record. The statement dated 7.12.2016 cannot be treated as retraction of his earlier statements dated 26.2.2015, 27.2.2015 and 21.8.2015, which were never retracted by him at any point of time. 2.21 That the Adjudicating Authority has relied upon the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vinod Solanki vs Union of Idia reported as 2009 (233) ELT 157 (SC) and the jud
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
were given by them under pressure from the officers, or explained the kind and nature of pressure; whether threat of arrest or physical violence or of any other kind. No such questions were asked either by the defence counsel or by the A/A to delve in further details of the alleged pressure tactics. It is also not clear as to how the alleged pressure built up on them by the officers was in force till a day prior to their cross-examination and dissipated suddenly on the day of cross-examination. In the case of Vinod Solanki vs Union of India reported as 2009 (233) ELT 157 (SC), relied upon the by the A/A in dismissing the statements as of no evidentiary value, the facts and circumstances are vastly different. In case cited supra, searches were conducted on 25.10.1994, the statements of accused person were recorded on 26.10.1994 and 27.10.1994 and the accused was arrested and produced before the Hon ble Court with request for remand on 28.10.1994. The accused person filed written retract
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
action made by the accused. 2.22 That the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in its above referred judgement in the case of Vinod Solanki vs Union of India reported as 2009 (233) ELT 157 (SC), has also held that the evidence brought by confession if retracted must be corroborated by other independent and cogent evidences. In the instant case, as explained above, thought no retraction was made by any of the witnesses prior to cross-examination, but the seizure of the clandestinely removed finished goods by M/s MPE at the premises of the transporters, from their trucks enroute as well as the seizure of the excess quantity of finished goods and unaccounted raw materials/packing material in the factory premises & godown of M/s MPE, clearly substantiate and prove the fact that M/s MPE were engaged in clandestine manufacture and clearances of their finished goods and that they had evaded the Central Excise duty on their finished goods, as rightly alleged in the impugned show cause notice dat
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
sted whether confession is voluntary and truthful, inculpating the accused in the commission of the crime. Burden is on the accused to prove that the statement was obtained by threat, duress or promise like any other person as was held in Bhagwan Singh V/s. State of Punjab [AIR 1952 SC 2147, para 30]. If it is established from the record or circumstances that the confession is shrouded with suspicious features, then it falls in the realm of doubt. The confession must be one implicating the accused in the crime. It is not necessary that each fact or circumstance contained in the confession is separately or independently corroborated. It is enough if it receives general corroboration. It is seen that in Barkat Ram s case, this Court accepted the retracted confessional statement and upheld, on that basis, the conviction. In Vallabhda Liladhar s case and also in Rustom Das s case the retracted confessional statement found basis for conviction and in the latter the recoveries were relied as
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
STAT has held as under:- In any type of clandestine activity, the persons try their best not to leave any evidence. Therefore, such persons cannot be expected to faithfully put the details of all such clearances in some register and append their signature. Hence, clandestine activity at best can be established by circumstantial evidence and it will be humanly impossible to establish every link in the chain of clandestine activity without a break. 2.25 That the Adjudicating Authority has erred in not considering the fact that the Department is not required to prove its case with mathematical precision and in this regard, reliance is place on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CC Vs. D. Bhoormull reported as 1983 (13) ELT 1546 (SC), wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has held that the Department is not required to prove its case with mathematical precision, but what is required is the establishment of such a degree of probability that a prudent man may on its basis beli
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
uress and subsequent retraction not relevant Statement of accountant of raw material supplier that appellants were actual owners of such supplier firm, not retracted and the same corroborated by documentary evidences Invoices with address of appellants reached raw material supplier proving link between such supplier and appellant Gold transactions by members of appellant s family prima facie amounting to money laundering Preponderance of probability established Duty demand of ₹ 33.20 crore confirmed in impugned order Penalty totaling ₹ 67 crore higher and reduced to ₹ 5 crore each on all three appellants Rule 209A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1994 Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 [Paras 4, 5, 5.2 , 5.3, 5.6, 5.7.2, 6] Evidence Preponderance of probability Confiscation of goods, confirmation of duty evaded and imposition of penalty Standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is preponderance of probability Adjudicating Authority or Tribunal to eva
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Adjudicating Authority has erred in holding that the duty in the impugned show cause notice dated 03.01.2017 has been computed on presumptive basis. The A/A ignored the fact that the Goods covered under the documents seized from transport companies had already been delivered to the consignees and no details were available. Similar situations arise in virtually every case of clandestine removal where duty evasion has to be calculated on the basis of meager details available in the records. Merely because minute details of goods and values thereof are not available, cannot be the ground to let go on an offence of mammoth proportions committed by duty evaders. In all such situations, best judgment methods are applied by applying a formula based on reasonableness and justice to the assessee as well to the Government exchequer. In the instant case, as the officers found bags in all the live consignments seized by them to be almost identical, the proportion in which goods of various packagin
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
MPE by admitting their duty liability, had voluntarily paid ₹ 4 Crores towards their duty liability, as detailed in Para 26 of the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 03.01.2017 and the said assessee had never disputed the voluntary payment or had claimed refund of the same. Thus, the Adjudicating Authority has erred in not considering the fact that it is a settled law that where an assessee comes forward to pay the Central Excise duty voluntarily, the clandestine removal is proved. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd., reported as 2011 (270) ELT 643 (SC) wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has held as under:- Clandestine removal Proof Managing Director admitting clandestine clearance and voluntarily paid duty Statement of proprietor of buyer and of production supervisor also show clandestine removal Adjudicating Authority s finding that unaccounted finished goo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
acted statements, and therefore, they cannot be relied upon. However, the statements were recorded by the Central Excise Officers and they were not police officers. Therefore, such statements made by the Managing Director of the Company and other persons containing all the details about the functioning of the company which could be made only with personal knowledge of the respondents and therefore could not have been obtained through coercion or duress or through dictation. We see no reason why the aforesaid statements made in the circumstances of the case should not be considered, looked into and relied upon. Besides, the Managing Director of the Company on his own volition deposited amount of ₹ 11 lakhs towards excise duty and therefore in the facts and circumstance of the present case, the aforesaid statement of the counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted. This fact clearly proves the conclusion that the statements of the concerned persons were of their volition and not
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
, the aforesaid findings of the A/A are purely based on the mysterious deposition of a defence witness namely Shri Manoj Ji which has already been discussed in detail in Para-6 above. Even therein his deposition before the A/A, the mysterious witness namely Shri Manoj Ji made only a general reference about fake/counterfeit nature of goods being booked by his employee. The reference to goods being fake/counterfeit comes only in reply to one question and a free English translation of the reply is reproduced below:- Sir, I used to have an employee named Mukesh Tiwari who used to connive with some rogue traders by booking their fake/counterfeit goods (NAKLI MAAL). I removed him from my employment when I came to know about this fact. This is the only reference to goods being fake in his apparently unauthorized and illegal deposition. Manoj Ji did not claim that all the finished goods under seizure at various places were booked by Mukesh Tiwari and were fake; he did not claim that the goods
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ing Authority has committed a grave mistake in vacating the seizures of the finished goods seized at the premises of the Transporters as well as from their trucks interrupted enroute, which are liable for confiscation and the Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 18,41,688/- on the said seized goods is also required to be recovered from M/s MPE, as rightly proposed in the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 25.08.2015. The finished goods under seizure bear the brand name and name/address of M/s MPE as manufacturer. Documentary evidences seized along with the goods and various statements of employees of transporting companies, as well as the un-retracted statement by the partner of M/s MPE clearly show that the goods belong to M/s MPE and is further corroborated from the fact that M/s MPE not only deposited ₹ 4 Crore towards duty liability and obtained provisional release of almost all the goods. No evidence to show duty-paid nature of the finished goods under seizure appeared eit
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ng Authority while vacating the seizures of the unaccounted raw materials, has ignored the fact that the procurement of unaccounted raw material was linked to clandestine manufacturing and clearance of the finished goods and the said fact had also been admitted by Shri Atul Kumar Chaurasia, Authorized Signatory of M/s MPE in his voluntary statements dated 26.02.2015 & 27.02.2015, wherein, he, interalia, admitted that that the unaccounted raw material and packing material were procured by them without bills for clandestine manufacturing and clearance of finished goods without payment of duty. He also admitted that the unaccounted finished goods seized from their factory premises were manufactured by them from the unaccounted raw materials procured without bils. The Adjudicating Authority has ignored the fact that if any producer, manufacturer, registered persons of a warehouse or a registered dealer does not account for the excisable goods i.e. raw materials (inputs), the unaccounte
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
le goods, the said excisable goods used as raw material are liable to confiscation under Rule 25(1)(v) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The relevant Paras 7 & 8 of the above judgment are reproduced below:- 7. On a plain reading of the said Rule, particularly Clause (b), it is clear that if any producer or manufacturer or registered persons of the warehouse or a registered dealer, does not account for any excisable goods produced or manufactured or stored by him, then all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and the producer or manufacturer or registered person of the warehouse or a registered dealer, shall be liable to penalty. The argument of the ld. Adcocate is that the expression excisable goods mentioned in Caluse (b) of the said Sub-rule, referes only to the goods manufactured by the manufacturer and cannot be made applicable to excisable goods procured by him as raw materials to be used in the manufacture of finished excisable goods is, in my opinion, an incorrect int
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
a manufacturer but also excisable goods manufactured elsewhere and stored in the factory. Thus, the said Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 covers both the situations, that is, where excisable goods are manufactured and stored in the factory and also those excisable goods that are procured and stored in the factory premises. Needless to emphasize, mere keeping or storage of excisable goods in the factory premises by a manufacturer per se shall not invite the rigour of the said provision, but something more is required, to come within its fold. 8. In the present case, the excisable goods procured as raw materials found in the factory premises were not stored in a routine manner, but were purposely kept unaccounted. As per the categorical statement of the Director, Mr. Kamlesh Ladha, it is evident that the said excisable goods were procured with a specific intention to use it as raw material in the manufacture of finished excisable goods intented to be removed clandestinely withou
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ngs against the Co-Noticees fully knowing that from the confessional statements relied upon in the impugned Show Cause Notice, it was crystal clear that the said Co-Noticees were in league with M/s MPE in transporting the clandestinely removed finished goods by M/s MPE on fake bills of fake firms, purchasing of clandestinely cleared finished goods of M/s MPE as well as supplying of unaccounted raw materials to M/s MPE and their roles have already been given in the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 03.01.2017. Therefore, dropping of penal proceedings against the Co-Noticees is illegal and they are liable to penal action as rightly proposed in the impugned Show Cause Notice. 5. Heard the ld. A. R. for Revenue, who presented the above stated grounds of appeal. 6. Heard the Counsel for the respondent, who has summarized the grounds raised by Revenue as follows:- (i) That the Adjudicating Authority instead of relying on the statements recorded during investigation, has considered retractions
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ri Manoj during his cross-examination stated that the consignments seized by the officers on 26/02/2017 from the godown of Jaipur Golden Transport Co. were faked goods and the same were not manufactured by the respondent. They further submitted that voluntary deposits of duty during investigations cannot be considered to be the admission of guilt and such deposits are treated as Revenue deposits and the same are not to be treated as duty since the same are not deposited as an outcome of any adjudication proceedings. They further submitted that the entire demand of around ₹ 7 crores was based on various statements recorded and the said statements did not stand the scrutiny during cross-examination before the Original Authority. Therefore, Original Authority has dropped the demand and Revenue has not submitted any sustainable ground to establish that the said finding of Original Authority is not sustainable. 7. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Exempt suppliers of services through an e-commerce platform liable to collect tax at source under section 52 of the CGST Act from obtaining compulsory registration under section 24(ix) of the Act provided their aggregate all India turnover does not exceed 20 lakh rupees – GST – States – G. O. (P) No. 182/2017/TAXES – Dated:- 6-12-2017 – GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Taxes (B) Department NOTIFICATION G. O. (P) No. 182/2017/TAXES. Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 6th December, 2017 S. R. O. No. 783/2017.-In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) of section 23 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (20 of 2017), (hereafter in this notification referred to as the said Act), the Government of Kerala, on the recommendations of the Coun
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST – States – G. O. (P) No. 183/2017/TAXES – Dated:- 6-12-2017 – GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Taxes (B) Department NOTIFICATION G. O. (P) No. 183/2017/TAXES. Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 6th December, 2017 21st Vrischikam, 1193. S. R. O. No. 784/2017.-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 128 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (20 of 2017), (hereafter in this notification referred to as the said Act), the Government of Kerala, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby waives the amount of late fee payable by any registered person for failure to furnish the return in FORM GSTR-3B for the month of October, 2017 onwards by the due date under section 47 of the said Act, which is in excess of an amount of twenty five rupee
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2017 (12) TMI 640 – DELHI HIGH COURT – 2018 (11) G. S. T. L. 255 (Del.) – Input tax credit – credit on SGST charged by the hotels located outside Delhi – Held that: – It is pointed that different provisions are applicable in case of online bookings through web travel portals and they are able to avail the credit – The respondents will examine the assertions and so called anomalies. We will be informed on the treatment accorded on sale of manufactured goods and other services which are provided by an assessee across the country. – W. P. (C) 7320/2017 Dated:- 6-12-2017 – Sanjiv Khanna And Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Anup J. Bhambhani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajat Arora, Mr. Gurcharan Singh & Ms. Vishalakshi Singh,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ner and other assessees would have to be registered in all States and Union Territories to avail input credit of SGST. This, it is submitted, is contrary to the purpose and objective of Goods and Services Tax. It is submitted by the petitioner that effective rate of service tax would go up from 18% to 27% for hotel rooms in the ₹ 2,500/- to ₹ 7,500/- per night slab and from 28% to 42% for hotel rooms ₹ 7,500/- and above per night. It is pointed that different provisions are applicable in case of online bookings through web travel portals and they are able to avail the credit. The respondents will examine the assertions and so called anomalies. We will be informed on the treatment accorded on sale of manufactured goods and
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal – Dated:- 5-12-2017 – Audit of Accounts As per section 35(5) of the GST Act, 2017 read with rule 80(3) of the GST Rules, 2017, every registered taxable person aggregate turnover during a financial year exceeds two crore rupees shall get his accounts audited by a chartered accountant or a cost accountant and shall submit to the proper officer a copy of the audited statement of accounts, the reconciliation statement as required to be filed along with annual return under section 44(2) and such other documents in the form and manner as may be prescribed in this behalf. Accordingly, every registered taxable person whose turnover during a financial year exceeds two crore rupees, should: (a) get his accounts audited, (b) get audit conducted by a chartered accountant or a cost accountant, (c) submit to the proper officer, a copy of: (i) the audited statement of accounts, (ii) the reconciliation statement under section 44(2), (iii) other
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
1949.As per section 2(1) (b) of Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, chartered accountant means a person who is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India (ICAI). As per section 2(35) of the GST Act, 2017 means a cost accountant within the meaning of the Cost and Works Accountants Act, 1959). As per section 2(1)(b) of Cost and Works Accountants Act, 1959, cost accountant means a person who is a member of the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India (ICAI). Records to be maintained by owner or operator of godown / warehouse / transporters Every person engaged in the business of transporting goods shall maintain records of goods transported, delivered and goods stored in transit by him and for each of his branches. Every owner or operator of a warehouse or godown shall maintain books of accounts, with respect to the period for which particular goods remain in the warehouse, including the particulars relating to dispatch, movement, receipt, and disposal of such goods.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
4) of the GST Rules, 2017, every registered person executing works contract shall keep separate accounts for works contract showing – (a) the names and addresses of the persons on whose behalf the works contract is executed; (b) description, value and quantity (wherever applicable) of goods or services received for the execution of works contract; (c) description, value and quantity (wherever applicable) of goods or services utilized in the execution of works contract; (d) the details of payment received in respect of each works contract; and (e) the names and addresses of suppliers from whom he received goods or services. Accounts and records by clearing & forwarding agent As per rule 56(17) of the GST Rules, 2017, any person having custody over the goods in the capacity of a carrier or a clearing and forwarding agent for delivery or dispatch thereof to a recipient on behalf of any registered person shall maintain true and correct records in respect of such goods handled by him on
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
than one place of business, as evidenced by the certificate of registration, in such cases, accounts and records should be retained for a period of 6 years in terms of section 36(1) for each such place of business. According to proviso to section 36(1) of the GST Act, 2017, a taxable person, who is a party to an appeal or revision or any other proceeding before any appellate authority or tribunal or court, whether filed by him or by the department, shall retain the books of account and other records pertaining to the subject matter of such appeal or revision or proceeding for a period of one year after final disposal of such appeal or revision or proceeding, or for the period specified under sub-section (1), whichever is later. Accordingly, where a taxable person- ● is a party to an appeal or revision or any other proceeding before any appellate authority or tribunal or court, and ● whether such appeal etc is filed by him or by the department, such taxable person shall ret
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST – States – 11/2017-18 – Dated:- 5-12-2017 – GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA Department of Commercial Taxes No. ADT/GST/New HOA/2017-18 Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka), Gandhinagar, Bangalore. Dated: 05-12-2017. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Circular No. 11/2017-18 Sub:- Implementation of GST in the State – Introduction of New Head of Account for incurring/accounting Expenditure of this Department- reg. Ref:- Government letter No. FD 71 GIE 2017 dated:17-11-2017. Consequent on implementation of Goods and Services Tax(GST) in the state from 01-07-2017, Government has introduced a New Major Head of Account (HOA) 2043 – Collection charges under State Goods and Services Tax which has been given effect to from 01-12-20
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST – States – 1019/2017/9(120)/XXVII(8)/2017 – Dated:- 5-12-2017 – Government of Uttarakhand Finance Section – 8 Notification No. 1019/2017/9(120)/XXVII(8)/2017 Dehradun, Dated 05/12/2017 WHEREAS, the State Government is satisfied that it is expedient so to do in public interest; NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (06 of 2017), on the recommendations of the Council, the Governor is pleased to allow to notify the registered persons having aggregate turnover of upto 1.5 crore rupees in the preceding financial year or the current financial year, as the class of registered persons who shall follow the special procedure as detailed below for furnishing the deta
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST – States – 1018/2017/9(120)/XXVII(8)/2017 – Dated:- 5-12-2017 – Government of Uttarakhand Finance Section – 8 Notification No. 1018/2017/9(120)/XXVII(8)/2017 Dehradun, Dated 05/12/2017 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (06 of 2017) read with Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clause Act, 1904 (as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand), the Governor is pleased to make the following rules to further amend the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, namely:- The Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2017 1. Short title and Commencement (1) These rules may be called the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2017. (2) They shall come into force with effect from 15th day of November, 2017. 2. Amendment in Rule 43 In rule 43 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the principal rules), after sub-rule (2), the followin
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
g anything contained in this Chapter, in respect of any process or procedure prescribed herein, any reference to electronic filing of an application, intimation, reply, declaration, statement or electronic issuance of a notice, order or certificate on the common portal shall, in respect of that process or procedure, include manual filing of the said application, intimation, reply, declaration, statement or issuance of the said notice, order or certificate in such Forms as appended to these rules. 5. Insertion of new Rule 107A After rule 107 of the "Principal Rules", the following rule shall be inserted, namely:- 107A. Manual filing and processing. – Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, in respect of any process or procedure prescribed herein, any reference to electronic filing of an application, intimation, reply, declaration, statement or electronic issuance of a notice, order or certificate on the common portal shall, in respect of that process or procedure,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
al Goods and Services Tax Act may appeal to (a) the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) where such decision or order is passed by the Joint Commissioner; (b) the Additional Commissioner (Appeals)/Joint Commissioner (Appeals) where such decision or order is passed by the Deputy or Assistant Commissioner or the State Tax Officer , within six months from the date of communication of the said decision or order. 7. Insertion of new FORM-GST-RFD-01A After the "FORM GST RFD-01", the following forms shall be inserted, namely:- FORM-GST-RFD-01 A [See rules 89(1) and 97A] Application for Refund (Manual) (Applicable for casual taxable person or non-resident taxable person, tax deductor, tax collector and other registered taxable person) 1. GSTIN/Temporary ID 2. Legal Name 3. Trade Name, if any 4. Address 5. Tax period (if applicable) From To 6. Amount of Refund Claimed(Rs.) Act Tax Interest Penalty Fees Others Total Central tax State/UT tax Integrated tax Cess Total 7. Grounds of Refund C
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
r making nil rated or fully exempt supplies. Signature Name – Designation / Status DECLARATION [rule 89(2)(f)] I hereby declare that the Special Economic Zone unit /the Special Economic Zone developer has not availed of the input tax credit of the tax paid by the applicant, covered under this refund claim. Signature Name – Designation / Status SELF- DECLARATION [rule 89(2)(l)] I/We ____________________ (Applicant) having GSTIN/ temporary Id -, solemnly affirm and certify that in respect of the refund amounting to Rs. / with respect to the tax, interest, or any other amount for the period from-to, claimed in the refund application, the incidence of such tax and interest has not been passed on to any other person. Signature Name – Designation / Status (This Declaration is not required to be furnished by applicants, who are claiming refund under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (f) of sub-section (8) of section 54.) 8. Verification I/We hereby solemnly affirm
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Srinivasan Krishnamachari – Dated:- 4-12-2017 – There is a new provision Section 171 in the CGST Act read with Rules 122 to 137 of the CGST Rules that enable the Government to constitute an authority to monitor the prices that businesses charge for goods and services, following the introduction of GST and reduce it commensurate to the GST gains , if not passed on already to consumers. This is in line with the Constitution of India providing for price control in the concurrent list or what is otherwise called as List III of Schedule VII of entry 97 where among other things dealt therein, taxation matters are one. The fact that Center and States have concurrent powers to legislate from list III did not however witness either of them making any anti-profiteering Legislation except in 1958 by the West Bengal Government though unsuccessfully and now after a lapse of 59 years by the Centre under the GST law. The cue one gets from an old historical enactm
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ST. It is also felt at the same time that it will be too difficult like finding some needles in the haystack, to pinpoint those who profited in a given case of reduction in the post GST scenario compared to before and after the tax change. Further, the job of such an agency will be even otherwise pretty much difficult since reduction in prices could be genuinely attributable to very many factors other than a rate reduction as it is fervently believed by the Government. May be it is good to have such an Oversight Agency in place lest the prospect of a progressive reduction in rates on the successful functioning of GST should lead to profiteering tendencies among businesses. Well, in that sense it is good to have it but not good enough if the Government went with the hare of reform and hunted hard with the hound of Anti-Profiteering measures. The only fear is that the GST engine should not get derailed by its own bogies of business as the smooth running of business in a co-operative envi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
only in 14 cases across the country. Will you believe it and that too only on specific study and information that gains were made but were not parted to the consumers? The result was that they were left with good enough time to gather adequate price data bearing upon taxes such that they could persuade business to pass on the tax benefits to the people in the form of reduced prices. Even the Malaysian experiment reveals that the country prepared the business and people for two long years before GST could be introduced as a unified central tax at a meager rate of 6%. The Malaysian Customs Department provided enough education and software support of accounting packages to business, tuned to handle GST with ease unlike the unfortunate Indian experience of glitches ridden electronic framework that GSTN has come to acquire. It is very unfortunate that the government should notify the NAA authority just now, and at the same time trying to simplify GST to avoid the kind of harassment that mil
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
what business considers a normal profit may be treated as profiteering by the Government. Profit is considered a legitimate reward for risk taken by the business. Profit is normally influenced by variety of factors like operational efficiency, demand-supply proposition, a new market advantage, Price penetration, seasonality of a product or services so on and so forth. In such a situation, if a businessman earns a slightly higher profit it would not perhaps require under Anti-profiteering clause to pass on the benefit to his customer always? There is no straight formula prescribed under the regulations to quantify the impact of input tax credits or the reduction in the price on account of any reduction in the tax rate with the final prices of goods or services. How to deal with this under GST remains a big question mark? It is important that we understand fully the background to the introduction of a GST into Australia and Malaysia is important as to why anti-profiteering measures were
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
businesses should be commensurate with the relevant market sensitivities, expectations and acceptance. As noted by the Chairman of the ACCC, any well informed, competitive market operating in a climate of low inflation and good corporate citizenship can alone ensure that the vast majority of businesses will act fairly. For most Indian businesses, complying with these provisions is no small matter. It is reasonable to expect that in a dynamic, competitive and diverse market such as India, market forces will ensure that any reduction in an Indian business cost base on account of the GST will flow through to lower prices As part of anti-profiteering strategies for business, they must be encouraged to follow non profiteering policies by first providing them with a) Adequate tools and GST awareness to correctly ascertain their pricing. b) Cost valuation mechanisms for business, c) Transaction valuation computation tools d) GST awareness sessions, As part of consumer Awareness programme, Con
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
argely the template of superimposition of the present central and state taxes and rounding off all the rates to the nearest higher percentage, as understood from the FM s recent remarks. As can be seen, the gap between the old rate and the new being so narrow except perhaps in the 178 items shifted with effect from 15th November from 28% to 18% and a few others from 18% to 12%, that it is tough to take any anti-profiteering measure at this instant. In fact, it is argued that the entire tax fitment exercise cuts the aggregate of the old taxes so fine in relation to the new rates and careful blocking of ITC in many cases, that it would almost leave one with no big gain accruing due to the change that it should be termed unlawful. However, whatever be the gain, it is appealed to the business of India to join hands with the Government in tackling inflation and price rise by emulating the best International tax practices of both payment and compliance of taxes. The idea is millions of India
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Surabhi Bohra – Dated:- 4-12-2017 – The decisions taken by the GST Council in its 23 meeting has been given effect through a series of Notification and Orders. The key takeaways of the amendments with reference to the relevant notifications and orders are as follows:- Notification No. 55/2017-Central Tax , dt. 15-11-2017 Twelfth amendment to CGST Rules, 2017 was made wide this Notification. Procedure and form for Manual filing of the Refund application through GST-RFD-01 A has also been incorporated in the Rules vide this notification. Notification No. 56/2017-Central Tax, dt. 15-11-2017 Sl No. Month Last date for filing of return in FORM GSTR-3B and making payment of tax 1 January, 2018 20th February, 2018 2 February, 2018 20th March, 2018 3 March, 2018 20th April, 2018 Notification No. 57/2017 – Central Tax dt. 15-11-2017 Ø Persons having Aggregate Turnover < 1.5 Cr. To file GSTR-1 quarterly Sl No. Quarter for which the details to be fu
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
tember and October, 2017. 15th December, 2017 Notification No. 61/2017 – Central Tax dated 15-11-2017 4. GSTR-6 July, 2017 31st December, 2017 Notification No. 62/2017 – Central Tax dated 15-11-2017 5. GST ITC-04 July to September, 2017 31st December, 2017 Notification No. 63/2017 – Central Tax dated 15-11-2017 Notification No. 64/2017- Central Tax dated – 15-11-2017 Sl.No. Particulars Late fee payable 1. Late fees payable on late filing of GSTR- 3B from October, 2017 onwards Ø 25 per day during which failure continue under both CGST and SGST individually Ø 10 per day during which failure continues if central/state tax payable is Nil Notification No. 65/2017- Central Tax dated – 15-11-2017 Suppliers making supply of service through E-Commerce operator shall not obtain registration in the state/special category state if:- (a) Aggregate turnover is < 20 lacs/10 lacs ; (b) Ecommerce Operator not liable to collect TCS. Notification No. 66/2017 – Central Tax dated 15-11-201
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
o. 44/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 to be effective from 15.11.2017 Ø Amended Notification No. 2/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 to provide further exemptions to certain goods and also to rationalize certain exemptions provided earlier. Ø Exemption has been extended to goods like manioc, arrowroot, salep, Jerusalem artichokes, sweet potatoes and similar roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, dried makhana, guar meal, uranium ore concentrate, bangles of lac/shellac, coconut shell, Hop cones with certain conditions. Notification No 43/2017- Central Tax (Rate) & Notification No. 45/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 to be effective from 15.11.2017 Ø Purchase of Raw cotton from an agriculturist to attract tax under Reverse charge mechanism. The recipient to pay tax to the Government. Notification No 44/2017- Central Tax (Rate) & Notification No. 46/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 to be effective from
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
< ₹ 50000 in F.Y. Public funded research institution other than a hospital 5% University Indian Institute of Technology Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore National Institute Technology/ Regional Engineering College Research institution, other than a hospital Departments and laboratories of the Central Government and State Governments, other than a hospital Goods mentioned in (a), (b) & (c) Regional Cancer Centre (Cancer Institute) Notification no. 46/2017- Central Tax (Rate) & 48/2017- Integrate Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 to be effective from 15.11.2017 Sl.No. Services Rate Condition 1. Standalone Restaurants/mess/canteen (whether dine in or take away) 5% No ITC 2. Restaurants in Hotels, hotels, inns, guest houses, clubs, campsites or other commercial places having declared tariff < 7500 5% No ITC 3. Restaurants in Hotels, hotels, inns, guest houses, clubs, campsites or other commercial places having declared tariff > 7500 18% With ITC 4. Manufacture of hand
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Surabhi Bohra – Dated:- 4-12-2017 – Refund procedure for refund claims in respect of zero rated supplies has been initiated by the Government. However, the refund process for other cases has not been initiated as of now. The details of refund process are discussed herein below for each situation wherein refund may be claimed under section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017:- Sl. No. Refund may be claimed for Form Condition Procedure 1. IGST [1] paid on Export of Goods No separate application required GSTR-3B for the month in which supply has been made has been furnished; The information relating to exports shall be furnished in Table 6A of FORM GSTR-1 after the return in FORM GSTR-3B has been furnished. No sep
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e taxpayers, the ICEGATE system will share the payment information with the GST Portal and the GST Portal in turn shall share the information through SMS and e-mail with the taxpayers. 2. IGST paid on export of services [2] RFD-01A (manually) GSTR-3B to be filed; Print out of GST RFD- 01A to be filed manually with the jurisdictional GST officer (Centre or State) along with relevant documentary evidences. Completeness of application and availability of the supporting documents in totality will be checked on filing of application. Once completeness in all respects is ascertained, acknowledgement in FORM GST RFD-02 will be issued within 15 days from the date of filing of the application. Grant of provisional refund shall be completed within 7
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Issuance of acknowledgement manually within 15 days. Grant of provisional refund within 7 days from issuance of acknowledgement. Detailed scrutiny of refund application along with submitted documents. Notice will be issued if sanction able amount is less than the amount applied for. Claimant to reply within 15 days from receipt of notice. Final sanction of the refund to be made by the proper officer manually and amount paid provisionally to be adjusted. 5. ITC accumulated supplies made to SEZ unit/ SEZ developer without payment of taxes [3] 6. ITC accumulated due to inverted tax structure RFD-01 (electronically) Still not initiated 7. Recipient of deemed export [1] Reference rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017 as amended till 15.11.2017. [2] Refere
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – K.Srinivasan Kuppuswamy – Dated:- 4-12-2017 Last Replied Date:- 9-3-2018 – Sir,We are casting manufacturing industry . To manufacture castings we need to develop tool as per the overseas customer specification. Once the tool is developed and after submission of samples approved by customer we used to raise debit note on overseas customer . The tool retained by us for further manufacture of components .In the pre GST regime there is no excise duty applicable on debit for the tool cost recovery from overseas customer.Please provide your valuable views in the GST regime whether GST is applicable on debit note on overseas customer for the tooling cost recovery for which the tool retained by us for further
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
retained by us for further manufacture of components.Whether the debit note will be treated as export of goods or export of service and GST applicability RegardsK Srinivasan – Reply By Ramaswamy S – The Reply = Yes the tool is retained for the purpose of manufacture of components. The tool is developed and the sample is approved by the customer. It can be treated as a supply of service (export of service). No GST is payable.If you have to treat it as supply of goods, then it cannot be considered as an export as there is no shipping bill to prove that the goods have left the country.The point of service is intra state and CGST+SGST is payable, the ITC of which cannot be claimed being an outward supply. Further, as the customer is not in the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
re is no excise duty applicable on debit for the tool cost recovery from overseas customer.Please provide your valuable views in the GST regime whether GST is applicable on debit note on overseas customer for the tooling cost recovery for which the tool retained by us for further manufacturing of components.Can we split the tool cost into two one portion is tool cost and other portion is development charges.Development charges debit note on export customer will attract GST.Whether can we split tool cost.manufactures those who are developing the tool for customer for manufacturing of components unable to raise debit note or invoice on overseas customer in the GST regime.What is the ultimate remedy? RegardsK.Srinivasan – Reply By K.Srinivasan
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Deepak Birla . – Dated:- 4-12-2017 Last Replied Date:- 28-8-2018 – Company B is importing various goods . In purchase order there is the clause of penalty deduction for late delivery of goods. When goods are delivered late, penalty is deducted from vendor bill which is in foreign currency. Question is whether GST is applicable on deduction of penalty based on tolerating of an act of the foreign vendor which falls under the definition of service under GST l
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – Archna Gupta – Dated:- 4-12-2017 Last Replied Date:- 5-12-2017 – My query is as below:Suppose a person providing services having office in Delhi. His turnover is suppose 600000/- but he takes voluntary registration under GST in Delhi. After a month he opens another office in Bangalore. My question is that is he bound to take registration in Bangalore also or he can continue his business as registered in Delhi but unregistered in Bangalore?Please reply – Re
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Started By: – MAHENDRABHAI DESAI – Dated:- 4-12-2017 Last Replied Date:- 4-12-2017 – Dear sir,We would like to know the clarification on Applicability of GST rate with cess on Sale of Used cars owned by Director of the company and accounted in the books of Company.pl . advise the above, with relevant amended notifications.Thanks with regards. – Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani – The Reply = GST is applicable @ 28% with cess. Refer Issue Id 113103 for detailed discussion on the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Goods and Services Tax – Detention of goods under GST – inter-state or intra-state supply – The issue of misclassification and under valuation has to be gone into by the respective assessing officers
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 (4) TMI 1074 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 214 (All.) – Seizure of goods with vehicle – absence of Transit Declaration Form – interstate movement of goods through UP – penalty – Held that: – It is clear that the goods have been detained, seized and penalty has been imposed merely because of TDF was absent and the proper officer was himself not satisfied as to the intention to evade tax being present in the facts of the case – There is nothing to dispute the claim made by the assessee that it was effecting the stock transfer of goods from Chennai to Dehradun and therefore, the goods were only passing through the State of U.P. – There is no allegation or intention on the part of the assessee to unload the goods within the State of U.P. – seizure and penalty not sustainable – petition allowed. – Writ Tax No. – 799 of 2017 Dated:- 4-12-2017 – BHARATI SAPRU AND SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, JJ. For the Petitioner: Shri Shubham Agrawal, Advocate and Shri Lokesh Mittal, Advoca
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
and goods receipts. The said goods entered the State of U.P. on 15.11.2017 when the same were detained by the respondent no.4 on the solitary allegation of absence of Transit Declaration Form (hereinafter referred to as the 'TDF'). However, no defect was noticed or alleged with respect to the Tax Invoice and the Goods Receipt and the facts disclosed therein. The petitioner further alleges that it downloaded the TDF on the same day i.e. on 15.11.2017 (A copy of the same has also been annexed with the writ petition) and filed its reply along with the TDF but the goods were seized on 16.11.2017. Subsequently, a penalty notice was also issued to the petitioner in response to which the petitioner again reiterated his stand of the goods being transported from Chennai to Dehradun by way of stock transfer against valid Tax Invoice, Goods Receipt and also it relied on the TDF downloaded by it. By the impugned penalty order dated 23.11.2017, the penalty has been imposed solely for reaso
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
enalty in reply to the penalty notice. However, learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the fact that the TDF was downloaded by the petitioner on 15.11.2017 at 10.39 pm. Also he is unable to show from the penalty order how the respondent no.4 has inferred the intention to evade tax. It is clear that the goods have been detained, seized and penalty has been imposed merely because of TDF was absent and the proper officer was himself not satisfied as to the intention to evade tax being present in the facts of the case. There is nothing to dispute the claim made by the assessee that it was effecting the stock transfer of goods from Chennai to Dehradun and therefore, the goods were only passing through the State of U.P.. There is no allegation or intention on the part of the assessee to unload the goods within the State of U.P. In view of facts, we find that the seizure order as also the penalty order are wholly unsustainable and are hereby quashed. The goods along with the truck may be r
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
