|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1965 Records
-
2021 (12) TMI 1416
Classification of supply - Installation services of parts and equipment for the supply or conduct of oxygen and other gases used in hospital, homes etc; and connection of other gas-operated equipment done for Government hospital covid care ward - to be classified under SAC 995464 or not - HELD THAT:- In the instant case the applicant has informed that they are engaged in the activity of supply installation testing and commissioning of oxygen pipelines system in Government Hospitals and it has been their contention that the said activity is classifiable under SAC 995464 and they have sought ruling according the tax rate for the said SAC 995464 viz. installation service of parts and equipment for the supply or conduct of oxygen and other gases used in hospital homes etc; Connection of other gas-operated equipment done for Government Hospital covid care ward - From the documents placed, it is evident that the activity of the applicant is a supply consisting of two or more taxable supplies of goods or services or both and its combination thereof which are naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business, supply and installation of medical gas pipe line being the principal supply.
The activity of the applicant falls under Services Accounting codes (SAC Codes) 995464 which includes installation service of parts and equipment for the supply or conduct of oxygen and other gases used in hospital homes etc. connection of other gas operated equipment attracting 18% GST.
Notification 05/2021-Central Tax (Rate), Dated 14th June, 2021 provides for concessional tax rate exemption to the goods specified in column (3) of the Table below, falling under the tariff item, sub-heading, heading or Chapter as specified in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), in other words the aforesaid Notification provides exemption to goods viz. only to the Covid related items specified therein in the table and not to the work contract services in which the applicant is engaged in. Thus this notification is found not to be any help to the applicant.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1413
Maintainability of petition - Detention of goods alongwith the conveyance - detention order reflects the seller and dealer being suspicious but the order is silent on the alleged discrepancies as no reason has been given with regard to the suspicious parties - HELD THAT:- It emerges from the record that the information had been received from the controlling authority by the respondent that the said vehicle has certain discrepancies, therefore, the same was intercepted at Kamrej Toll Plaza, Surat at 12.40 pm. The driver when was asked for the documents, he provided the invoice as well as the e-way bills and it was revealed that the goods were being transferred from K.K.Traders, Kannur, Kerala to Shri Nandha Trade Mart, Gujarat. The MOV-10 and MOV-02 had been issued to the driver of the vehicle and subsequently MOV-04 was also issued for physical verification of the goods.
From the e-way bills available, it appeared that 16 e-way bills had been generated of inward supply worth Rs. 04,79,31,650/- in the month of June, 2021. The Deputy Commissioner was communicated this and the physical verification had taken place at Shri Nandha Trade Mart, Rajkot. It was found that it has a shop of 90 sq.ft. and there is no stock available although it had purchased goods worth Rs. 4.50 Crores (rounded off). The authority therefore initiated the proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST Act. The contact number of Mr. Akhil – Proprietor of Shri Nandha Trade Mart was switched off, hence, there was a need to proceed against the purchaser of the goods.
It also emerged that the e-way bills were generated on different vehicles i.e. TN-88-A-6772 and KL-10-BC-3796. The movement of vehicle when was verified on RFID data, it was found that from Kerala to Gujarat, the e-way bill had not matched with the RFID data. The said vehicle never travelled from Kerala to Gujarat on that particular route and hence, only billing was done without actual movement of goods. It is alleged by the respondent that this was with an intention to escape the tax liabilities. Shri Nandha Trade Mart had purchased from K.K.Traders, Karakattu Traders, Matteri Trading and Puthiyaveettil Agency.
It was necessary to establish as to from where the purchase of goods had been made. Shri Nandha Trade Mart had not mentioned any kind of sale. The Kerala Authority had also cancelled the registration of the present petitioner on the ground that it has allegedly involved in the tax evasion. As the traders from whom Shri Nandha Trade Mart had purchased had not shown any purchases of stock and their sale of goods to the dealer of Gujarat was without their sale and purchase.
The Court is disinclined to intervene and in absence of any breach of principles of natural justice or for that matter, with these prima facie nonacceptable details under the law, petition is DISMISSED.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1408
Recovery proceedings - effect of moratorium on proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and on Section 75 (1) of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of Section 14 of the IBC will clearly indicate that there is a complete/total embargo/bar to initiate and continue proceedings against the petitioner before any other authority including the respondent-authority also during the pendency of proceedings before the NCLT and appeal(s) to be filed against the same, if any, when the moratorium/CIRP is in force and has not been lifted; it is relevant state that neither the words 'proceedings' nor 'authority' have been defined under the IBC and consequently giving the said words their plain grammatical meaning, the only inference that arises from a reading of Section 14 would be that the said provision is an all pervasive and omnibus provision which includes and encompasses proceedings initiated by the respondent-department against the petitioner also.
It is also relevant to state that in P. Mohan Raj's case [2021 (3) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT], a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court has categorically held that the moratorium provision contained in Section 14 of the IBC would include proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act also and by token of the same reasoning, proceedings initiated by the respondent under the GST Act would also attract the embargo contained in Section 14 of the IBC.
Insofar as the contention urged by the respondent - state with regard to proceedings to be initiated later by the respondent against the petitioner as being barred by limitation is concerned, the said contention cannot be accepted in view of the non-obstante clause contained in Section 60 (6) of the IBC which excludes the entire period during which the moratorium is in force; so also Section 75 (1) of the GST Act also excludes the entire period from 29.09.2021 onwards when this court passed an order of stay up to the date of completion of the CIRP and lifting of the moratorium and as such, even this contention urged by the respondent cannot be accepted.
All proceedings pursuant to the impugned notices, intimations, orders, etc. issued/passed by the respondent against the petitioner are stayed/suspended/kept in abeyance till disposal of the proceedings before the NCLT, Bengaluru - Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1401
Revocation of cancellation of registration - Revenue is ready to consider the application of the assessee - HELD THAT:- the delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules (CGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee and penalty due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1392
Appealable order - Section 107 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the said order is not maintainable.
Order is dismissed as such without any order as to costs.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1390
Blocking of the input tax credit - Constitutional validity of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 86 of GST Rules, 2017 - time limitation for imposing restriction - main thrust of the advocate for the petitioner at this stage was that in terms of sub-rule (3) of the said Rule 86A in any case upon expiry of a period of one year from the date of imposition of restriction, the same would no longer survive - HELD THAT:- In view of the statement made by the Counsel for the respondents, it is not necessary to go into the question of continuing the restriction imposed on the petitioner enjoying the input tax credit in question. If this unblocking of the tax credit is not already reflected on the GST portal in the account of the petitioner, the same shall be done forthwith.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1377
Levy of interest - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that by virtue of amendment to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by the Finance Act, 2021, the levy of interest in terms of the impugned order dated 24th February, 2020 (Annexure-2) has been rendered unsustainable in law.
In that view of the matter, the impugned notice on demand and recovery dated 24th February, 2020 (Annexure-2) is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Superintendent, GST & Central Excise, Cuttack VI Range, CDA (Opposite Party No.4) for a fresh order in the light of the said amendment.
The writ petition is disposed off.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1353
Attachment of Bank Accounts - fraudulent availment of ITC - non-application of mind - Section 83 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- The order impugned herein, wherein, the learned single Judge while setting aside the order of attachment, has observed that the 'opinion' of the second appellant is far more cryptic revealing total non-application of mind and merely repeating what the first appellant has stated in the request for sanction and accordingly, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to complete the process of assessment within a period of six weeks.
This court, without going into the merits of the order impugned herein, finds it appropriate to modify the order passed by the learned single judge, only in respect of the direction issued to the appellants. Accordingly, the order impugned herein is modified to the effect that the appellants are at liberty to issue show cause notice to the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement and on receipt of the same, the first respondent shall file their objections and documentary evidence, if any, within a period of two weeks thereafter.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1345
Seeking grant of Regular Bail - evasion of tax - interim bail granted earlier, which wee not misutilised - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the petitioner has been on interim bail from 21st December, 2020 and there has been no misuse of concession of the interim bail granted to him and the respondent is likely to take more time to file the complaint before the competent Court, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court / Duty Magistrate concerned; further subject to the conditions that the petitioner will join the investigation as and when directed by the respondent and will not leave the country without prior permission of the learned Trial Court and in case of change of residential address and/ or mobile number of the petitioner, the same will be intimated to the Court concerned by way of an affidavit.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1333
Cancellation of interim anticipatory bail granted - Section 70 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Let the matter be listed on 06.1.2022 as fresh. Till the next date, in the event of arrest of the applicant Rajat Maheshwari, in pursuance of summoning order dated 02.11.2021, under Section 70, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, P.S. Central G.S.T. Commissioner, Meerut, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of ₹ 5,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Officer of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, with the conditions imposed.
In default of any of the conditions, the concerned Officer of Central Goods and Services Tax Act is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
Application allowed.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1328
Refund of IGST - inaction of the respondent Authorities regarding refund of IGST towards three Shipping Bills - export of Organic Soya Bean Feed Grade - zero rated supply - Applicability of Circular dated 09.10.2018 read with Notification 31/2016 – Cus (N.T.) dated 31.10.2016 as amended by Notification 59/12 dated 29.06.2017 and Notification 73/2017-Customs (NT) dated 26.07.2017 - grant of interest on refund of IGST - HELD THAT:- Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 deals with Zero rated supply ie. For supplies of goods or services or both, which includes supplies of export of goods or services or both, and supplies made to the Special Economic Zone Unit or Special Economic Zone Developer and the manner of zero rating. It is not in dispute that the goods in question are one of “Zero Rated supplies”. A registered person making “Zero Rated Supplies” becomes eligible to claim refund under the options as provided in sub-clauses (a) and (b) to clause (3) of Section 16 referred to above. Section 54 of the IGST Act, 2017 provides that any person claiming refund of any tax and interest, if any, paid on such tax or any other amount paid by him shall make an application before the expiry of two years from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
In the present case, admittedly, the shipping bills have been amended pursuant to the decision of the Superintendent of Customs (Export) as reflected in communication bearing No.VIII/48-865/EXP/AMD/ MP&SEZ/17-18 dated 22.09.2017. It is not in dispute that the Demand Draft of differential drawback aggregating to an amount of ₹ 3,71,236/- has been realized by the respondent Authorities. So far as issue of whether the respondents are justified in withholding the refund of IGST paid by the exporter of the goods i.e. “Zero Rated Supply” is concerned, is no more res integra.
In the case of M/S AMIT COTTON INDUSTRIES THROUGH PARTNER, VELJIBHAI VIRJIBHAI RANIPA VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2019 (7) TMI 472 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] it was held that the writ-applicant is entitled to claim the refund of the IGST and respondents are directed to immediately sanction the refund of the IGST paid in regard to the goods exported, i.e. 'zero rated supplies', with 7% simple interest from the date of the shipping bills till the date of actual refund.
Applicability of Circular dated 09.10.2018 read with Notification 31/2016 – Cus (N.T.) dated 31.10.2016 as amended by Notification 59/12 dated 29.06.2017 and Notification 73/2017-Customs (NT) dated 26.07.2017 - HELD THAT:- It would be apt to reproduce the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOLPUR VERSUS M/S RATAN MELTING & WIRE INDUSTRIES [2008 (10) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT], the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court was considering the binding nature of a circular issued under the Central Excise act, 1944 which were contrary to decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, where it was held that It is for the Court to declare what the particular provision of statute says and it is not for the executive. Looked at from another angle, a circular which is contrary to the statutory provisions has really no existence in law.
Even recently this Court had an occasion to deal with the similar facts in the case of AWADKRUPA PLASTOMECH PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2020 (12) TMI 1116 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], whereby reliance was made upon the Circular 37/2018-Customs dated 09.10.2018, whereby the competent Authority had withheld the refund of IGST on the ground that exporters had availed the option to take drawback at higher rate in place of the IGST refund out of their own volition.
Grant of interest @ 18% on the amount of refund of IGST - HELD THAT:- The decisions relied upon by the petitioners in the case SHRI JAGDAMBA POLYMERS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2013 (6) TMI 88 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and PURNIMA ADVERTISING AGENCY PVT. LTD. AND 1 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY AND 2 [2016 (4) TMI 291 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] are perused. In both the aforesaid decisions, the issue with regard to entitlement of the interest at appropriate rate for delay in not paying the refund and also for paying interest on interest was under consideration. In the aforesaid decisions, the facts indicate that the petitioners therein have prayed for refund prior to insertion of Section 11BB in the Central Excise Act, 1944, which had been inserted w.e.f. 26.05.1995 thereby providing for interest on delayed refund - In the present matter, the issue relates to inaction of the respondent Authorities in not taking decision with regard to the refund of IGST with regard to the goods exported i.e. at “Zero Rated Supplies”. Akin provisions in form of Section 56 of the CGST Act, 2017, is incorporated, which deals with the interest on delayed refund.
On perusal of Section 56 of the CGST Act, it is explicitly made clear that if the applicant is not refunded the tax amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application under Sub-Section 1 of Section 54 then interest at such rate not exceeding 6% as may be specified in the Notification, which may be issued by the Government is payable in respect of such refund from the date immediately after expiry of 60 days from the date of receipt of such application till refund amount is received. The records reveals that the petitioners have raised the refund of IGST immediately within prescribed time and had also made payment of differential amount which has been realized by the respondent Authorities. Thereafter, the petitioners have also made various representations, which are placed on record.
On going through entire record, the stand of the respondent Authority to withhold IGST based on non-consideration of Judicial pronouncement is equally irrational and arbitrary - the respondent Authorities are directed to immediately sanction the refund towards IGST paid in respect of goods exported “Zero Rated Supplies” made under the shipping bill.
Petition allowed.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1308
Condonation of delay in filing the revocation application - compliance with all the requirements of paying the taxes, interest, penalty and late fee, as may be due - HELD THAT:- The delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, penalty and late fee as may be due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.
A down-loaded copy of this order will be produced by the Petitioner before the proper officer, and subject to the Petitioner complying with the above conditions, the proper office will open the portal to enable the Petitioner to file the GST return - If any appeal has been filed in the meanwhile, obviously such appeal has been rendered infructuous as a result of this order and the Appellate Authority will accordingly be informed by the Petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1306
Seeking grant of Bail - creation of fake firm for tax evasion - offence u/s 132 (1)(a), (f),(h),(j),(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is admitted position that the M/s Miraj Products Private Limited had evaded the tax. GST department had seized the one truck which was being unloaded at their premises. Department had collected data till today, tax evasion of ₹ 869 Crore. As per version of learned counsel for the petitioner, they had deposited ₹ 60 Crore as a protest. If they had not evaded the tax, then there would have been no occasion to deposit of ₹ 60 Crore as a protest.
Apex Court in various pronouncement held that the economic offender should not be dealt as general offender because economic offenders run parallel economy and they are serious threat to the national economy. So, after considering the submission put-forth by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the present case and also looking to the seriousness of the offence(s) alleged against the petitioner without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Bail application dismissed.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1305
Seeking grant of bail - generation of fake bills for passing ITC - similarly situated co-accused Praveen Jangir has been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this court - HELD THAT:- In the facts and circumstances of the present case and looking to the seriousness of the offence(s) alleged against the petitioner without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is not considered a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
This bail application stands dismissed.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1304
Hearing of the matter - HELD THAT:- Matter is adjourned to 15.12.2021. In the meantime, the petitioner, without prejudice to his rights, shall deposit sum of ₹ 20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs) with the concerned authority.
Necessary instructions be obtained by learned Assistant Government Pleader on the next adjourned date.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1301
Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - goods and the conveyance were accompanied by E-way Bills and Invoices, however doubting the genuineness of the cosigner and consignee both, the detention order was passed - HELD THAT:- On a query raised by the Court learned AGP, Maithili Mehta is not sure as to whether the adjudication has been finally made by the concerned officer or is it a Mobile Squad Officer, who has on the spot decided the issue.
Issue Notice, keeping the right of the respondent open of agitating the issue of alternative remedy, making it returnable on 09.12.2021.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1300
Jurisdiction - proper officer - case of petitioner is that it is the sine qua non that the officer who issues the show cause notice under Section 74(1) of CGST Act, has to be perforce a ‘proper officer’ - HELD THAT:- In terms of Board’s Circular No.31/05/2018-GST dated 09.02.2018, more particularly in paragraph No.4 thereof, it is clarified that all officers up to the rank of Additional / Joint Commissioner of Central Tax are assigned as the ‘proper officer’ for issuance of show cause notices and orders under sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (7), (9) and (10) of Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, corresponding to Section 3 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act. As per the table appended thereto, Additional or Joint Commissioner of Central Tax have been assigned functions as the ‘proper officer’, and the monetary limit of the said officers for issuance of show cause notice and orders under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act and Section 20 of the IGST Act, in the case of central tax and integrated tax not paid, or short paid, or erroneously refunded, or input tax credit of central tax and integrated tax wrongly availed of or utilized, is above ₹ 2,00,00,000.00 (Rupees two crores).
Admittedly the monitory limit in the present case is above ₹ 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores). In such circumstances, and having regard to the above, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that respondent No.4 is not the ‘proper officer’ competent to issue the impugned show cause notice.
The issue before the Supreme Court in M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT] was completely different and distinct from what is being canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner to support his contention that respondent No.4 is not the ‘proper officer’ under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act.
The writ petition is dismissed.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1299
Applicability of GST - transactions of sale of vouchers - the vouchers traded by the Appellant are goods or actionable claims - Whether the vouchers themselves, or the act of supplying them is taxable, and at what stage, for each of the three categories of transactions undertaken by the Appellant? - rate of tax at which this would be taxable i.e what category would this be taxed under - HELD THAT:- The vouchers in question are undoubtedly payment instruments recognised by RBI. The question is however, whether these vouchers can be considered as 'money'. The finding of the lower Authority is that these vouchers are not used by the Appellant to settle an obligation and hence cannot be considered as 'money' ; that it takes on the colour of money only when it is redeemed by the beneficiary at the time of purchase of goods and/or services - The voucher in the hands of the Appellant, does not settle an obligation but rather creates an obligation. The settlement of the obligation occurs at the time when the ultimate beneficiary uses the voucher to purchase goods and/or services. The definition of money also makes it clear that it is only when the payment instrument is used as consideration to settle an obligation, does it qualify as 'money'. This occurs only when the voucher is redeemed. Until then it is just an instrument recognised by the RBI but is not ‘money'. Therefore, the voucher in the hands of the Appellant cannot be termed as 'money'.
In the instant case, the definition of goods in the CGST Act is much more explicit and states clearly what goods mean, what is excluded from the meaning of goods and what is included in the meaning. Further, the nature of the transaction in the case before us is different from the nature of the transaction by Sodexo in as much as the Appellant is clearly not the issuer of the vouchers nor is he authorized by RBI to issue vouchers. The Appellant is buying vouchers from entities authorized to issue them and is selling the same to his clients. In other words, the Appellant is purely trading in vouchers - the vouchers being traded by the Appellant are in the nature of goods.
The supply of vouchers by the Appellant is a supply of goods in terms of Section 7 of the CGST Act - on the aspect of value of the vouchers for the purpose of GST, the rate of tax and the time of supply of the vouchers by the Appellant. Since the Appellant is not the issuer of the voucher, the provisions of time of supply under Section 12(4) will not apply and the time of supply will be governed by the provisions of Section 12(5) of the CGST Act.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1298
Classification of services - principal supply or not - services of coaching to students which also includes along with coaching, supply of goods/printed material/test papers, uniform, bags and other goods to students - what shall be the value of service provided by Applicant (REL) to students and by channel / network partner to Applicant (REL)? - eligibility of Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, supply of a package consisting of coaching service as well as goods/printed material/test papers, uniform, bags and other goods to students when supplied for a single price is constitute a mixed supply as each of these items can be supplied separately and is not dependent on any other.
Whether such supply of coaching services shall be considered as composite supply under section 2(30) of CGST Act, 2017? If yes what shall be the principal supply as per section 2(90) of CGST Act, 2017? - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the applicant along with coaching services provides goods in the form of uniforms, bags, umbrellas, study material etc. These goods and services can be supplied separately and are not dependent on any other. Thus, the Supply in question shall qualify as 'mixed supply'. Further, it is clear that there are supplies of goods as well as services of various classification (i.e. HSN/SAC) having various tax rates which constitutes the predominant element of a mixed supply. Thus, in the present case, the supply is a mixed supply of goods as well as services and highest rate of tax is 18%.
Applicant provides coaching services under a new business model through Channel / Network Partners as per sample agreements attached, containing obligations of Applicant (REL) and such channel / Network partners. According to agreement, the channel / network partner provides the services to the students on behalf of Applicant. In such a situation, who shall be considered as supplier of coaching (REL) service and recipient of such service under the agreement? - HELD THAT:- Where coaching services are provided by the applicant to the students, students shall be regarded as 'recipient' as consideration is payable by the students to the applicant. Similarly, Network partner shall be regarded as provider of service to the applicant (recipient). The place of supply in both the cases (i.e. services provided to the students and service provided to the applicant by the network partner).
What shall be the value of service provided by Applicant (REL) to students and by channel / network partner to Applicant (REL)? - HELD THAT:- The applicant has been incurring the cost of goods i.e. printed material test papers, uniform, umbrellas, bags and other goods etc.) and service (coaching service etc.) supplied to the students, therefore, in light of Sections 15 of the Act, the values of goods and value of service shall be the value of supply as charged in lump sum amount by the applicant from the students.
Whether the Applicant (REL) shall be eligible to avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the supplies? - HELD THAT:- Yes, as per Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017, the applicant shall be eligible to take ITC of the GST paid on goods or services used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of business subject to the conditions as prescribed and the provisions of the Section 17 of the CGST Act, 2017.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1297
Seeking grant of bail - fake issuance of GST invoices without actual supply and receipt of goods - Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is to be noted that both additional places of business of two recipients of M/s. SRK Ventures i.e., M/s. Wonderkids Metrics Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Suumaya Retail Ltd., are same therefore, it appears that M/s. Suumaya Retail Ltd and M/s. Wonderkids Metrics Pvt Ltd., are mutually interlinked and it further appears that all the three entities 1) M/s. Rangoli Tradecomm Ltd. (now known as M/s. Suumaya Corporation Ltd.), M/s Suumaya Retail Ltd., and M/s. Wonderkids Metrics Pvt. Ltd., are mutually interlinked and the same has been admitted by the applicant Sushil Dilipkumar Mehta in his voluntary statement and therefore, applicant no.1 with the help of other applicants has created M/s. SRK Ventures and its suppliers as well as the recipients companies are created for name sake for bogus supply without actual movement of goods and all the companies are being operated by the same person and therefore, this is nothing but contravention of section 132(1)(b) of CGST Act, 2017, which is mandatory to show the turnover and same has been initiated by the applicant in the category of (taxable service) in CGST on return for the month of April, 2021. The goods are not entitled for exempted services.
This is nothing but huge loss to the Government. This is nothing but while collar crime which needs to be investigated in detail. The investigation is at crucial stage. More than 5000 invoices are included which are used as bogus invoices and needs to be recovered at the instance of applicants. Applicant nos.2 and 3 have supported the applicant no.1 in this conspiracy of evasion of taxes.
Considering the seriousness and gravity of the economic offence in which ₹ 48 crores evasion of taxes at the instance of applicants, investigation is at crucial stage, chance to tamper prosecution evidence and flee over justice, it is held that all the applicants does not deserve sympathy for enlargement on bail - Bail application dismissed.
........
|
