|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 183 Records
-
2019 (11) TMI 818 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Profiteering - purchase of Flat No. 2204 in Tower B2, in the Respondent’s project, “Runwal My City” - benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) had not been passed on to him by the Respondent by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the above flat - contravention of provisions of section 171 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- This Authority under Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017 orders that the Respondent shall reduce the prices to be realized from the buyers of the flats commensurate with the benefit of ITC received by him as has been detailed above. Since the present investigation is only up to 30.06.2018 any benefit of ITC which accrues subsequently shall also be passed on to the buyers by the Respondent. The Commissioners CGST/SGST shall ensure that the above benefit is passed on to the eligible buyers. The Applicant No. 1 as well as the other flat buyers will also be at liberty to maintain proceedings against the Respondent for violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, in case the benefit of additional ITC is not passed on to them.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- The Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him in his ‘Runwal My City Project in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus profiteered an amount of ₹ 3,20,49,507/- from his customers, hence he has committed an offence under section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of the above Section - Accordingly, a SCN be issued to him directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under the above Section read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him.
Application disposed off.
-
2019 (11) TMI 768 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL
Classification of goods - fusible interlining cloth partially coated with plastic which is used for shirt collars, cuffs, pant belts etc. - whether classifiable in Chapters 50 to 55 or under Chapter Note 2(a) to Chapter 59 of the Tariff Act? - CBEC issued Circular No. 24/Coated Fabrics/88-CX.1 dated 02/09/1988 - N/N. 1/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28/06/2017 - HELD THAT:- Chapter Note 2(a)(4) to Chapter 59 says that fabrics partially coated or partially covered with plastics and bearing designs resulting from these treatments are excluded from Heading 5903 and are usually covered in Chapter 50 to 55, 58 or 60, depending on the materials used. At the same time, according to the Explanatory Notes to the HSN Code, textile fabrics which are spattered by spraying with visible particles of thermoplastic material and are capable of providing a bond to other fabrics or materials on the application of heat and pressure are classifiable under Heading 5903. According to Circular No. 433/66/98-CX-6 dated 27/11/1998 of CBEC, such classification should be treated as an exception to Chapter Note 2(a)(4) to Chapter 59.
The Applicant’s reference to rule 3(b) of the General Rules of Interpretation is of no use, as recourse to such rules is permitted under rule 1 of the said General Rules only if the terms of the headings and Section Notes or Chapter Notes do not otherwise require. It is evident from the above discussion that the Applicant’s product is classifiable under Heading 5903 in terms of the Explanatory Notes to Chapter 59. Rule 3(b) of the General Rules of Interpretation is, therefore, not applicable.
The Applicant’s product, namely fusible interlining cloth, is classifiable under Heading 5903 in Chapter 59 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
-
2019 (11) TMI 767 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Release of confiscated goods alongwith vehicle - the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the amount of tax and penalty as computed by the respondents - section 130 of the Gujarat GST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Issue Rule returnable on 28th November, 2019.
By way of interim relief, the respondents are directed to forthwith release truck together with the goods contained therein, subject to the petitioners depositing an amount of ₹ 1,06,352/- as computed by the respondents towards tax and penalty.
-
2019 (11) TMI 766 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Recovery of amount on account of tax, cess, interest and penalty from the account maintained by the petitioner - invocation of section 79 of GST Act - It is the specific case of the petitioner that no proceedings whatsoever, was issued against the petitioner for determining either the tax, cess or interest or penalty - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the statement said to have been given on 19.06.2019 claims to be so called admission by the petitioner, is not available before the Revenue anymore and on the other hand, it is for them to determine the tax liability by resorting to the procedures in accordance with law, instead of issuing the impugned proceedings straightaway under Section 79 based on the so called admission which is subsequently retracted.
The impugned proceedings issued under Section 79 is not sustainable. No doubt, the first respondent sought to rely upon Section 83 to contend that the first respondent is entitled to make the provisional attachment - Perusal of Section 83 would show that the such provisional attachment can be resorted to only when proceedings are pending under any of the provisions viz., Section 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 and 74.
In this case, as admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, no such proceedings are pending as on today under any of the above provisions. Therefore, Section 83 also would not come to the rescue of the respondent to sustain the impugned proceedings - impugned proceedings are not maintainable.
Petition allowed.
-
2019 (11) TMI 765 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment of Bank Accounts - period ending January 2019 - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent does not dispute that the entire amount due and payable, for which the provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act was issued has been paid by the appellant.
The impugned communication dated 03rd April 2019 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) is hereby quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2019 (11) TMI 715 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL
Levy of GST - Zero rated supply or not - supply of foreign going vessels stores like paint, rope, spare parts, electronic equipment etc. - HELD THAT:- A foreign going vessel anchored within the territory of India is not a place outside India and taking the stores on board such a vessel does not amount to supply to a location outside India. Section 69 of the 1962 Act cannot, therefore, cover within the ambit of export the case where the warehoused goods are taken on board a foreign going vessel. A special provision needs to be made under section 88(a) of the 1962 Act to extend the facility of exemption from import duty to such imported stores.
The Applicant does not claim that its supplies of stores to the foreign going vessels are restricted to warehoused goods. In any case, at the time of supply, both the supplier (the Applicant) and the recipient (the foreign going vessel) are located in India. The supply of stores imported or otherwise, to foreign going vessels cannot, therefore, be construed as export unless it is marked specifically for a location outside India. It is not a zero-rated supply.
The Applicant is, therefore, liable to pay tax on such supplies under the GST Act or the IGST Act, as the case may be - However, the Applicant’s supplies to the foreign going vessels shall be treated neither as a supply of goods nor services in terms of paragraph 8(a) of Schedule III under section 7(2)(a) of the GST Act if such stores are warehoused goods supplied to the recipient before clearance for home consumption.
-
2019 (11) TMI 714 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL
Exemption from GST - Supply of biscuits, soaps etc. earmarked ‘FOR PDS SUPPLY ONLY’ to fair price shops/PDS distributors - N/N. 2/2017 - CT (Rate) dated 28/06/2017 - HELD THAT:- Supply of goods through PDS is not exempt under Notification No. 2/2017 - CT (Rate) dated 28/06/2017, as amended from time to time (reference to which includes reference to State Notification No. 1126 - FT dated 28/06/2017) or any other notification. Activities or transactions of the Applicant are not included in Schedule III either.
The Applicant is, therefore, liable to pay GST at the applicable rate on his supplies of goods through PDS.
-
2019 (11) TMI 713 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Extension of time period for filing of GST Tran-1 - transitional credit - transition to GST regime - HELD THAT:- The respondents are directed to reopen the portal within two weeks from today. In the event they do not do so, they will entertain the GST TRAN-1 of the petitioner manually and pass orders on it after due verification of the credits as claimed by the petitioner. They will also ensure that the petitioner is allowed to pay its taxes on the regular electronic system also which is being maintained for use of the credit likely to be considered for the petitioner.
List this matter on 16.12.2019.
-
2019 (11) TMI 712 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Prayer for withdrawal of petition - SCN issued by the Joint Commissioner under Section 73(1) of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2019 (11) TMI 711 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Detention of goods alongwith the vehicle - Section 129 of GST Act - detention on the ground that the transport receipt was a photocopy and the details filled in the transport receipt were handwritten - case of petitioner is that, there being no format prescribed for transport receipt under the GST Acts, there was no question of there being any breach of the provisions of the GST Acts - Circular No.64/38/2018-GST dated 14.9.2018 - whether the second respondent was justified in exercising powers under section 129(1) of the CGST Act?
HELD THAT:- The documents which were required to be kept while transporting the goods are prescribed under rule 138A of the CGST Rules, 2017 - On a plain reading of the above rule, it is evident that the documents which are required to be kept by the person in charge of a conveyance while transporting goods are (i) the invoice or bill of supply or delivery challan, as the case may be; and (ii) a copy of the e-way bill - In the present case, admittedly when the trucks in question came to be intercepted, the concerned driver had produced the invoice as well as the eway bill in respect of the goods which were being transported.
In order to ensure uniformity in the implementation of the provisions of the CGST Act across the field formations, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs in exercise of the powers conferred under section 168(1) of the CGST Act, has issued Circular No.41/15/2018-GST dated 13.4.2018, laying down the procedure for inspection of conveyance for inspection of goods in movement and detention, release and confiscation of goods and conveyances and has issued certain instructions - the instructions issued by the Board are binding upon all the officers discharging duties under the GST Acts.
Though the person in charge of the conveyance had produced the documents which were statutorily required to be kept with him during the course of transportation of the goods, the vehicle in question was detained on extraneous grounds namely that the lorry receipt issued by the transporter was a photocopy without computerised serial number and contact number details - In terms of the instructions contained in the above circular dated 13" April, 2018, the proper officer, empowered to intercept and inspect a conveyance, may intercept any conveyance for verification of documents and/or inspection of goods. In the present case, since no FORM GST MOV-02 has been issued, no Part A of Form GST EWB-03 has been uploaded on the common portal, no FORM GST MOV-04 has been issued and no Part B of Form GST EWB-03 has been uploaded on the common portal, it is clear that the conveyance has been intercepted for verification of documents and not for physical verification inasmuch as, if the officer intended to undertake an inspection he was required to issue an order for physical verification/inspection of the conveyance, goods and documents in FORM GST MOV-02 and thereafter upload Part A of Form GST EWB-03 on the common portal, prepare a report in FORM GST MOV-04 and furnish the same to the petitioner and to upload the final report of the inspection in Part B of Form GST EWB-03 on the common portal.
It is abundantly clear that both the documents prescribed under rule 138A of the CGST Rules, viz. the invoice and the e-way bill, were produced by the person incharge of the conveyance. The proper officer, upon verification of these two documents has not found any discrepancies therein. Hence, in terms of the instructions contained in paragraph 2(b) of the above circular, the proper officer was required to allow the conveyance to move further. However, the proper officer has issued an order of detention under section 129(1) of the CGST Act on the ground that the lorry receipt was a photocopy and did not bear a computerised serial number or contact number details - Thus, the impugned order has been passed contrary to the statutory requirements which do not require production of a lorry receipt by the person in-charge of a conveyance as well as contrary to the instructions issued by the Board in the above referred circular.
Insofar as the second ground based on a subsequent socalled statement of driver of one of the conveyances bearing No.GJ-04-AT-9302 is concerned, it may be noted that such statement is said to have been recorded on 2.4.2019, wherein the driver has stated that he had loaded the goods at Sihor in Bhavnagar and was to unload them at Aurangabad - Thus, in the statutory form, the statement of the driver has been recorded stating that the goods were being transported from Bhavnagar to Virar, Thane, but the respondents seek to place reliance upon some unverified statement produced on record with the affidavit-in-reply, which is not permissible in law. Besides, there is force in the submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the destination of the goods will have no bearing on the tax liability of the petitioner, provided the destination is outside the State of Gujarat and, therefore, no mala fide intention can be imputed to the petitioner as the petitioner as well as the recipient of goods, are registered under the GST Acts and both the invoice and e-way bill are found to be in order.
It is evident that the person in-charge of the conveyance carrying the goods in question had in his possession, the invoice as well as the e-way bill in respect thereof, and both such documents were produced before the proper officer when the conveyance in question came to be intercepted. It is not the case of the respondents that any discrepancy was found in the aforesaid two documents - Under the circumstances, in the light of the instructions contained in Circular dated 13.4.2018 issued by the Board, it was incumbent upon the second respondent to issue a release form in FORM GST MOV-05 and allow the conveyance to move further - However, the conveyance in question has been detained on the ground of discrepancy in transport certificate which is not a requirement prescribed under the statute. Under the circumstances, the second respondent was not justified in passing the order of detention under section 129(1) of the CGST Act.
The impugned orders of detention dated 2.4.2019 as well as the impugned notices dated 2.4.2019 in each of the petitions, are hereby quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2019 (11) TMI 710 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Input tax credit - shifting to GST regime - transitional credit - section 140 of the CGST Act - rectification of mistake in the declaration filed in FORM GST TRAN-1 - case of Revenue is that the petitioner, after the expiry of approximately two months from the last date of filing FORM GST TRAN-1 viz. 27th December, 2017, had requested the department on 19th February, 2018, to correct the mistake in the declaration filed in FORM GST TRAN-1 - non-compliance with the rule 117 of the CGST Rules - HELD THAT:- In terms of rule 117 of the CGST Rules, FORM GST TRAN-1 was required to be filed within the prescribed time limit. Such time limit was extended by the Central Government from time to time and was lastly extended till 27th December, 2017. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had filed the FORM GST TRAN-1 within the time prescribed in the rules. However, there was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the petitioner in not mentioning the details of ₹ 83,99,136/- in column 6 of Table 5a and instead of which the petitioner had uploaded the details in column 5 of Table 5a due to misunderstanding of the form - It is only when it was noticed by the petitioner that due to inadvertent error, the form had not been correctly filled in, resulting the petitioner being denied input tax to the extent of ₹ 83,99,136/-, that the petitioner sought to revise the form and sought the advice of the department. The petitioner, accordingly, addressed several communications to the respondents in respect of his genuine grievance; however to no avail.
In the case of Bhargava Motors v. Union of India [2019 (5) TMI 899 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where the Delhi High Court is satisfied that the Petitioner’s difficulty in filling up a correct credit amount in the TRAN-1 form is a genuine one which should not preclude him from having his claim examined by the authorities in accordance with law.
Adverting to the facts of the present case, considering the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is manifest that it is an admitted position that the petitioner was entitled to credit of ₹ 83,99,136/- in addition to credit of ₹ 8,64,055/- (which came to be allowed as it was correctly mentioned). The only reason for denying credit of such a huge amount of ₹ 83,99,136/- is that the time limit for filing a revised TRAN-1 form has elapsed on 27th December, 2017 - the substantive right of the petitioner to claim transitional credit of such amount is sought to be denied on the ground that the time limit for filing revised FORM GST TRAN-1 has elapsed.
In the opinion of this court, the respondents ought to have provided in the system itself a facility for rectification of such errors which are clearly bona fide. Besides, although the system provided for revision of a return, the deadline for making the revision coincided with the last date for filing the return, that is, 27th December, 2017. Thus, such facility was rendered impractical and meaningless - This court is further of the view that retention of the amount of ₹ 83,99,136/- by the respondents which the petitioner is otherwise entitled to get by way of transitional credit would be directly hit by article 265 of the Constitution of India which provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.
The action of the respondents in denying transitional credit of the sum of ₹ 83,99,136/-, which even according to the respondents, the petitioner is otherwise entitled by way of transitional credit, cannot be sustained - The respondents are directed to either open the online portal so as to enable the petitioner to again file the rectified FORM GST TRAN-1 electronically or accept the manually filed FORM GST TRAN-1 with corrections on or before 30th November, 2019 - petition allowed.
-
2019 (11) TMI 661 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Presence of Lawyer during examination/interrogation of GST officers - fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit of GST - HELD THAT:- The POOLPANDI VERSUS SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE [1992 (5) TMI 147 - SUPREME COURT], has categorically stated that presence of a lawyer cannot be allowed during examination/ interrogation by a Customs Officer. It was held that relevant provisions of the Constitution in this regard have to be construed in the spirit in which they were made and benefit thereunder should not be extended to exploiters engaged in Tax Evasion at the cost of public exchequer.
High Court of Delhi in SUDHIR GULATI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1998 (2) TMI 126 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DELHI] has also categorically held that assistance of lawyer cannot be allowed while examination of a person in the Customs Office.
The petitioner in the present case has been summoned by the Officers under GST Act who are not Police Officers and who have been conferred with the power to summon any person whose attendance they consider necessary to give evidence or to produce a document. The presence of the lawyer, therefore, is not required during the examination of the petitioner.
Application disposed off.
-
2019 (11) TMI 660 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Release of seized goods alongwith vehicle - petitioner states that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the amount of tax and penalty in terms of the impugned notice issued under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Under the circumstances, the respondents are directed to forthwith release the Truck number GJ-02-Y-6566 together with the goods contained therein upon the petitioner paying the tax and penalty as reflected in the column number 4(1) (2)of the impugned notice issued under section 130 of the CGST Act.
-
2019 (11) TMI 659 - SUPREME COURT
Maintainability of appeal - Compliance with the pre-deposit - non-prosecution of the case - HELD THAT:- Issue notice on condition that the petitioner shall deposit ₹ 2,00,00,000/- to the credit of C.No. IV/16/27/201HPU on the file of the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Salem, Tamil Nadu and produce receipt in that behalf in the Registry of this Court within ten days from today, failing which the special leave petition shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court.
For a period of one week, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner in connection with the alleged offence and the interim protection will continue upon production of receipt in the Registry about the deposit made with the Department within one week from today, until the disposal of this Special Leave Petition.
List the matter on 12.09.2019.
-
2019 (11) TMI 592 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - Section 129 of the GST Act - detention was on the ground that the validity period of the e-way bill that accompanied the transportation had already expired at the time of detention - HELD THAT:- As the detention was on the ground that the validity period of the e-way bill that accompanied the transportation had already expired at the time of detention. Under the said circumstances, the detention cannot be said to be unjustified.
It is directed that if the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount quantified in Ext.P4 order, then the respondents shall release the consignment and the vehicle to the petitioner.
-
2019 (11) TMI 533 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MADHYA PRADESH
Maintainability of application - scope of Advance Ruling application - first Proviso to Section 98(2) of the GST Act 2017 - Classification of an item - processing of milk and milk products including flavoured milk - Whether flavoured milk is taxable at the rate of 5% under Schedule IV of the GST Act?
HELD THAT:- There is no hesitation in concluding that the instant application is not maintainable in as much as it is hit by the provisions contained in first proviso to Section 98(2) of the Act. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, the application deserves to be rejected as not admissible in terms of first Proviso to Section 98(2) of the Act.
-
2019 (11) TMI 532 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MADHYA PRADESH
Rate of GST - transportation services by Goods Transport Agency (GTA) by road under RCM - coal beneficiation and loading charges - Rate of GST.
HELD THAT:- Both the services are independent of each other. The price charged by the supplier for both the services are separately mentioned in price bid invited by the company and none of the services can be considered as predominant over the other service. Both the services are important for the company and the company has invited tender for availing both the services.
The coal beneficiation services fall under the purview of SAC 9997 and is chargeable at the rate of 18% GST - the Transportation services fall under the SAC 9965 and is chargeable to tax @12% but if supplier does not avail Input tax credit the GST Rate would be 5%.
-
2019 (11) TMI 531 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MADHYA PRADESH
Exemption from GST - Charitable Activities or not - Activities for Promotion of research in the field of Life Sciences, Physical Sciences etc, Performing & publishing of online research journals on one or more of above-mentioned field/subjects and Organizing Seminars, Symposiums, Conventions, Congress etc. addressing on one or more of various issues - applicability of clause 2(r) of Notification No. 12/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
HELD THAT:- The definition of Charitable Activity is not an inclusive definition but an exclusive one, meaning that the specific activities which are treated to be falling under Charitable Activity are an exhaustive list and there is no scope of interpretation as to which activities might fall under charitable category - A joint reading of activities covered under the Notification and the activities performed show that Promotions of Research and Publishing of online research journal are not activities contemplated in the exemption entry since they do not fall under care or counselling; or spreading public awareness; or advancement of religion, spirituality or yoga; or advancement of educational programmes or skill development.
Organization of Seminars, Symposiums and Conventions come under the term “spreading of public awareness”, if they are for the spreading of Public Awareness of preventive health, family planning or prevention of HIV infection shall be covered under the exemption notification. The determinative factor in this case would be to ascertain whether the programme is open for public or not - Once it is established that it is not for select group of people or for a class of people, then such activity ceases to a Public Awareness activity.
Since the applicability of the exemption is dependent on whether the activity is for Public Awareness, which is a fact to be ascertained from each case. In such case, Advance Ruling cannot be passed in absence of facts.
Thus, the activities of Promotion of Research and activity of Performing and publishing online research journal does not fall under Charitable Activity under Notification No 12/2017 - CT (R) and corresponding notification issued under MPGST Act.
-
2019 (11) TMI 530 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MADHYA PRADESH
Classification of Works contract - work under e-tender process by MP Power Generating Company Ltd (MPPGCL) for Balance General Civil and Related Electrical And Mechanical Works Package For 2X660 MW Shree Singaji Thermal Power Project (SSTPP) Stage - II Near Village Dongalia. Distt. Khandwa, Madhya Pradesh ,India’ - composite contract or is it separate contract for each work under taken? - Government Entity or not - rate of tax.
HELD THAT:- MPPGCL is a Government Entity for the purpose of provisions of CGST Act 2017 and MPGST Act 2017.
In the instant case, the applicant have been awarded a consolidated contract for carrying out different specified works at Shri Singaji Thermal Power Project, which includes erection, commissioning, installation etc. - It is also necessary to place on record that there are certain items mentioned in the subject contract including, but not limited to, ‘Fitness Centre cum Gym’, which definitely do not find place in the ambit of essential work entrusted by the State Government to MPPGCL. Needless to mention that such work shall not qualify for exemption as envisaged under Sr.No.3(vi) to the Notification no. 11/2017-CT(Rate), in as much as it does not fall within the scope of work entrusted by Government of Madhya Pradesh to MPPGCL.
The work entrusted vide subject tender document/contract awarded to the Applicant by MPPGCL cannot be termed as composite supply and thus entire work under the said contract shall not be entitled to concessional rate in terms of Notification No.11/2017-CT(R) dtd.28.06.2017 - Also, the supply of goods and/or services which squarely fall within the ambit of scope of work entrusted to MPPGCL by the Government of Madhya Pradesh shall be entitled for concessional rate under Sr.No.3(vi) to Notification No.11/2017-CT(R). Accordingly, each and every supply under the subject contract shall be treated separately for determining the rate of tax under the CGST Act 2017 read with the provisions of GST Tariff and respective exemption notifications.
Thus, the tender document in question is a not consolidated contract and each supply under the said contract shall be chargeable to tax individually, depending upon the individual classification of such supplies and rate of tax applicable at the time of supply.
-
2019 (11) TMI 529 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MADHYA PRADESH
Classification of an item - Utility Van - whether classifiable under chapter Pleading 8703 or Chapter Heading 8704?
HELD THAT:- The Customs Tariff, as also the GST Tariff, broadly classifies the vehicles under two categories viz. Vehicles for transport of passengers and vehicles for transport of goods. As per statutory requirements laid down under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and Motor vehicle Rules 1989, each type of vehicle is required to be certified either by the Vehicle Research and Development Establishment of Ministry of Defense or by the Automobile Research Association of India, or certain other authorities.
The goods in questions i.e. Utility vehicles, are predominantly designed for transportation of goods and these vehicles also conform to the categorisations and conditions laid down under Automotive Industry Standards AIS 053 as Category N vehicles for carrying /goods - thus, the utility vehicles in question shall merit classification under Chapter Head 8704 of GST Tariff and shall be liable to GST at the rate applicable at the time of supply.
....
|
