Home Case Index All Cases GST 2019 2019 2019 (11) GST - 2019 (11) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

GST - Case Laws

Showing 121 to 140 of 183 Records

• 2019 (11) TMI 528 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MADHYA PRADESH
  

  Activity of transportation of their students and staff under contract carriage by Non-A/c buses - Benefit of exemption from GST - Applicability of serial no. 15(b)(HSN/SAC Code 9964) of exemption Notification No. 12/2017 (Rate) dated 28-06-2017 as amended

  HELD THAT:- As per the agreement, the vehicles to be provided by the applicant under contract carriage to the said Institute are non-air conditioned and are for transportation of students and staff of the said Institute - As per clause (b) of above SI. No. 15 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.6.2017, the services of transportation of passengers, with or without accompanied belongings, by non-air-conditioned contract carriage other than radio taxi, for transportation of passengers, excluding tourism, conducted tour, charter or hire is exempt from GST.

  Considering the various clauses of the Agreement entered into by the applicant with Chameli Devi Institute of Technology and Management, Indore, it is clear that the applicant is providing the services of transportation of students and staff of the contracee's Institute under contract carriage, and the said transportation of students and staff is by non-air conditioned buses. Therefore, it will be exempt from GST as per clause (b) of SI. No. 15 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.6.2017.

  As the service is exempt, the question for rate of tax, not considered.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 527 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Freezing of petitioner's Bank Account - no order in terms of Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 159 of CGST Rules, 2017 is served upon petitioner - HELD THAT:- We direct the respondents to produce the original record with regard to issuance of the two aforesaid communications, freezing the bank accounts of the petitioner. The order passed in terms of the aforesaid provision should also be produced on the next date.

  List on 20.11.2019.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 526 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Disqualification of the petitioner in respect of the tender issued by the respondents - supply, installation and commissioning of skid mounted, oil lubricated helium gas recovery compressor with essential spares - detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed in the matter and the respondents have stated that the petitioner did participate in the tender process, however, as the petitioner has deviated from the tender conditions and, therefore, the petitioner has been declared as disqualified - stand of the respondents is that the petitioner's bid was not in consonance with the terms and conditions of the tender document and as per the terms of the tender, after evaluation of part I techno commercial bid, the part II ie., price bid is opened.

  HELD THAT:- The tender which was subject matter of the Writ Petition was issued ie., Tender No. 33227, for supply, installation and commissioning of skid mounted, oil lubricated helium gas recovery compressor with essential spares. The last date for submission of tender was 27/12/2018 and the petitioner has submitted his Techno Commercial and Price Bid on 22/12/2018. The respondents have stated that the contract was in respect of supply, installation, commissioning of skid mounted oil lubricated helium gas recovery compressor with essential spares and as per Part I ie., techno commercial bid, the bid was opened on 31/12/2018. It has been stated that the terms and conditions mentioned at Clause 45.1 of eDPS-0-103 version 2018-2, provides “in case the bidder does not accept the terms and conditions stipulated in the NIT, their bid will be outrightly rejected”.

  The petitioner himself has admitted his mistake while sending the e-mail communication to the answering respondents stating that the price quoted was inadvertently indicated as FOB instead of ex-works. The GST @ 18% indicated by the petitioner in their attachment to the techno commercial bid, is contrary to the terms and conditions of the NIT and as the petitioner has deviated from the terms and conditions of the NIT, the respondents have rightly disqualified the petitioner - the respondents have rightly rejected the petitioners tender. The scope of interference in the tender matters is quite limited.

  The apex Court has time and again dealt with the issue of interference in the matter of award of contract. The apex Court in the case of MANOHAR LAL SHARMA VERSUS NARENDRA DAMODARDAS MODI AND ORS. [2018 (12) TMI 1716 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that it is well settled preposition that matters pertaining to the award of contract, being essentially a commercial transaction, have to be determined on the basis of considerations that are relevant to such commercial decisions, and this implies that terms subject to which tenders are invited are not open to judicial scrutiny unless it is found that the same have been tailormade to benefit any particular tenderer or a class of tenderers.

  Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 479 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ODISHA
  

  Rate of GST - seeking advance rulings on the supplies made in the past supplies - royalty paid to Government for mining of Iron Ore for the period July, 2017 to December 2018 - reverse charge mechanism - as per the understanding of the Applicant, the mining lease service availed by them should be classified under the head 99733 - AAR is of the view that the present case of the Applicant does not come within the ambit of provisions of Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017.

  Jurisdiction of AAR - HELD THAT:- The broad objective for setting up of the AAR/AAAR is to provide certainty in tax liability in advance in relation to an activity being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the Applicant as well as to reduce litigation. The activity on which the Applicant sought an advance ruling is a continuous activity and pronouncing an order on such activity shall be within the jurisdiction of the “Authority”.

  Merits of the case - rate of GST - HELD THAT:- On a conjoint reading of the notification no 27/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 31 12.2018, Minutes / Agenda / Proposal / Discussion of the GST council, we are of the view that amendments have been carried out vide the aforesaid notification to clarify the legislative intent as well as to resolve the unintended interpretations It is well settled that the legislative intent cannot be defeated by adopting interpretations which is clearly against such interpretations.

  Reliance placed in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SHILLONG VERSUS WOOD CRAFT PRODUCTS LTD. [1995 (3) TMI 93 - SUPREME COURT], where in a ‘3’ judges Bench of the Hon’ble Court while interpreting amendments in Central Excise Tariff have held that the expression “similar laminated wood” in Heading No. 44.08 as it stood form the beginning must be construed to include within it block boards of all kinds so that the amendment in chapter Note 5 w.e.f. 19-3-19990 and thereafter w.e.f. 1-3-1992 merely clarified and made explicit that which was implicit in the heading throughout. These amendments were obviously made to end the dispute raised by the manufactures by an express statement - the ratio of the aforesaid case is squarely applicable to the instant case as well.

  Thus, the interpretation which defeats the intention of the legislature should be avoided.

  The licensing services for the right to use minerals including its exploration and evaluation received by the Applicant is taxable @ 18 % [9 % CGST and 9 % OGST] during 07/2017 to 12/2018.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 478 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING MAHARASHTRA
  

  Scope of Advance Ruling application - Classification of supply - supply of manpower services to highly technical industries such as Oil & Gas, Power etc. - zero-rated supply or a Normal supply - export of service - delay in filing appeal - time limitation - challenge to AAAR decision.

  Time limitation - HELD THAT:- There is a delay of 26 days in filing the said appeal by the appellant and the Appellant has filed miscellaneous application for the condonation of the said delay of 26 days, wherein the Appellant, which happens to be the jurisdictional officer, has attributed the said delay of 26 days in filing of the instant appeal to the initial teething problem being faced by them in the implementation of the GST procedures after the introduction of the GST regime - the delay is condoned - appeal filed before us in terms of proviso to sub section 2 of section 100 of the CGST Act 2017.

  Merits of the case - classification of supply - challenge to impugned Advance Authority Ruling, wherein the Authority of the Advance Ruling held that the transactions covered under the Master Service Agreement (Intercompany Service Agreement) entered between Respondent and NES Abu Dhabi are export of services under the GST Act, 2017 - zero rated supply - determination of the place of supply of goods/services - whether the services being provided by them to their overseas client i.e. M/s NES Abu Dhabi in terms of the subject MSA Agreement will be export or not and whether the same would be zero-rated supply or not? - HELD THAT:- Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 encompassing the specific questions, which are to be sought under the Advance Ruling, it can decisively be inferred that the questions raised by the Respondent before the Advance Ruling Authority were beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the Advance Ruling, and hence do not warrant any ruling thereon.

  The Advance Ruling Authority should have refrained from passing any ruling on the above mentioned two questions asked by the Respondent vide the Advance Ruling application filed before the Advance Ruling Authority - since the questions asked by the Appellant are not covered under the scope and jurisdiction of the Advance Ruling, no advance ruling in this regard can be passed.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 477 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING MAHARASHTRA
  

  Requirement of registration - Association of persons - principle of mutuality - scope of supply - amount collected by individual lions clubs and lions districts is for convenience of lions members and pooled together only for paying meeting expenses and communication expenses - amount so collected is deposited in a single bank account - there is no furtherance of business in this activity and neither any services are rendered nor are any goods being traded - challenge to AAAR decision - condonation of delay in filing appeal.

  HELD THAT:- The appellant was prevented by a sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within period of thirty days from the receipt of the said ruling of AAR and accordingly allow the appellant to present the appeal within a further period of 30 days in terms of proviso to sub section 2 of section 100 of the CGST Act 2017.

  Merits of the case - Whether the Clubs or Associations and the members thereof can be considered as distinct persons or not? - HELD THAT:- We are only concerned with the element of service, if any, rendered by the club to its members against some consideration, which may be in the form of the entrance fee or membership fee. Therefore, the contention made by the Respondent with regard to the principle of mutuality to establish their claim that the club and its member are not distinct entity is not tenable in so far as taxability in the GST regime is concerned.

  Whether the activities, undertaken by the Respondent by way of organizing the Leadership program exclusively for their Lion members, can be considered as service or not? - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to note that these Leadership Programs are conducted only for the Lion members. Non-Lion members are not allowed to participate in such programs. Thus, by doing so, the Respondents have rendered activity for the benefit of its members against the membership fee - Therefore, the activity of the Respondent in as much as they are conducting the Leadership Program exclusively for the Lion club members can clearly be considered as service being provided by the Respondent to its members.

  Whether the fee collected by the Respondent i.e. the Lions Club from its members in the form of entrance fee and annual membership fee can be treated as consideration or not? - HELD THAT:- The membership fee collected by the Club from its members is not only meant for meeting the administrative expenses, but is also towards organising the Leadership Program for the direct or indirect benefits of the members. Any Leadership Skill along with other skills, imparted to any Lion member is not restricted or limited to any particular project, but the overall impact of such qualities developed in any person stays for his entire life span and the benefits accrued out of such skills will undoubtedly go much beyond the Projects undertaken by the Lions Club. Thus, any membership fee collected by the Lions Club from its members will definitely be understood as “consideration” as the same has been paid for the supply of services.

  Whether the transaction between the Respondent i.e. Lions Club and its members can be construed as supply or not? - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the above definition of business, it can clearly be concluded that the provision of the leadership program by the Lions Club for the benefit of its members will come under the scope of business - Thus, it has been established that the supply of the services in the form of organising Leadership Program exclusively for Lion members has been made in the course of business only.

  It is believed that under the GST Law, the intent or objective of any club or association is immaterial in so far as the leviability of GST is concerned. Therefore, provision by club, association, society, or any such body (for a subscription or any other consideration) of the facilities or benefits to its members will surely attract GST irrespective of the fact that such club is not set up with the objective of providing any goods or service to its members. Hence, the observation of AAR does not hold any legal ground.

  The ruling made by AAR is set aside and subsequently it is held that Lions Club of Poona Kothrud, on account of the activities undertaken by them, is liable for taking registration for discharging their GST liability.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 476 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING MAHARASHTRA
  

  Export of services - photography activity, being performed by the Appellant on the diamonds sent by the vendors of the R2Net - non-applicability of condition no: iii) and v) of section 2(6) of IGST Act - performance based service - place of supply of services - recipient of service - challenge to AAAR Decision.

  HELD THAT:- The AAR observed that since the service performed by the Appellant viz.-photography service is in relation to the performance on goods, in this case the diamonds, which are being made available to the supplier of the service for the performance of the said service, the place of the supply of service will be the location where the service is actually performed. Since the goods are made available to the supplier of the service in the state of Maharashtra, the place of supply in the present case will be Maharashtra - Further, since the location of the supplier of the service is in Maharashtra and the place of the supply of the service is also in Maharashtra, it was held by the AAR that the said supply of the Appellant will be treated as an Intra - State supply in accordance with the provision of Section 8(2) of the IGST Act, 2017.

  The AAR, while answering the second question asked by the Appellant, wherein the Appellant had asked whether the supply made by them will be a zero rated supply i.e. export within the meaning of Section 2(23) read with Section 2 (6) of the IGST Act, 2017, held that the supply of the Appellant will not qualify as export of service, as the two of the 5 conditions prescribed for the export of a services, as laid out in Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017, are not being satisfied by the Appellant in as much as (i) the place of the supply of the service is not outside India and also, (ii) the supplier of service and the recipient of service are merely establishments of a distinct person in accordance with explanation 1 in section 8 of IGST Act.

  Whether we have jurisdiction to decide the nature of the levy i.e. CGST and SGST or IGST, to be imposed on any supply of goods or services or both or not? - HELD THAT:- The question on determination of the place of supply has not been covered in the set of questions, on which the advance ruling can be given. Therefore, we cannot give any opinion or verdict on the question which involve the determination of the place of supply of the goods or services or both.

  Determination of place of supply - HELD THAT:- Since, we do not have jurisdiction to determine the place of supply of services or goods or both, no ruling on this particular question can be passed by the Advance Ruling Authority. This rationale also holds true in case of the second question asked by the Appellant i.e. whether the said supply could be treated as export within the meaning of Section 2(23) read with Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017.

  Since the questions asked by the Appellant are not covered under our scope and jurisdiction, no ruling can be passed in the instant matter.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 475 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING MAHARASHTRA
  

  Scope of Advance Ruling - Jurisdiction to decide the case - Taxability - Export of services or not - intermediary services - “Commission” received by the Applicant in convertible Foreign Exchange - zero rated tax or not - Whether the “Commission” received by the Applicant in convertible Foreign Exchange for rendering services as an “Intermediary” between an exporter abroad and an Indian importer of an Equipment; is an “export of services” falling under section 2(6) & outside the purview of section 13 (8) (b), attracting zero rated tax under section 16 (1) (a) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? - Place of supply of services - challenge to AAAR decision.

  HELD THAT:- The appellant (MI) is providing services to its principal ‘Carl Zeiss GmbH’ in Germany in terms of procuring orders from customers in India for procurement of advanced laboratory instruments from its principal. The floor price is fixed by the principal and MI negotiates with customers in India for terms of supply and consideration / price above the floor price, for which they receive the commission from principal. After completion of the negotiations, the customers in India arranges for the foreign remittance for imports, and directly place the order to the foreign principal, who in turns directly supplies the instruments (goods) to the Indian customers. In most of the cases where the Indian Customers are entitled for the discounts, in kind (“discount in kind”, like “Free of cost items”, such as: a TV set, a Computer or a Camera etc.) with respect to the material purchased by them, are to be provided by the appellant.

  The Authority for Advance Ruling while deciding the issue relied upon the tern ‘intermediary’, and held that the appellant is an ‘intermediary’ because they are acting as a broker and the facilitating the process of sale of materials by their foreign principals to the Indian parties because they locate the customer, negotiate the prices and ensure the sale, they also provide for discounts to the customers out of the commission received by them. The advance ruling authority further held since the appellant (the service provider) is located in India and service recipient are located outside India, section 13 (8) (b) of the IGST Act would be applicable in determining the place of supply of such service in the instant case - The contention of the appellant is that though he has been covered under term ‘intermediary’ the services provided are not ‘intermediary services’ has been rejected by the Authority for Advance Ruling for reason being not tenable. The authority for Advance Ruling after rejection of the appellant’s claim of ‘export of service’ held it as an ‘interstate supply’ as per provisions of section 7 (5) (c) of the IGST Act and eligible to levy of IGST.

  The Advance Ruling authority decided that applicant is an ‘intermediary’ and the place of supply of ‘Intermediary Services’, as per Section 13(8)(b) being the location of the supplier of services, the said intermediary services cannot be treated as export of services under the provisions of the GST Act. Further, the Advance Ruling Authority held that in case the intermediary services are provided to the recipient located outside India, the inter-state provisions as contained under section 7(5)(c) shall be applicable and hence IGST is payable under such transaction. But from the questions posed it is evident that the appellant already holds himself out as an intermediary and has only posed the question as to whether the services given by him qualify to be ‘export of services’ falling under Section 2(6) or whether is a ‘intra-state supply’.

  Scope of Advance Ruling - Jurisdiction to decide the case - HELD THAT:- The question on determination of the place of supply has not been covered in the above set of questions, on which the advance ruling can be given - Therefore, we cannot give any opinion or verdict on the question which involve the determination of the place of supply of the goods or services or both.

  As per the law we do not have jurisdiction to determine the place of supply of services or goods or both, and accordingly no ruling on this particular question can be passed by the Advance Ruling Authority. This rationale also holds true in case of the second question asked by the Appellant i.e. whether the said supply could be treated as ‘intra-state supply’ under section 8 (1) of the IGST Act read with section 2(65) of the CGST Act.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 474 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - detention on the ground that the GSTR 3B returns had not been filed from June 2018 and GSTR I had not been filed from March 2019 - HELD THAT:- The reasons stated in Ext.P1 order cannot be a justification for detaining the goods in terms of Section 129 of the KGST Act. Similarly, the said ground cannot form the basis of Ext.P4 notice proposing confiscation of the goods detained inasmuch as the ingredients of the offence covered by Section 130 are not satisfied in the instant case.

  The writ petition by quashing Exts.P1 and P4 and directing the 1st respondent to forthwith release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner on the petitioner producing a copy of the judgment before the said respondent - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 473 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Detention of goods and vehicle - petitioner would submit that there is no mandate under section 129 of the GST Act for detaining goods that were covered by a valid e-Way Bill merely because the driver of the vehicle took an alternate route to reach the same destination - HELD THAT:- There cannot be a mechanical detention of a consignment solely because the driver of the vehicle had opted for a different route, other than what is normally taken by other transporters of goods covered by similar e-Way bills. No doubt, if the vehicle is detained at a place that is located on an entirely different stretch of road and plying in a direction other than towards the destination shown in the e- Way bill, then a presumption could be drawn that there was an attempt at transportation contrary to the e-Way Bill.

  This writ petition is allowed by directing the 1st respondent to forthwith release the goods and consignment to the petitioner - petition allowed.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 472 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the record or not - it was claimed that the inadvertent figures entered by their Accountant in the columns of output tax as well as input tax credit as also taxable supply filled up in GSTR-3B - applicability of provisions of Section 39 sub Section 9 of CGST Act 2017 - HELD THAT:- Before any direction is issued for reprograming GST Portal, we would like to have the official response of the respondents. However, in the meanwhile, Assistant Commissioner, CCO, GST Zone, Panchkula/respondent No.5 is directed to verify the corrected claims as projected in the manual annual returns placed at Annexure P-21 read with E-mail (Annexure P-10) in juxtaposition with the inadvertent mistake already made in the GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for the months concerned in the assessment year 2017-18 - After a thorough evaluation, self speaking and reasoned report be submitted on or before the next date in the shape of an affidavit.

  Matter Adjourned to 10.12.2019.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 471 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Filing of declaration in form GST Tran 1 - transitional credit - vires of Rule 117(1) & (1A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - time limitation - CBIC Circular No.39/13/2018-GST dated 03.04.2018 - HELD THAT:- The nature of reliefs sought in the present petition and the facts disclosed herein is fully covered by the decision of this Court in M/S. BLUE BIRD PURE PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2019 (7) TMI 1102 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein the Court had directed the respondents to either open the online portal or to enable the petitioner to file the rectified TRAN-1 electronically or accept the same manually.

  The factual position in the present case is not any different and thus, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to either open the online portal so as to enable the petitioner to file the Form TRAN-1 electronically, or to accept the same manually on or before 20.11.2019 - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 470 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - non-application of mind - challenge against Ext.P9 order is mainly on the contention that, while in response to the notice received by the petitioner, he had clearly indicated that a substantial part of the turnover pertained to goods that were meant for export that were not liable to tax under the GST Act, the said contention was not examined by the respondent while passing Ext.P9 order - HELD THAT:- From a perusal of Ext.P9 that the contention of the petitioner regarding export of goods was not considered by the respondent in Ext.P9, although the said contention was raised in Ext.P7 reply submitted by the petitioner - In my view, the said non-consideration vitiates Ext.P9 order.

  The Ext.P9 order is quashed and the respondent is directed to pass fresh orders in lieu thereof, after hearing the petitioner and after specifically referring to the contentions in Ext.P7 reply submitted by the petitioner - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 469 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Valuation - inclusion of component of GST in the invoices - contracts relating to execution of public projects - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the liability to pay GST has come into force after 01.07.2017 - In light of statutory liability, the representation of the petitioner to permit him to include the GST component in the invoice that he has raised for the works executed after 01.07.2017 is to be considered appropriately by the respondent - Authority in light of observations made above and in accordance with law.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 468 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  

  Anti-profiteering - supply of the book titled “Ragas in Hindustani Music: Conceptual Aspects (without cassette)” - benefit of reduction in the GST rate not passed on - violation of provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - quantum of profiteering - HELD THAT:- The allegation that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the tax rate is not sustainable - Accordingly, the application filed by the Applicant requesting action against the Respondent for alleged violation of the provisions of the Section 171 of the CGST Act is not maintainable.

  Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 467 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  

  Profiteering - supply of flats in the “Expressway Towers” project of the Respondent in Gurugram - benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by way of commensurate reduction in the prices not passed on - contravention of provisions of section 171 of CGST Act - penalty - HELD THAT:- Since the present investigation is only up to 31.08.2018 any benefit of ITC which accrues subsequently shall also be passed on to the buyers by the Respondents. In case this benefit is not passed on the Applicants or any other buyer shall be at liberty to approach the State Screening Committee Haryana for initiating fresh proceedings under Section 171 of the above Act against the Respondents. The concerned CGST or SGST Commissioner shall take necessary action to ensure that the benefit of additional ITC is passed on to the eligible house buyers in future.

  Penalty - HELD THAT:- It is evident from the above that the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him under the above Policy in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus realized more price from them than he was entitled to collect and has also compelled his consumers/buyers to pay more GST than that they were required to pay and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty - Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice be issued to him directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) of the above Act read with rule 133(3)(d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be impose on him.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 466 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  

  Profiteering - purchase of Flat No in his project “One Park Avenue”, Patlipada Junction, Ghodbundar Road, Thane, Maharashtra-400607 - benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed by him by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the above flat - contravention of provisions of section 171 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- The Applicant is not entitled to the benefit of additional ITC as his allotment has been cancelled by the Respondent on his own request. Therefore, the relationship of recipient and supplier stands terminated between the Applicant and the Respondent w.e.f. 24.11.2018 and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of additional ITC as per the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - He has further not paid the amount which he was required to pay in the pre and post GST period as per the terms of his allotment to become eligible for passing on of the benefit of ITC and therefore also he is not entitled to the above benefit.

  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 - Since the present investigation is only up to 30.09.2018 any benefit of ITC which accrues subsequently shall also be passed on to the buyers by the Respondent.

  Penalty - HELD THAT:- It is also evident from the above narration of the facts that the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him in his One Park Avenue project in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus resorted to profiteering. Hence, he has committed an offence under Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is apparently liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions - a SCN be issued to him directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) of the above Act read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 421 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING MAHARASHTRA
  

  Time limitation - Appellant has filed this appeal beyond the period of 30 days from the date of the communication of the Advance Ruling Order - HELD THAT:- The Appellant has filed this appeal beyond the period of 30 days from the date of the communication of the Advance Ruling Order as envisaged under Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, which provides that every appeal shall be filed within a period of 30 days from the date on which the ruling sought to be appealed against is communicated to the concerned officer, the jurisdictional officer and the applicant.

  In view of the above delay, which amounts to 20 days beyond the date of the communication of the Advance Ruling, the Appellant has separately filed a separate application for the condonation of delay in filing of the present appeal incorporating, in detail, the reasons for the said delay, and has pleaded for the condonation of the delay, and for the admission of the instant appeal for hearing on merits.

  Classification of goods - Rate of Compensation Cess - Tata Harrier vehicle - intra-State supplies and inter-State supplies of goods - Notification No. 1/2017-Compensation Cess (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended from time to time - scope of Sr. No. 52B of Cess Rate Notification - For the purpose of Cess @ 22% under Sr. No. 52B of Cess Rate Notification, whether the ground clearance of the vehicle is to be considered in laden condition or in unladen condition? - Vehicle whose ground clearance in unladen condition is more than 170mm but below 170mm in laden condition, whether will get covered under Sr. No. 52B of Cess Rate Notification? - challenge to AAR Decision.

  Whether the term ‘ground clearance’ mentioned in the explanation to the Sr. 52B of the Schedule to the Cess Rate Notification No. 1/2017Compensation Cess (Rate), dated 28.06.2017 as amended is to be measured in laden state or unladen state? - HELD THAT:- The term ‘ground clearance’ is not defined anywhere in GST Law including GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017, which deals with the levy of compensation cess on the motor vehicles at various prescribed rates on the goods specified under the Schedule appended to the Cess Rate Notification No. 1/2017-Compensation Cess (Rate), dated 28.06.2017.

  Section 56 of Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 mandates the manufacturer of motor vehicle to obtain certificate from the competent authority, which in the present case is ‘The Automotive Research Association of India (‘ARAI’)’ to the effect that the vehicle manufactured by the manufacturer is complying with the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. The said certificate issued by ARAI is based upon the standards laid down in this regard. ARAI is a research institution of the automotive industry with the Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, Government of India. The ARAI has been certifying the specification/ dimensions of vehicles including ground clearance in accordance with IS-9435 - Further, it is seen that IS-9435 is Indian Standard for terms and definitions relating to dimensions of road vehicles issued by Bureau of Indian Standards.

  Thus, on perusal of the Note part of the abovementioned clause, it is clearly revealed that the minimum ground clearance of any motor vehicles has to be measured only in fully laden state of that particular motor vehicle. There is no mention of unladen state anywhere in the said standard IS-9435 in so far as the measurement of ground clearance of a motor vehicle is concerned. Thus, it can decisively be inferred that as per the standards set out under IS 9435 : 2004 issued by Bureau of Indian Standard, which is followed by the ARAI, the authorized body for certifying the fitness of the motor vehicles, the ground clearance of the motor vehicles in their unladen state has no significance or implication - it is observed that any vehicles whose ground clearance in laden state are below 170 mm. will not get covered under Sr. 52B of the Cess Rate Notification i.e. Notification No. 1/2017-Compensation Cess (Rate), dated 28.06.2017.

  Merits of the Advance Ruling order - Validity of order wherein the authority of the Advance Ruling has held that the ground clearance of the motor vehicle should be measured in unladen condition, which they attributed to the reasons that the weights of the passengers occupying any vehicle is not standardized, and will vary from passenger to passenger, and hence is not constant - HELD THAT:- The rulings made by the Advance Ruling Authority is arbitrary and ungrounded, and the same is based on the flimsy notion in so much as they inferred that the weights of the passengers occupying the motor vehicles is not standardized, as the same will vary with persons occupying the motor vehicle, and thereby causing fluctuation in the ground clearance of the motor vehicles.

  We would like to refer to the submissions made by the Appellant, wherein they relied upon the CESTAT Rulings in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-I VERSUS TELCO LTD. [2002 (2) TMI 717 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] which has been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER VERSUS TELCO LTD. [2002 (9) TMI 876 - SC ORDER], wherein to compute payload of the vehicle the standard weight per passenger was considered as 68 kg in line with the yard stich proposed by motor vehicle law - In view of the above cited ruling of the CESTAT Mumbai, which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court, it is observed in the instant case that the Advance Ruling Authority has not followed the principle of the ratio decidendi, and thereby erred in holding that the weight of the persons occupying the motor vehicles cannot be standardized, and hence would not be constant for the purpose of determining the payload of the vehicle, which in turn will cause fluctuation in the ground clearance of the vehicle in the laden state.

  For the purpose of Cess @ 22% under Sr. No. 52B of Cess Rate Notification, whether the ground clearance of the vehicle is to be considered in laden condition or in unladen condition? - HELD THAT:- For the purpose of Cess @ 22% under Sr. No. 52B of Cess Rate Notification, the ground clearance of the vehicle is to be considered in laden condition only.

  Vehicle whose ground clearance in unladen condition is more than 170mm but below 170mm in laden condition, whether will get covered under Sr. No. 52B of Cess Rate Notification? - HELD THAT:- Vehicle whose ground clearance in unladen condition is more than 170mm but below 170mm in laden condition, will not get covered under Sr. No. 52B of Cess Rate Notification.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 420 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING MAHARASHTRA
  

  Service or not - whether the activities, undertaken by the Respondent by way of organizing the Leadership program exclusively for their Lion members, can be considered as service or not? - meaning of services provided in the Section 2(102) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Challenge to AAAR decision - mistake apparent on record - HELD THAT:- We agree with the Respondent’s submissions to the extent that membership fee collected by them will not subject to the GST and only the registration fee charged from the members for participation in the training programs/workshops will be subjected to GST.

  In light of the apparent mistake in the original order dated 23.04.2019, we proceed to amend the said original AAAR Order as per the provision of Section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017.

  Thus, original AAAR decision is amended as 'the membership fee, collected by the Respondent from its members, will not construed as consideration for levy of GST; rather it is the registration fee, collected by the Respondent from its members for organising the skill oriented workshops, will be construed as consideration against the supply made by the Respondent to its members, and accordingly will be leviable to GST, while maintaining that Lions Club of Poona Kothrud, on account of the activities i.e. organising training programs/workshops for its members, is liable to take registration for discharging their GST liability'.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 419 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Permission to withdraw appeal - detention of mortgaged vehicle - effective physical possession of the vehicle in compliance of the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal - HELD THAT:- Petition dismissed as withdrawn.

  ---

1 ....345678910