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 141 to 160 of 183 Records

• 2019 (11) TMI 399 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING MAHARASHTRA
  

  Input tax credit - credit of GST paid on goods and services used for construction of Tie-in pipelines, from the FSRU to the National grid - scope of the term 'factory' and 'premise' - exclusion clause to cover FSRU which is a vessel, within the meaning of a factory - exclusion clause of explanation to Section 17(5) of CGST Act - challenge to AAR decision.

  Whether FSRU, where the re-gasification of the LNG is carried out for delivery to the National grid, will be construed as factory or otherwise?

  In case the same is held as factory, whether the tie-in pipeline which is to be laid can be construed to be the pipeline laid out side the factory premises or otherwise?

  HELD THAT:- It is a matter of fact that the factory has not been defined anywhere in the CGST Act. Therefore, we proceed to explore the meaning of factory as understood in the ordinary parlance. Accordingly, we will resort to the meaning provided to the term ‘factory’ in the various dictionaries. In this way, we concur with the contention put forth by the Appellant in so much as they have advocated for the adoption of the meaning of the factory as understood in the common parlance, for which they have relied upon the meaning of the term factory provided in the various dictionaries. - As regards the AAR interpretation of the term factory, wherein they have adopted the definition provided under the Factories Act, 1948 in absence of the definition of the impugned term ‘factory’, it is opined that Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its judgment in the case of MSCO PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [1984 (10) TMI 44 - SUPREME COURT], which has been cited and relied upon by the Appellant in their defense, has abundantly clarified against the adoption of the definition or meaning of any term, which has not been defined under a particular statute with which the impugned matter is concerned, from another statute containing the definition or meaning of that very term.

  The AAR interpretation of the term ‘factory’, on the basis of the definition provided under the Factories Act, 1948 is contrary to the afore said Supreme Court ruling, and hence not tenable.

  On perusal of the dictionary meaning of the term ‘Building’, it is abundantly clear that any structure with the walls and roofs would be considered as Building. Further, in the definition, there is no such constraint that such structure should be situated on the land only. Thus, by looking at the photographs of Floating Storage Re-gasification Unit (‘FSRU’), submitted by the Appellant, where this re-gasification of the LNS is carried out by the Appellant, may very well be considered as the building as there are enough structures with walls and roofs, which have been built on this processing unit, which c l early indicates that the FSRU encompasses many buildings, where the regasification of the LNG is carried out for delivery of the same to the National grid with the aid of the tie-in pipelines under question - Thus, on perusal of the dictionary meaning of the term ‘establishment’, it is crystal clear that the establishment is a place from where any organization operates. Here also, there is no such restriction that such place should be located on the land only. It may be any where including the water bodies, such as sea, oceans etc.

  Thus, it is clearly established that the FSRU, the place in question, can be considered as building, or establishment. Further, there is no dispute, by the Appellant, over the activities, carried out at the FSRU, where the re-gasification of the LNG is taking place, being in the nature of the manufacturing activity. Therefore, we would not go into the details of the activities carried out at the FSRU, as the same is accepted as manufacturing activities.

  The FSRU, where the re-gasification of LNG is carried out for delivery to the National Grid through the tie-in pipeline proposed to be connecting the FSRU to the National Grid, can be rightly considered as factory - Once it has been established that the premises of the FSRU can be justly considered as factory premises, then there is no doubt that the tie-in pipeline, to be laid by the Appellant, which will join the FSRU to the National Grid, will be considered as pipeline laid outside the factory premises, and accordingly attract the applicability of the subject exclusion clause i.e. exclusion clause (iii) of the explanation to section 17(5)(c) and section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017.

  The ruling pronounced by the Advance Ruling Authority is modified in so far the observation of the facts and legal provisions are concerned and pass the order by holding that the Appellant is not entitled to avail the ITC of GST paid on goods and services used for construction of Tie-in pipelines, from the FSRU to the National grid as per the provision laid out in section 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 398 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING MAHARASHTRA
  

  Levy of GST - Place of supply - Advisory & Management Fees received in Indian Currency from Domestic Contributors located in India for the Services rendered by the Appellant - Advisory & Management Fees received in Foreign Currency from Overseas Contributors located outside India for the Services rendered by the Appellant - scope of Person Liable to make the Payment - AAR has held that the GST is leviable on the Investment Advisory and Management Fees collected from both the Domestic as well as the Overseas Investors, as the said services of Investment Advisory and Management services have been rendered to the AIF (Alternate Investment Fund), and not to the Domestic or Overseas Investors - challenge to AAR decision.

  HELD THAT:- To decide the taxability of the above said Investment Advisory and Management Fees, it is imperative to determine the place of supply in respect of the impugned overseas transactions. Further, on perusal of the provisions under Section 97(2), reproduced herein above, it is adequately clear that question on determination of the 'place of supply' has been excluded from the above mentioned specific and exhaustive set of questions, in respect of which advance ruling can be sought under the CGST Act. This clearly indicates that we cannot pass any ruling in respect of the question which involves the determination of the place of supply of the goods or services or both.

  It can decisively be concluded that the question posed by the Appellant i.e. whether the GST is applicable on the Investment Advisory and Management Fees collected from the overseas Investors, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Advance Ruling, and hence cannot be decided by the Advance Ruling Authority.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 397 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING MAHARASHTRA
  

  Seeking advance ruling by suppressing vital facts - Matter was already under investigation by the DGGI - Classification of supply - Franchise agreement - investigations were inter-alia involving the very same issue of classification of activities of franchisees for subjecting the same to the levy of GST

  HELD THAT:- Sec. 98(2) provides that the application shall not be admitted where the question raised is already pending under any of the provisions of this act. The term ‘any of the provisions of this act’ includes investigations proceeding under section 67. It is clear from the record submitted by the DGGI that proceedings was pending against KOTI (Kamat Ourtimes Ice-cream Ltd), and the issue taken up in the proceedings related to the classification of the activities ‘ice-cream sold from the natural outlets’ - whether the supplier of goods would be charged at the rate of 18 % under HSN 2105 by availing ITC or whether the activity should be classified as supply of service under SAC -996331 at the rate of 5 % without ITC.

  The investigations proceedings were approved on 15.01.2019 and the search was conducted on 5.2.2019. The statement of the Director of KOTI u/s 70 was recorded on 5.2.2019, and the statement of M/s Srinivas Kamath (Wholetime Director of KOTI) was recorded on 11.2.2019. The application for advance ruling was filed on 25.2.2019 by the applicant respondent at the behest of KOTI. It becomes clear from the above that there was a deliberate intention on the part of KOTI as well as its applicant-respondent to obtain a decision clandestinely without revealing the issue of investigation being initiated against KOTI on the very same issue that was raised before the ARA.

  It cannot be a mere coincidence that the applicant-respondent made an application for advance ruling on 25.2.2019 immediately following the initiation of proceedings against KOTI on 5.2.2019. Having seen the sort of control exercised on the operations of the applicant-respondent by KOTI, it also is apparent that applicant-respondent was aware of the DGGI proceedings against KOTI and therefore it filed an application and moreover, kept the fact away from the advance ruling authority. This amounts to nothing but suppression of facts and therefore the advance ruling is void as it is obtained by suppressing the vital fact that proceedings were initiated by DGGI against KOTI and were pending as on the date of filing of advance ruling application.

  There was a deliberate intention on the part of KOTI as well as its applicant-respondent to obtain a decision clandestinely without revealing the issue of investigation being initiated against KOTI on the very same issue that was raised before the ARA.

  The applicant-respondent has attempted to show the technical errors in filing of the appeal but when the facts of the case are seen it is very clear that there is a premeditated and a conscious action on the part of the applicant-respondent to undermine the process of the Advance Ruling and an attempt to use it to satisfy their own ends. We therefore hold that the order of the AAR is void ab-initio as it was vitiated by the process of suppression of material facts.

  The order passed by the ARA is declared void ab-initio as it was vitiated by the process of suppression of material facts - appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 396 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  

  Jurisdiction - Illegal import - powers of police officers - applicability of GST ACt or Customs Act - seizures - release of the seized goods - Power, scope and jurisdiction of the police in investigating offences which may be covered by more than one statute or by special statute - business of sale and supply of arecanuts (betel nuts)

  Whether the state police has power to investigate and effect seizure of goods for alleged forgery of documents in connection with certain transactions which can be relatable either to taxation statutes or Customs Act?

  HELD THAT:- Since the Police initially intercepted and seized the trucks suspecting evasion of tax under the GST regime, and as the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 and the corresponding State law i.e. the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are also comprehensive and self-contained Acts, these coercive actions could have been done by the authorities under the CGST Act or the AGST Act. The AGST Act empowers the proper officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner to authorise any officer of State Tax to inspect, search, seize, and arrest persons as provided under Chapter XIV of the State Act.

  This Court is of the view that though the Customs Act or the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 or the Assam Goods and Services Act, 2017 are self-contained Acts under which forgery or producing false documents are also offences, it cannot be said that the provisions of Indian Penal Code cannot be applicable as there is nothing under the Customs Act or the AGST Act that the provisions of the IPC cannot be invoked. There will be a bar only in respect of offences that are specifically mentioned in the special acts.

  Applicability of procedural law as contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT:- Section 4(2) CrPC provides that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the CrPC, but shall be subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Section 5 of the CrPC further provides that nothing contained in the Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force - What Sections 4 and 5 provide is that the Code shall continue to be applicable to special laws also, subject to the procedure prescribed under the special laws and if any special procedure is laid down under the special laws, such procedure would not be affected by the provisions of CrPC.

  Thus, the provisions of CrPC would continue to be applicable to proceedings under Customs Act or CGST Act/AGST Act, subject to the special procedure provided therein. However, this has no relation to the applicability of the provisions of IPC for offences committed under the said Code.

  This Court would hold that the Assam Police would have jurisdiction to investigate certain offences under the Indian Penal Code, if made out, even if these may be also offences under the CGST Act, 2017 or AGST Act or the Customs Act,1962 - However, as provided under Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, no one will be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.

  Whether the Police can conduct a roving enquiry? - HELD THAT:- The principal offence seems to be illegal activity of smuggling covered by the Customs Act, 1962 and the offence of forgery of documents as alleged is a part of the larger illegal activity of smuggling. It is, therefore, apparent that if the petitioners are accused of forging documents, these are ancillary acts to accomplish the main illegal activity of smuggling areca nuts. It can, therefore, be said that the principal criminal activity engaged by the petitioners is smuggling of areca nuts from a foreign country, to accomplish which they also committed certain other offences like forgery of documents. Forgery of documents is thus an ancillary act to the principal act of smuggling areca nuts. In such an event, the customs authorities would be primarily responsible for investigation and prosecution of the petitioners.

  It would be appropriate for the police to hand over the investigation to the customs authorities as they cannot continue the investigation as far as the allegation of smuggling against the petitioners is concerned. Similarly, for the same reasons, the police authorities would have no jurisdiction and power to investigate as regards violation of the provisions of the taxation laws as the same are governed by the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 or AGST Act, 2017 under which there are separate investigative agencies.

  In the present case, unless the investigation already undertaken throws up new leads to other offences under the Penal Code as mentioned above, the Police ought not conduct a roving enquiry, otherwise, it would be susceptible to the charge of misuse of the criminal investigating power. As provided under Sections 154 and 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, the criminal justice system can be set into motion by the police on getting information as to cognisable/non cognisable offence and proceed accordingly, and not otherwise.

  This Court is accordingly, of the view that even if the different statutes permit independent and separate investigations, if such investigations involve coercive actions similar to as contemplated under the CrPC, the investigations ought to be undertaken simultaneously, otherwise, there would be a distinct possibility of infraction of the precious rights of an accused as guaranteed under Article 14, 21 and 22.

  This Court would hold that the initial seizure of areca nuts and the trucks by the Assam Police cannot be said to be without authority. But in view of the subsequent disclosures that these areca nuts were smuggled and transported by the trucks, the Customs authorities under the Customs Act, 1962 would now be the proper authorities to investigate the alleged offences and accordingly the police should hand over the seized areca nuts and the trucks to the Customs authorities for further investigation. If the Customs authorities need the help and assistance of the police, nothing prevents them from doing so.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 344 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Contempt application - power of levy advertisement tax post GST - bye-laws were notified in the Official Gazette and were enforced w.e.f. 6.1.2018 - vires of the Mathura Vrindavan Nagar Nigam (Vigyapan Kar Ka Nirdharan and Wasuli Viniyaman) Upvidhi, 2017 - submission is that the aforesaid bye-laws were notified in the Official Gazette and were enforced w.e.f. 6.1.2018 but on the said date the Municipal Corporation had no authority in law to impose any advertisement tax - HELD THAT:- The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and from perusal of record it is apparent that now fresh cause of action has arises in the present matter and in case the order dated 1.11.2019 is being flouted by the opposite party, the applicants would be at liberty to invoke the remedy as is available to them in law.

  Contempt application disposed off.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 343 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Detention Order - invalid E-way bill - vehicle was plying in the wrong direction - demand of tax and penalty without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard - principles of Natural Justice - CGST and SGST Acts - HELD THAT:- At the time of detention the driver of the vehicle did not produce any e-Way Bill, either manual or electronic, corresponding to the goods that were carried on in the vehicle. It is further pointed out that a statement was given by the driver before the authorities wherein he had stated that there was no e-Way Bill with him. Under the said circumstances, prima facie there appears to be a justification for the detention of the vehicle.

  Further, there was no opportunity granted to the petitioner to rebut the inferences drawn by the authorities while detaining the goods, through a hearing afforded to the petitioner before passing Ext.P11 order confirming the demand of tax and penalty on the petitioner.

  The 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh orders in lieu of Ext.P11 within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 283 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KERALA
  

  Rate of GST - execution of the civil works of Pazhassi Sagar Small Hydro Electric project awarded by Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd - Sl.No.3 (iii) (b) or 3(vi) of Notification No.11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - GST taxable at the rate of 12%? - Government Entity - HELD THAT:- The concessional rate of GST of 12% under Sl No. 3 (vi) (a) of Notification No. 11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 is applicable only for composite supply of works contracts as defined in clause (119) of Section 2 of the CGST Act, 2017 supplied by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of,- (a) a civil structure or any other original works meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry, or any other business or profession.

  Whether Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd will fall under any of the categories namely; Central Government, State Government, Union territory, a local authority, a Governmental Authority or a Government Entity? - HELD THAT:- Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd; is a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with 90 per cent or more participation by way of equity or control of the Government of Kerala to carry out the business of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity in the State of Kerala and is a "State Transmission Utility" within the meaning of Section 2 (67) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

  Hence, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd could not be considered as constituted/established by the Government of Kerala to carry out any function entrusted to a municipality under article 243W or a panchayat under article 243G of the Constitution. Therefore, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd will not come under the definition of "Governmental Authority" under Para 2(zf) of Notification No. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. However, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd squarely falls under the definition of "Government Entity" under Para 2 (zfa) of Notification No. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 282 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Permission to carry forward of unutilized CENVAT credit of duty paid - transitional credit - carry forward denied on account of nonfiling or incorrect filing of prescribed statutory Form i.e. TRAN-1 by the stipulated last date i.e. 27.12.2017 - HELD THAT:- The Petitioners who were registered under Central Excise Act or VAT Act must be filing their returns and it is one of the requirements of Section 140 of CGST Act, 2017 to carry forward unutilized credit. The Respondent authorities were having complete record of already registered persons and at present they are free to verify fact and figures of any Petitioner thus inspite of being aware of complete facts and figures, the Respondent cannot deprive Petitioners from their valuable right of credit.

  The Respondents are directed to permit the Petitioners to file or revise where already filed incorrect TRAN-1 either electronically or manually statutory Form(s) TRAN-1 on or before 30th November 2019. The Respondents are at liberty to verify genuineness of claim of Petitioners but nobody shall be denied to carry forward legitimate claim of CENVAT / ITC on the ground of non-filing of TRAN-I by 27.12.2017.

  Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 281 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Holding the meetings between the representatives of the trade and the concerned Senior officers - HELD THAT:- The whole purpose of directing the holding the meetings between the representatives of the trade and the concerned Senior officers, who are involved in the process of implementation of the GST system, was to enable the representatives of trade to put across the day-to-day practical difficulties being faced by them, face to face to the policy makers, so that they are able to address all such issues with the ultimate objective of achieving smooth operation of the GST system.

  The Respondents to take steps to implement all the decisions which have been taken in the aforesaid two meetings by issuing necessary circulars and notifications, or carrying out appropriate changes in the portal without any further delay.

  List on 20.11.2019.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 280 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Grant of Bail - offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(d) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Sections 471 and 120-B of the IPC - short payment of service tax with interest - tax evasion - HELD THAT:- Looking to the alleged huge tax evasion by the applicant and the contention of the learned counsel of the respondent and keeping in view that the investigation is going on and apprehensions of applicant tampering with the evidence can not be ruled out. So, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage.

  The bail application of the applicant is rejected.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 279 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Provisional attachment of Bank Accounts - time limitation for such attachment to be in effect - Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Perusal of Annexures-D and E, it is not relevant to Section 74 of the Act. Under Section 74 of the Act, petitioner has not been issued notice. The pendency of proceedings under Section 83 of the Act would be only after issuance of notice. In the absence of issuance of notice under Section 74 of the Act or any other Sections quoted in Section 83 of the Act, one cannot draw inference that there is pendency of any proceedings under Section 74 of the Act in the present case.

  Respondents have not apprised by producing any documentary evidence to show that one of the ingredients under Section 74 of the Act has been invoked so as to pass the impugned order under Section 83 of the Act. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed. Annexures-D and E are set aside.

  Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 278 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Availment and utilisation of accumulated credit pertaining to Education Cess (EC), Secondary and Higher Education Cess (SHEC) and Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) - Carry forward of credit - Rule 117 of CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Firstly, the Instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 07.12.2015, reveal a policy decision, not to allow utilisation of accumulated credit of EC and SHEC, but nowhere states that the credit has lapsed - The Board only says that the cesses have been phased out and since there is no new liability to pay these cesses, no vested right can be said to exist in relation to the past accumulated credit in the light of Rule 3(7)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which stipulates that Cenvat Credit shall be utilised only as against payment of specified duties. The request of the petitioner in that case has to be seen in this perspective and specifically in the light of the embargo placed by Rule 3(7)(b) as aforesaid. The Board could well have stated even at that juncture that the credit lapsed, but did not choose to do so.

  A certain amount of planning and strategizing is undertaken by an assessee bearing in mind the credits and concessions available as well as liabilities imposed by a taxing Statute at any given point in time. The credit available in regard to EC, SHEC and KKC are no different. In strategising and conducting its business, the assessee would certainly have taken into account that credit was available for set-off against output tax liability. Such credit accumulated has not been stated to have lapsed. The impugned action of the assessing authority in rejecting the claim has however the consequence of insertion of a Rule/Regulation to this effect, is impermissible.

  The revenue has not made out any bar for the transitioning of EC, SHEC and KKC into the GST regime and the petitioner satisfies all conditions both under sub-section (1) and (8) of section 140. The embargo placed by Rule 3(7)(b) is long gone with the introduction of GST. Certainly the powers-that-be are conscious of these factors in drafting the new legislation and the specific provision in question i.e., Section 140.

  Admittedly, the claims were filed beyond the period of six months. Thereafter, Section 11B was amended on 12.05.2000, extending the period of limitation from six months to one year. The benefit of extension of time as sought by the assessee was granted and the assessee’s appeal allowed. In appeal before the Supreme Court, the Bench held that the timeline of six months had expired on 20.11.1999 and 10.12.1999 respectively, whereas, the claims had been filed only on 28.12.1999. The provisions of amended 11B were held not to be applicable to revive a claim that was already beyond time - the benefit of one year for filing claim for rebate would be available from 12.05.2000 when the limitation was extended from six months to 12 months. Moreover, the proviso had been added in the section itself to the effect that the amended provision would not have the effect of bringing to life a dead claim.

  Significantly, Explanation (3) which clarifies that the expression ‘eligible duties and taxes’ excludes any cess not specified in Explanation (1) or (2), has not been notified.

  Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 225 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KARNATAKA
  

  Classification of goods/services - printed text books for PUC Board classifiable under HSN Code 4901 1010 - whether exempt from the payment of CGST and SGST? - HELD THAT:- The applicant printed the PUC text books and supplied to the various resellers in the state. This activity of printing and supply of the text books to the resellers by the applicant is covered under Notification 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28/06/2017 under entry No. 119 reads as “Printed Books, including Braille Books.” This is exempt from the payment of CGST and SGST.

  Applicable rate of CGST and SGST - printing and binding of brochures, books, calendars, pamphlets on job work basis to the Government authority and other printers - CBEC Circular no. 11/11/2017- GST dated 20.10.2017 - HELD THAT:- The Applicant undertakes printing and binding of brochures, books, calendars, pamphlets, on a job work basis where content and paper belongs to the customer and only ink and machines belongs to the printer. The nature of supply is supply of services as supply of service is the main supply. Printed books, brochures, leaflets and similar printed matter, whether or not in single sheets are classifiable under HSN 4901 - The aforesaid activities of the applicant are, therefore, covered under the entry No. 26 and 27 of Notification 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) date 28.06.2017 under the clause (i) of sub clause (da) which attracts 2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST in respect of job work of printing and binding of books, brochures and leaflets and 6%CGST +6% SGST in respect of calendars.

  Applicable rate of CGST and SGST - binding of diary, catalogues and books on job work basis - HELD THAT:- Applicant done the job work of binding of Diary, Catalogues and Books, not in relation to printing activity. The activity amounts to supply of service and printing or any work in relation to printing is not involved. Hence this job work is covered under clause (iv) of entry no. 26 of Notification 11 /2017-Central Tax(Rate) inserted vide notification no. 1/2018 Central Tax (rate) Dated 25/01/2018 - the activity of binding of diary, catalogues and books carried out by the applicant on job work basis attracts CGST @9% and SGST @9%.

  Applicable rate of CGST and SGST - printing and supply of text books and work books to the State Government for onward supply to schools - HELD THAT:- Once the Text books and Work books are printed by the Applicant, the books are thereafter supplied/ delivered to Taluk offices of the State Government across the state for onward supply to schools. As the content is supplied by the recipient of supply the activity carried out by the applicant amounts to supply of service - This activity of the applicant, is therefore, covered under the clause (i) of the entry no. 27 of the Notification 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated. 28.06.2017 inserted vide notification No. 31/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated. 31/10/2017 and vide notification No. 20/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated. 22/08/2017 which attracts CGST@ 6% and SGST @ 6%.

  Exemption form GST or not - printing and supply of periodicals and magazines referred in HSN code 4901 - HELD THAT:- The Applicant prints the magazines on the basis of the design template stipulated by the respective department(s) and supplied to the Government Departments. The materials used for designing is provided by the Applicant. This activity of the applicant covered under the clause (i) of the entry no 27 of the Notification 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated. 28.06.2017 inserted vide notification No. 31/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated. 31/10/2017 and vide notification No. 20/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated. 22/08/2017 which attracts CGST @ 6% and SGST @ 6%.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 224 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KARNATAKA
  

  Levy of GST - maintenance charges collected by the applicant from its members - Residential Welfare Association (RWA) - activity of procuring Goods and Services from third parties for upkeep and maintenance of Apartments and collecting the monies from its members to pay third party vendors - HELD THAT:- The applicant association is supplying the services of maintenance of the common areas including repairs and upkeep and since the common areas belongs all apartment owners, the maintenance charges are charged on the basis of the ratio of area of each apartment to the total area of all apartments and hence the applicant is providing a service of maintenance of apartments, buildings and property to all members and this is in the course of business. Hence this would amount to a taxable supply of services.

  Applicability of exemption entry no 77 of notification 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - maintenance charges collected from members - HELD THAT:- The exemption under entry number 77 of Notification No. 12/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by Notification No. 2/2018 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018 is available for an amount, up to ₹ 7,500/- per month per member, collected for sourcing of goods or services from a third person for common use of the members.

  If exemption is available, whether it is available on per member basis or per flat basis, as some members could have more than one flat? - Circular No. 109/28/2019-GST dated 22.07.2019 - HELD THAT:- The Circular clarifies that As per general business sense, a person who owns two or more residential apartments in a housing society or a residential complex shall normally be a member of the Residential Welfare Association (RWA) for each residential apartment owned by him separately. The ceiling of ₹ 7,500/- per month per member shall be applied separately for each residential apartment owned by him - in the applicant's terms, the exemption is applicable to eligible members on per flat basis.

  Whether the exemption as per entry no 77 of Notification 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) is a standard exemption that can be claimed irrespective of amount collected towards maintenance? - Circular No. 109/28/2019-GST dated 22.07.2019 - HELD THAT:- The Circular clarifies that The exemption from GST on maintenance charges charged by a Resident Welfare Association (RWA) from resident is available only if such charges do not exceed ₹ 7,500/- per month per member. In case the charges exceed ₹ 7,500/- per month per member, the entire amount is taxable - thus, the exemption of ₹ 7,500/- is not available when the maintenance charges exceed ₹ 7,500/- per month per member. Therefore the members are required to discharge GST on the entire maintenance charges and not on just the amount in excess of ₹ 7500/-. The same ratio applies to the earlier period when the exemption was available on maintenance charges upto ₹ 5000/-.

  Whether the electricity charges paid to BESCOM (Electricity supply authority) for the power consumed towards common facilities and separately recovered from members, liable to GST? - HELD THAT:- The electricity bill received in relation to the consumption of electricity for the common utilities is in the name of the applicant. The applicant is not involved in the supply of electrical energy to the members but is involved in providing the service of upkeep and maintenance of the common utilities of the apartments and for this the electricity consumed by them becomes an input. Though the electricity bill is distributed to all its members, it is not the consideration for the supply of electrical energy to the members but the value is a part of the consideration for the supply of services to its members and hence is liable to tax at appropriate rates - this value of electricity charges separately shown in the invoices is to be added to the considerations shown towards the same service of upkeep and maintenance charged to individual members and then the consideration for the supply of such service is to be arrived and the taxable value shall be determined.

  Levy of GST - Corpus/Sinking Fund collected from members - HELD THAT:- The applicant collecting the amounts towards corpus / sinking fund for future supply of services meant for its members. It is a fact that the corpus fund or sinking fund is mandatory under the Bye-laws of the Co-operative Societies/ Resident Welfare Associations and is in the nature of a deposit towards unforeseen events or planned events - In the instant case the corpus / sinking fund so collected is the amount collected towards the future supply of service and accordingly gets applied as consideration towards supply of services only at the time of actual supply of services. Therefore the amounts collected towards corpus/ Sinking fund do not form part of consideration towards supply of services at the time of collection and hence is are not liable to GST, at the time of collection. However the amounts so utilized for provision of service are liable to tax at the time of actual supply of service.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 223 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KERALA
  

  Valuation - treatment of discount/rebate allowed - impact on Input Tax Credit (ITC) - the invoice value of the products is displayed only with the value after deducting discount as per the pre-fixed rate scheme - the discount / rebate is subsequently reimbursed by the Principal Company as Commercial Credit Notes - petitioner is paying the tax due as per the invoice value issued by the applicant and availing the input credit of GST shown in the inward invoice received by the applicant from the Principal Company or their stockist - whether the availment of credit is correct or not? - HELD THAT:- The applicant/distributor is eligible to avail ITC shown in the inward invoice received by him from the supplier of goods / principal company.

  Whether the discount provided by the Principal Company to their dealers through the applicant as shown in Annexure D attracts any tax under the GST laws? - HELD THAT:- The additional discount given by the supplier through the applicant; which is reimbursed to the applicant is to offer a special reduced price by the distributor / applicant to the customers and hence the amount represent consideration paid by the supplier of goods / principal company to the distributor / applicant for supply of goods by the distributor / applicant to the customer - Therefore, this additional discount reimbursed by the supplier of goods / principal company to the distributor / applicant is liable to be added to the consideration payable by the customer to the distributor / applicant to arrive at the value of supply under Section 15 of the CGST / SGST Act at the hands of the distributor / applicant.

  Whether the amount shown in the Commercial Credit note issued to the applicant by the Principal Company attracts proportionate reversal of input tax credit? - HELD THAT:- The supplier of goods / principal company issuing the commercial credit note is not eligible to reduce his original tax liability and hence the recipient / applicant will not be liable to reverse the ITC attributable to the commercial credit notes received by him from the supplier.

  Is there any tax liability under GST laws on the applicant for the amount received as reimbursement of discount or rebate provided by the Principal Company as per written agreement between the Principal Company and their dealers and also an agreement between the principal and distributors? - HELD THAT:- The applicant is liable to pay GST at the applicable rate on the amount received as reimbursement of discount / rebate from the principal company.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 222 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Attachment of Bank Accounts of petitioner - HELD THAT:- Issue Rule, returnable on 28th November 2019.

  By way of interim relief, the third respondent is directed to forthwith release the attachment over the bank account of the petitioner bearing number 24800210716021.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 221 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Direction to credit the ITC amount to the Electronic Credit Ledger - Transition from VAT to GST - failure to file Tran-2 within the due date - HELD THAT:- This Court at this stage is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by both parties, as it is inclined only to direct the third respondent to consider the representations filed by the petitioners on 13.11.2018 and to pass necessary orders on merits and in accordance with law by following due procedure as indicated.

  The Writ Petitions are disposed of only by directing the third respondent to pass appropriate orders, after following the procedures as indicated.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 220 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Refund claims - time limitation - dealing of refund claims on priority basis since delay in refund of tax beyond the period prescribed in law very severely impedes the generation of business and pace of trade - Rule 91 (2) of the CGST and DGST Rules - HELD THAT:- Though the Petitioner has been granted refund by the Respondent, the claim for interest has been rejected and in this respect, the Respondent have issued a communication dated 14.10.2019. We permit the Petitioner to place on record the said communication along with such other documents that the Petitioner wishes to place on record in relation thereto within two weeks. Reply to the additional affidavit be filed by the Respondents within two weeks thereafter.

  List on 20.11.2019.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 164 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KERALA
  

  Classification of goods - Coir mats, mattings and floor coverings - whether covered under HSN 5702, 5703 and 5705? - whether taxable @ 5% GST vide Notification No.01/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28-06-2017 - HELD THAT:- Coir mats, mattings and floor coverings covered under HSN 5702, 5703 and 5705 are taxable @ 5% GST vide Notification No.01/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28-06-2017 as amended by Notification No.34/2017- CT (Rate) dated 13-10-2017. This classification covers only the commodities which are manufactured exclusively using coir fiber. If any, PVC or rubber or any other materials are stuffed on the textile of coir, which is used as floor mats or mattings, it will come under Customs Tariff Head 5703 90 90 and it will be taxed @ 12% GST.

  Whether or not item number (A)(xiii) in Schedule I - 2.5% (which reads as in Sl.N0.219, in column (2), for the figure, “5702, 5703, 5705”, shall be substituted), referred to in Notification No.34/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dtd.13-10-2017 is meant to cover PVC Tufted Coir Mats and Matting? - HELD THAT:- PVC Tufted Coir Mats and Matting cannot be considered as textile of coir and floor coverings covered under HSN 5702, 5703 and 5705. If any, PVC or rubber or any other materials are stuffed on the textile of coir, which is used as floor mats or mattings, it will come under the Customs Tariff Head 5703 90 90 and it will be taxed @ 12% GST as per Entry at SI No. 144 of Schedule II of Notification No. 01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

  Whether or not PVC Tufted Coir Mats and Matting attracts low band tax rate of 5% as per the recommendations of the Fitment Committee and approval of the GST Council? - HELD THAT:- PVC Tufted Coir Mats and Matting cannot be considered as textile of coir and floor coverings covered under HSN 5702, 5703 and 5705 and hence taxable @12% under Customs Tariff Head 5703 90 90.

  Whether or not PVC Tufted Coir Mats and Matting can be classified under tariff item 5703 90 20-carpets and floor coverings of coir (inserted vide Sl.No.9 (iii) of Notification No.109/2008-Customs (N.T) dtd. 24-09-2008) corresponding to Entry Sl.No.219, of Schedule I attracting 5% GST? - HELD THAT:- No, PVC Tufted Coir Mats and Matting cannot be classified under tariff item 5703 90 20-carpets and floor coverings of coir (inserted vide Sl.No.9 (iii) of Notification No.109/2008-Customs (N.T) dtd. 24-09-2008) corresponding to Entry Sl.No.219, of Schedule I attracting 5% GST.

  Whether or not PVC Tufted Coir Mats and Matting can be classified under tariff item 5703 90 90-of other textile material - other corresponding to entry in Sl.No.144 of Schedule II attracting 12% GST? - HELD THAT:- Yes, PVC Tufted Coir Mats and Matting can be classified under tariff item 5703 90 90-of other textile material - other corresponding to entry in Sl.No.144 of Schedule II attracting 12% GST.

  PVC Coir Mats & Matting can be classified under tariff item 57050049/57050090-Carpets, carpeting, rugs, mats and matting-Other corresponding to Entry in SL.No.219 of Schedule I attracting 5% GST? - HELD THAT:- The PVC Tufted Coir Mats and Matting are classifiable under Customs Tariff Head 5703 90 90 and attracts GST at the rate of 12% as per SI No. 144 of Schedule II of Notification No. 01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

  ---

• 2019 (11) TMI 163 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KERALA
  

  Classification of goods - PVC Tufted Coir Mats and Matting - HELD THAT:- Coir mats, mattings and floor coverings covered under HSN 5702, 5703 and 5705 are taxable @ 5% GST vide Notification No.01/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28-06-2017 as amended by Notification No.34/2017- CT (Rate) dated 13-10-2017. This classification covers only the commodities which are manufactured exclusively using coir fiber. If any, PVC or rubber or any other materials are stuffed on the textile of coir, which is used as floor mats or mattings, it will come under Customs Tariff Head 5703 90 90 and it will be taxed @ 12% GST.

  Whether or not item number (A)(xiii) in Schedule I - 2.5% (which reads as in Sl.No.219, in column (2), for the figure, “5702, 5703, 5705”, shall be substituted), referred to in Notification No.34/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dtd. 13-10-2017 is meant to cover PVC Tufted Coir Mats and Matting? - HELD THAT:- PVC Tufted Coir Mats and Matting cannot be considered as textile of coir and floor coverings covered under HSN 5702, 5703 and 5705. If any, PVC or rubber or any other materials are stuffed on the textile of coir, which is used as floor mats or mattings, it will come under the Customs Tariff Head 5703 90 90 and it will be taxed @ 12% GST as per Entry at Sl No. 144 of Schedule II of Notification No. 01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

  Whether or not PVC Tufted Coir Mats and Matting attracts low band tax rate of 5% as per the recommendations of the Fitment Committee and approval of the GST Council? - HELD THAT:- PVC Tufted Coir Mats and Matting cannot be considered as textile of coir and floor coverings covered under HSN 5702, 5703 and 5705 and hence taxable @12% vide Customs Tariff Head 5703 90 90.

  Whether or not PVC Tufted Coir Mats and Matting can be classified under tariff item 5703 90 20-carpets and floor coverings of coir (inserted vide Sl.No.9 (iii) of Notification No.109/2008-Customs (N.T) dtd.24-09-2008) corresponding to Entry Sl.No.219 of Schedule I attracting 5% GST? - HELD THAT:- No, PVC Tufted Coir Mats and Matting cannot be classified under tariff item 5703 90 20-carpets and floor coverings of coir (inserted vide Sl.No.9 (iii) of Notification No.109/2008-Customs (N.T) dtd.24-09-2008) corresponding to Entry Sl.No.219 of Schedule I attracting 5% GST.

  Whether or not PVC Tufted Coir Mats and Matting can be classified under tariff item 5703 90 90-of other textile material - other corresponding to entry in Sl.No.144 of Schedule II attracting 12% GST? - HELD THAT:- Yes, PVC Tufted Coir Mats and Matting can be classified under tariff item 5703 90 90-of other textile material - other corresponding to entry in Sl.No.144 of Schedule II attracting 12% GST.

  PVC Coir Mats & Matting can be classified under tariff item 57050049/57050090-Carpets, carpeting, rugs, mats and matting-Other corresponding to Entry in Sl.No.219 of Schedule I attracting 5% GST? - HELD THAT:- The PVC Tufted Coir Mats and Matting are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 5703 90 90 and attracts GST at the rate of 12% as per SI No. 144 of Schedule II of Notification No. 01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

  ---

1 ....45678910