|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 128 Records
-
2019 (2) TMI 299 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Unable to upload FORM GST TRAN-1 - Transition to GST Regime - input tax credit - Held that:- There is a circular issued by the Government of India for “setting up an IT Grievance Redressal Mechanism to address the grievances of taxpayers due to technical glitches on GST Portal - the petitioner may apply to the Nodal Officer. The petitioner applying, the Nodal Officer will look into the issue and facilitate the petitioner’s uploading FORM GST TRAN-1, without reference to the time-frame - petition disposed off.
-
2019 (2) TMI 298 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Permission to withdraw the petition - Held that:- Petition withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondent- authority by filing a detailed and comprehensive representation at the first instance bringing the facts as stated in the writ petition to his notice - petition dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2019 (2) TMI 297 - THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Profiteering - Shorts - benefit of reduction in the rate of tax at the time of implementation of the GST not passed on - contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Held that:- It is clear from the perusal of the facts of the case that there was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01.07.2017, hence the anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted - there is no merit in the application filed by the Applicants - application dismissed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 296 - THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Profiteering - Little Star Dhoti 406 - benefit of reduction in the rate of ta not passed on - contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Held that:- It is clear from the perusal of the facts of the case that there was no-reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01.07.2017, hence the anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted - there are no merit in the application filed by the Applicants - application dismissed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 295 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Profiteering - restaurant services - SGB Stuffed GB (Garlic Bread) - 1 Med NHT Veg Extrava (Medium Veg Pizza) - benefit of reduction in rate of tax not passed - increase in base price of the products - denial of ITC - period between 15.11.2017 to 31.05.2018 - Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Held that:- The Respondent is engaged in the business of operating quick service restaurants under the name and style of Domino’s Pizza’ and has a pan India presence with 1,128 outlets across 31 States and Union Territories in which the Respondent is duly registered under the GST and all his outlets were maintaining consistency from taste to overall experience and the prices of all his products as shown in the menu were similar throughout his restaurants exclusive of the GST. It has also been admitted by the Respondent that the Central Govt. vide its Notification No. 46/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 had reduced the rate of GST from 18% to 5% on restaurant services with the stipulation that no ITC would be available on the goods and service supplied under the above services, accordingly, 398 items which were being supplied by the Respondent were impacted with the reduction in the rate of tax, the benefit of which was required to be passed on by the Respondent to his customers by commensurate reduction in his prices as per the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
It is revealed from the record that the Respondent had himself admitted before the DGAP, as has been mentioned in Para 4 (e) supra that the price of Type A Pizza was ₹ 440/- per unit and that of Type B was ₹ 470/- per unit respectively up to 14.11.2017, before the rate of tax was reduced and was ₹ 450/- and ₹ 485/- per unit respectively post 14.11.2017 after the rate of tax was reduced. Hence there was increase in the base price by ₹ 10/- in respect of Type A Pizza and ₹ 15/- in respect of the Type B Pizza. Perusal of Annexure23 attached by the DGAP with his Report also shows that the base prices of both these products were in fact increased by the amount shown above by the Respondent. Therefore, even if it is admitted that both the items of Pizza ordered by the above Applicant were distinct there is hardly any doubt that the Respondent had increased the base prices of both of them as per his own admission which he should not have done arbitrarily - However, the Respondent has duly admitted that he had increased the base prices in respect of the second item viz. Garlic Bread purchased by the above Applicant from him after the tax reduction. Therefore, there was sufficient ground for the Screening Committee as well as the DGAP to investigate the allegation of profiteering made against the Respondent and the objection raised by the Respondent on this ground is completely wrong and frivolous and hence the same cannot be accepted.
The provisions of Section 171 are further very explicit which state that the recipient has to be given the benefits of tax reduction and the ITC on every supply commensurate with such reduction or the ITC. Hence, it was duty of the Respondent to ascertain on which of his products the rate of tax had been reduced and after taking in to account the impact of denial of ITC to what extent the prices should have been increased. The whole exercise needed no directions from this Authority as it involves simple mathematical calculation which the Respondent has been carrying on repeatedly at the time of fixing his prices. Hence, the contention of the Respondent made on this ground is unreasonable and hence it cannot be considered.
The Respondent has not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax to his recipients, commensurate to the denial of ITC, during the period between 15.11.2017 to 31.05.2018 and accordingly, the quantum of denial of such benefit or the profiteered amount illegally earned by the Respondent is determined as ₹ 41,42,97,635/- as per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to reduce his prices by way of commensurate reduction keeping in view the reduced rate of tax and the benefit of ITC denied - Respondent is also directed to refund to the Applicant No. 1 an amount of ₹ 5.65 along with interest @18% from the date of charging of the above amount from him till its refund.
Penalty - Held that:- The Respondent has resorted to profiteering by charging more price than what he could have charged by issuing wrong tax invoices. He has further acted in conscious disregard of the obligation which was cast upon him by the law, by issuing incorrect invoices in which the base prices were deliberately enhanced more than what he was entitled to increase due to denial of ITC and thus he had denied the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax granted vide Notification dated 14.11.2017 to his customers. Accordingly he has committed an offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, a show cause notice be issued to the Respondent to explain why penalty under the provisions of the above Section should not be imposed on him.
Application disposed off.
-
2019 (2) TMI 294 - THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Profiteering - Brief (Jockey Brief IC125 M Black) - benefit of reduction in the rate of tax not passed on - contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Held that:- There was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01.07.2017, and hence the anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted - there is no merit in the application filed by the above Applicants - application dismissed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 293 - THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Profiteering - Black Pepper - benefit of reduction in the rate of tax not passed - Section 171 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Held that:- It is clear from the perusal of the facts of the case that there was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and hence there is no contravention of the anti- profiteering provisions contained in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - application filed by the Applicants is not sustainable in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - application dismissed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 247 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Provisional release of goods - job-work - excess stock of finished goods found during search operations in the premises of job-worker - petitioner requested to provisionally release the finished goods which belonged to the principal suppliers and had to be returned at the earliest - subsection (6) of section 67 of the CGST Act - Held that:- The manner has been prescribed under rule 140 of the CGST Rules, 2017 which provides that the seized goods may be released on a provisional basis upon execution of a bond for the value of the goods in FORM GST INS-04 and furnishing of a security in the form of a bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of applicable tax, interest and penalty payable - Thus the respondents are duly empowered to provisionally release the seized goods, if the requirements of section 67 (6) of the CGST Act read with rule 140 of the CGST Rules are satisfied.
The petitioner has already deposited ₹ 14,16,868/- by way of challan and has reversed credit of SGST to the tune of ₹ 7,90,793/-, which comes to approximately ₹ 22 lakhs. Under the circumstances, if the petitioner furnishes bank guarantee of ₹ 50 lakhs and a bond for the value of the goods in FORM GST INS-04, the interest of justice would be served - petition allowed in part.
-
2019 (2) TMI 195 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
Levy of IGST - removal of goods from the FTWZ unit - Goods warehoused in FTWZ and supplied to a DTA unit - applicability of Circular No. 46/2017 - Held that:- In the case at hand, the applicant imports the goods from BNSL, files ‘into bond Bill of Entry’ and stores the goods in the FTWZ run by an independent third party but the legal possession of the goods are with BSNL. When the Applicant receives orders from their customers in India, BNSI clears the goods on filing the ‘BOE for Home Consumption’ and pays the appropriate customs duty - the Applicant is storing the imported goods in FTWZ which is a Customs bonded warehouse.
It is evident that removal from the FTWZ to DTA is the point of deferred levy/payment of Customs Duty, i.e., at the time of clearance for home consumption from FTWZ. Further, as explained in the Circular 3/ 1/2018-IGST dated 25th May 2018, the goods are not to be subjected to IGST when bonded and the payment of integrated tax is to be effected when the goods are removed for home consumption from the bonded warehouse, under the Provisions of Customs Tariff Act. Therefore, there is no requirement to pay IGST under the provisions of GST law at the time of clearance from the FTWZ.
In the case at hand, the Applicant proposes to effect sale when the goods are bonded and then files Bill of Entry for Home Consumption and clears the goods from the FTWZ on payment of appropriate Custom duties (BCD & IGST). Therefore, as clarified in the Circular No.3/1/2018-IGST dated 25th May 2018, the payment of IGST again at the point of clearance from the FTWZ to DTA do not arise for supply of warehoused goods, while being deposited in a customs bonded warehouse/FTWZ on or after 01.04.2018 - Circular No. 46/2017 Customs dated 24.11.2017 is not applicable for supply of warehoused goods, while being deposited in a customs bonded warehouse/FTWZ on or after 01.04.2018.
-
2019 (2) TMI 194 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
Levy of IGST - removal of goods from the FTWZ unit i.e. the customs bonded warehouse - requirement of registration under IGST - applicability of Circular No.3/1/2018-IGST dated 25th May 2018 - Held that:- In the case at hand, the Applicant stores the goods in the FTWZ for which the LSP in the FTWZ, file 'into bond Bill of Entry' with a nominal value. The Applicant on identifying the purchaser, raise commercial invoice and thereafter the DTA purchaser files the 'ex-bond BOE' for the Commercial Invoice value and pays the appropriate BCD and IGST. The invoice price is paid to the applicant by the DTA purchaser - the supply of goods before their clearance from the warehouse would not be subject to the levy of integrated tax and the same would be levied and collected only when the warehoused goods are cleared for home consumption from the customs bonded warehouse, under the provisions of Customs Act. Circular No.3/1/2018-IGST dated 25th May 2018 was made applicable for supply of warehoused goods, while being deposited in a customs bonded warehouse on or after 01.04.2018.
Removal from the FTWZ to DTA is the point of deferred levy/payment of Customs Duty, i.e., at the time of clearance for home consumption from FTWZ. Further, as explained in the Circular, the goods are not to be subjected to IGST when bonded and the payment of integrated tax is to be effected when the goods are removed for home consumption from the bonded warehouse, under the Provisions of Customs Tariff Act. Therefore, there is no requirement to pay IGST under the provisions of GST law at the time of clearance from the FTWZ.
Registration - Held that:- In the case at hand, the Applicant proposes to effect sale when the goods are bonded and then DTA customer files Bill of Entry for Home Consumption and clears the goods from the FTWZ on payment of appropriate Custom duties (BCD & IGST). Therefore, as clarified in the Circular No.3/ 1/2018-IGST dated 25th May 2018, the payment of IGST again at the point of clearance from the FTWZ to DTA do not arise for supply of warehoused goods, while being deposited in a customs bonded warehouse/FTWZ on or after 01.04.2018. In the event the Applicant is exclusively conducting the activity described in their Application of exporting goods to FTWZ and which are subsequently sold to Indian customers who clear the same on payment of appropriate customs duties, they are not liable to registration under Section 23(1) of CGST Act and TNGST Act.
-
2019 (2) TMI 193 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
Classification of goods - rate of GST - Quicklime having 86% Calcium oxide content - Slaked lime having 86% Calcium hydroxide content - Held that:- Chapter 2522 of Customs Tariff covers Quicklime, Slaked Lime and Hydraulic Lime, Other Than Calcium Oxide and Hydroxide of Heading 2825 and CTH 2522 1000 covers Quick lime and CTH 25222000 covers slaked lime - According to Wikipedia, Calcium Oxide is in manufacturing of cement, paper, and high-grade steel, for medicinal purpose and insecticides. Calcium Hydroxide is used in food, paper industry and in water and sewage treatment plant. It is seen that purified forms of calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide having industrial applications with high purity, which is the case in hand here, are covered under CTH 28259090 for calcium oxide and CTH 28259040 for calcium hydroxide.
It is found from the manufacturing process and the requirement of the intended buyers, that the goods to be supplied is industrial grade Calcium Hydroxide of high purity of 86% and industrial grade Calcium oxide of high purity of 86% are rightly classifiable under CTH 28259040 and CTH 28259090 respectively taxable at 9% CGST and 9% SGST as per entry sl.No.38 of Schedule III of Notification no. 01/2017-C.T.(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended and G.O. (Ms) No. 62 dated 29.06.2017 No. II (2)/CTR/532(d-4)/2017 as amended respectively.
-
2019 (2) TMI 192 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN
Classification of goods/services - rate of tax - Air dryer complete with final filter for used in breaking system of locomotive supplied to Railway - Held that:- On going through HSN code 8421, it is observed that the Air dryers, which is used for removing water vapour from compressed air or to remove the moisture from wet substances has been classified under 8421 ibid. - Further, M/S Trident Pneumatics Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore is a manufacturer and supplier of “Air Dryer (LD2000132) Locomotive Dryer-Il” as per the Invoice No. TPPL/3187/1718 dated 27.03.2018 invoiced to the applicant by classifying the said good under Chapter 8421 of the GST Tariff Act 2017 which attracts GST@18% (9% CGST + 9% SGST).
In the light of the fact, classification of ‘Air Dryer’ (HSN 8421) has already been finalised at the supplier’s end who also happens to be manufacturer of the goods in question i.e. M/s. Trident Pneumatics Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore, which is evident from the tax invoice, dated 27.03.2018. The same goods without any modification/ processing are being further supplied to the Western Railways by the applicant. Hence it is clear that HSN of goods do not merits any change in classification merely due to the fact that the goods in question are being supplied to the Indian railways.
-
2019 (2) TMI 191 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, UTTARAKHAND
Levy of GST - supply of ‘Rejected Wheat Seed’ and ‘Rejected Paddy Seed’ - Difference of opinion - Held that:- As there is difference of opinion, a reference made to the Appellate Authority for hearing and decision on said issue in terms of Section 98(5) of the Act ibid which provide that where the members of the Authority differ on any question on which the advance ruling is sought, they shall state the point or points on which they differ and make a reference to the Appellate Authority for hearing and decision on such question.
Matter referred to Appellate Authority.
-
2019 (2) TMI 190 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, UTTARAKHAND
Classification of goods - Eucalyptus/ Polar Wood Waste in Logs having length of 30 cm to 200 cm and Girth of approx. 10 cm to 60 cm - whether covered under HSN 4401 and chargeable to tax under Uttarakhand State GST @ 2.5% and under CGST @ 2.5%?
Held that:- Though the applicant is seeking advance ruling in respect of Eucalyptus / Poplar Woods Waste in Logs having length of 30 cm to 200 cm and Girth of approx. 10 cm to 60 cm, so as to classify the same under Chapter heading 4401 (attracting GST @ 5% in respect of Wood in chips or particles), the applicant has failed to correctly frame the question to which the classification is sought from the authority - since length and girth are not criteria for classification of wood under Chapter 44 or more specific 4401, therefore, the answer in given-in negative to the question which the applicant has sought.
-
2019 (2) TMI 189 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
Classification of goods - rate of tax - Nonwoven and Cotton bags - Held that:- The carry bags or shopping bags are covered in the Customs Tariff under CCTH 420222 depending on the material they are made up of - Shopping bags made of cotton are classified under CTH 42022220 and those made of non-woven fabrics are classifiable under CTH 42022210.
Rate of tax - Held that:- Non-woven and cotton carry bags supplied by the Applicant were taxable to 9% CGST and 9% SGST as per SI no 126 and 127 of Schedule III of Notification No. 01/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and G.O. (Ms) No. 62 dated 29.06.2017 No. II (2)/CTR/532(d-4)/2017 as amended respectively - the carry bags/shopping bags made of cotton/jute are taxable at 6% CGST and at 6% SGST as per SI no 89 of Schedule II while those carry bags made of non-woven fabrics are taxable to 9% CGST and 9% SGST as per SI no 124 of Schedule III of Notification No. 01/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and G.O. (Ms) No. 62 dated 29.06.2017 No. II (2)/CTR/532(d-4)/2017 as amended respectively.
-
2019 (2) TMI 188 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
Classification of goods - rate of tax - Bags made of Non-Woven Fabrics of Polypropylene / 100% Cotton (Grey Fabrics) used the Packing of goods, commonly called as Stick Bags, Wedding Gift Bags, Re-useable Shopping Bags, Draw-String, Gift Bags, Garment Bags, etc. - Held that:- The bags which are used for packing of goods for transport, storage and sale are covered under 6305 - In this case the bags of any materials are used for packing the goods which are then put up for sale, transport or storage. That is such goods because of their very nature, being loose, flowing or in bulk etc, cannot be sold without packing by such bags. However, in the instant case, the Applicant has stated that the goods in question are carry bags also called as Re-usable Shopping Bags, Drawstring Gift Bags, Garment Bags. These Bags have handles for carrying. Textiles or jewellery or other items after they are purchased by the Customers are put in these Bags and given to Customers to carry /take away from the shops. These bags are not used for packing, but for ease of carrying being in the nature of Shopping Bags.
The carry bags or shopping bags are covered in the Customs Tariff under CCTH 420222 depending on the material they are made up of. Shopping bags made of cotton are classified under CTH 42022220 and those made of non-woven fabrics are classifiable under CTH 42022210.
Rate of tax - Held that:- Non-woven and cotton carry bags supplied by the Applicant were taxable to 9% CGST and 9% SGST as per SI no 126 and 127 of Schedule III of Notification No. 01/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and G.O. (Ms) No. 62 dated 29.06.2017 No. II (2)/CTR/532(d-4)/2017 as amended respectively - the Carry Bags/Shopping Bags made-up of Cotton are taxable at 6% under CGST Act 2017 and at 6% under SGST Act 2017 as per Sl.No.89 of Schedule II while those Carry Bags made of Non-woven Fabrics are taxable to 9% under CGST Act 2017 and 9% under SGST Act 2017 as per Sl.No.124 of Schedule III of Notification No. 01/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and G.O. (Ms) No. 62 dated 29.06.2017 No. II (2)/CTR/532(d-4)/2017 as amended respectively.
-
2019 (2) TMI 187 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
Pure service - Management Consultant and DPR services provided to Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) for the water related projects at Chennai - whether CMWSSB is Government Entity or not? - Exemption under SI. No. 3 of N/N. 12/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 - Held that:- If any “Pure Services” are provided to a Governmental Authority by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a municipality under Article 243 W of the Constitution and that 'Governmental Authority' is an Authority or a Board set up by an Act of Parliament or a State Legislature or established by the Government with 90 percent or more participation by way of equity or control to carry out any function entrusted to a municipality under article 243 W of the Constitution, then the same is exempted vide SI.No. 3 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate).
In the case at hand, from the documents furnished by the Applicant, we find that CMWSSB is a Board constituted by an act of Tamil Nadu State Legislature called Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 1978) with 100% contribution by way of Government (i.e. by way of takeover of Assets and Liabilities from Chennai Municipal Corporation and Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board) and controlled by the Government by way of appointing Directors of the CMWSS Board, to cariy out the functions of supplying water for domestic, industrial and commercial purposes as well as Sanitation Conservancy by way of disposal of Sewer - The Twelfth Schedule or Article 243W of the Constitution list the functions of the municipality at SI No 5 as “Water Supply for domestic, industrial and commercial purposes “and at SI No 6 as “Public health, sanitation conservancy and solid waste management” - Thus, CMWSSB is a 'Governmental authority' as defined under 2(zf) of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) 28th June 2017.
The activity of the Applicant envisaged by the three agreements furnished by the applicant is supply of 'Pure Services' to CMWSSB which is a 'Governmental Authority” relating to water supply for industrial use and sanitation conservancy which are covered under Twelfth Schedule of Article 243 W of the Constitution. Therefore, the services rendered by the Applicant are exempted from CGST under SI.No. 3 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 as amended and exempted from SGST under Sl.No. 3 of the G.O. (Ms) No. 73 dated 29.06.2017 No.II (2)/CTR/532(d-15)/2017 as amended.
-
2019 (2) TMI 186 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
Pure service - Providing Inspection services in relation to Water Supply and Sewerage - Government authority - Benefit of SI.No. 3 of Notification No. 12/201 /-CT (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 - applicant providing Third Party Inspection Services to their clients viz., M/s. Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) and M/s. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD) for the water related projects - Notification is effective from 01/07/2017 - pure services - taxability of Invoices already raised on the client prior to 01/07/2017.
Held that:- If any “Pure Services” are provided to a Governmental Authority by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a Municipality under Article 243 W or a Panchayat under Article 243 G (from 13.102017) of the Constitution and that 'Governmental Authority' is an Authority or a Board set up by an Act of Parliament or a State legislature or established by the Government with 90 percent or more participation by way of equity or control to carry out any function entrusted to a Municipality under article 243 W of the Constitution, then the same is exempted vide SI.No. 3 of the Notification No. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017.
In the case at hand, M/s. CMWSSB is created vide The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 1978) with 100% contribution by way of Government (i.e. by way of takeover of Assets and Liabilities from Chennai Municipal Corporation and Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board) and controlled by the Government by way of appointing Directors of the CMWSS Board, to carry out the functions of supplying water for Domestic, Industrial and Commercial purposes as well as Sanitation Conservancy by way of disposal of Sewerage. M/s. TWAD Board is a Board, constituted by an Act of Tamil Nadu State Legislature called Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, 1970 with 100% contribution by way of Government and controlled by Government by way of appointing Directors of the TWAD Board entrusted with the development of Water Supply and Sewerage facilities in Municipalities and Panchayats in the State of Tamil Nadu, except Chennai Metropolitan Development.
Thus, in respect of services received in relation to functions pertaining to Municipality, M/s. CMWSSB and M/s.TWAD is a 'Governmental Authority' as defined under 2(zf) of the Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) as amended. However, in respect of Services received in relation to functions pertaining to Panchayat, TWAD is a 'Governmental Authority' only from 13.10.2017 as defined under 2(zf) of the Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) as amended.
In the two agreements furnished by the Applicant, the Applicant is suppling 'Pure Services' of Inspection to M/s. TWAD and M/s. CMWSSB which is a 'Governmental Authority” relating to Water Supply and Sewerage which are covered under Twelfth Schedule of Article 243 W of the Constitution. Therefore, the services rendered by the Applicant are exempted from CGST under SI.No. 3 of the Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 as amended and exempted from SGST under SI.No. 3 of the G.O. (Ms) No. 73 dated 29.06.2017 No.II (2)/CTR/532(d-15)/2017 as amended.
Other question raised before us is regarding raising of credit notes is of procedural nature and therefore not answered.
-
2019 (2) TMI 185 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Works contract or not? - EPC Contract for electrical cable supply and laying work - whether can be classified as contract for building, construction, fabrication, completion, erection, installation, fitting out, improvement, modification, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration or commissioning of immovable property wherein transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) is involved in the execution of such contract or can be classified as works contracts as per GST Law? - N/N. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 as amended by notification Tax (Rate) dated 25th Jan 2018.
Held that:- Works contract will be treated as service and tax would be charged accordingly. As per Section 2(119) of the CGST Act, 2017, unless the context otherwise requires, the term works contract” means a contract for building, construction, fabrication, completion, erection, installation, fitting out, improvement, modification, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration or commissioning of any immovable property wherein transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) is involved in the execution of such contract”
Existence of immovable property or not which is transferred in the execution of the contract - Held that:- The work of applicant involves supply, erection, testing and commissioning including transport, loading, unloading, insurance etc of transformer substations, HT & LT Overhead Line & Cable Through Underground. Their EPC contract for electrical cable supply and laying work can be classified as contract for building, construction, fabrication, completion, erection, installation, fitting out, improvement, modification, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration or commissioning of immovable property wherein transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) is involved in the execution of such contract - there are no hesitation in holding that the applicant is supplying Works Contract Services. It is also apparent that the nature of the works undertaken by the applicant are not in the nature of ‘Original Works’ as per detailed discussions in the latter part of the findings.
Works contract or not? - applicability of N/N. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 as amended by N/N. 01/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25th Jan 2018 - Held that:- In the subject case it is seen that the applicant is providing composite supply of Works Contract in respect of Metro but the reduced rate of tax is available only if the work is of the type of ORIGINAL WORKS.
Original Works would mean ; all new constructions; all types of additions and alterations to abandoned or damaged structures on land that are required to make them workable; erection, commissioning or installation on of plant, machinery or equipment or structures, whether pre-fabricated or otherwise, etc. In the present case the work done by the applicant does not appear to be original works. The applicant themselves have stated that “Here we would like to draw your attention to the fact that our scope of work does not include construction of entire project of Metro stations, railway line, power supply, civil structures etc. but scope include “Shifting LT,HT Overhead lines crossing which are obstructing metro railway path and providing LT,HT underground cables for Nagpur Metro Rail Project. The work is not construction of metro rail project but this is shifting of existing utilities obstructing metro railway path and providing supplying and installation of new underground cable along with its accessories.
Thus, in the present case, the contract is not related to any original work and is in the nature of composite supply of Works Contract - the activity of the applicant in the present case is nothing but a composite supply of Works Contract, not being original works and they will be covered under Sr.No. 3, item no. (ii) of Notification No. 11/2017 dated 28.06.2017 as amended by Notification No. 1/2018 dated 25.01.2018 and attract GST (9% each of CGST and SGST).
-
2019 (2) TMI 184 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Validation of returns - migration to GST Regime - Held that:- The learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent informs the Court that the authorities will look into the petitioner's claim for validation - Writ Petition is closed as it does not survive for further consideration.
....
|
