|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 107 Records
-
2019 (1) TMI 1984 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is yet to make a complaint to the Nodal Officer. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to intervene.
The petitioner is at liberty to avail of his remedies. The petitioner is also at liberty to approach the Writ Court if the situation so demands.
Petition disposed of
-
2019 (1) TMI 1958 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, UTTARAKHAND
Levy of GST - Abhivahan Shulk - Road Usage Charges - Fee for ambient air monitoring - Khanij Sampada Shulk - Motor Vehicle Tax - GST applicability on penalty paid by the applicant on unaccounted stock of river bed material (RBM) - Vehicles (pokland, JCB, Dumper 7 Tipper) purchased and used by the applicant in its day to day business activities for movement of goods from one place to another - fall within the definition of motor vehicle under the provisions of GST law or not - input credit of GST paid by the applicant at the time of purchase or repairs including spare-parts w.r.t. above vehicles.
Penalty paid on stock of RBM on the orders of DM is outside the scope of supply or in the alternative it is an exempt service under GST and hence not taxable under RCM - HELD THAT:- We agree with the contention of the appellant that penalty cannot be considered as a consideration for any service since such an amount is paid for contravention of certain provisions of law made for general public. The penalty imposing/collecting agency is not expected to or is providing any service to the particular person who is paying the penalty. Penalties are inbuilt in provisions of law to ensure its strict compliance and it acts as a deterrent for violators. No quid pro quo, which is an essential ingredient for 'service' as held by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and also lower judicial forum, is present when a person pays penalty to a government or semi government agency. The penalty is imposed by such an agency in the course of imparting its sovereign responsibilities and it is not done for any commercial consideration or for furtherance of business. Penalty is different from `fees' collected by such agencies in as much as the agency is supposed to render certain specific service to a specific class of person in lieu of the fees.
It is basically a punishment for violation of law and the monetary element of the penal provision is introduced into it to dissuade and to act as a deterrent and not for any commercial consideration or- for furtherance of business. The penalty so collected, is used by the agency for the good of the general people. Hence, in such cases, the penalty does not satisfy the definition of 'consideration' as contained in GST Act and is therefore not liable to be taxed.
In the present case, the said royalty is charged and collected by the Government of Uttarakhand in terms of powers exercised under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957, the Uttarakhand Secondary Minerals Rules 2001 read with Minerals Policy 2015 and is therefore a 'consideration' as defined in GST Act, since in lieu of that the District Geology & Mining Department had given him the right to remove and transport RBM and also has ensured the continued availability of the said RBM to the appellant and is therefore undoubtedly subject to levy of GST at the appropriate applicable rates. In fact, the appellants appear to have been paying or at least seem to be aware of, such GST on their legally procured and accounted stock of RBM, as is obvious from para 9 of Annexure-I of the appeal memorandum, wherein they have claimed that since no GST was paid on the purchase of unaccounted stock, so the advance ruling was sought. Therefore, we hold that the payment of ₹ 19658100/- was made by the appellants as royalty which is covered by Heading No. 9973 at entry serial no. 17 of Notification no. 11/2017-CT(R) dated 28.06.2017 and the GST is applicable at the rate prescribed therein.
Taxability of Abhivahan Shulk and Khanij Sampada Shulk - HELD THAT:- Abhivahan Shulk is paid to TVPV only by the license holders and in lieu of this fee, the govt, agency is ensuring the right of passage as well as continued maintenance of supplies. Similarly, Khanij Sampada Shulk is paid only by the lease holders who have been given the right to extract, transport and sell RBM by the District Geology & Mining Department who are providing service to the lease holder through allowing right of mining and passage and ensuring supply and ensuring the fulfilment of all other conditions of the lease agreement. Both these fees are collected from a particular class of people i.e. holders of licence/lease allotted by the respective govt. agencies, who are providing the said services only to those particular group of people and not to the general populace. Thus quid pro quo between the person paying the fee and the collecting agency is very much present and both the cases qualify as 'services' and both the fees are 'consideration' in terms of GST Act definition - both the fees are to be included in the taxable value, as defined in Section 15 of the GST Act 2017, of the service and are taxable to GST at appropriate rates.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1933 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING - JHARKHAND
Applicability of GST - supply or not - export of supply or not - manufactures capital goods (known as ‘the tooling kit’) as per the specifications of the overseas customer and use within the factory - cost of the capital goods so manufactured reimbursed from the customers by raising the Invoice and amount is received in convertible foreign exchange - HELD THAT:- The manufacture of tooling kit for further manufacture of forgings is to be treated as a separate supply. - The amount recovered from Indian customers after the manufacture of tooling kit is leviable to CGST and SGST or IGST.
In the instant case it is undisputed fact that the applicant will supply only export the components i.e. forgings, which will be manufactured from the tooling kit. Hence, the tooling kit in respect of which charges are received will never be sent outside India. It is also well settled that to export means the goods must be loaded and shipped outside the territorial water of India (B K Wadeyar vs Daulatram Rameshwar Ial [1960 (9) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT]).
As discussed above, it is clearly established that the amount recovered from foreign customers after the manufacture of tooling kit cannot be treated as export, hence no question of zero rated arises.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1857 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, UTTAR PRADESH
Classification of services - activity in relation to function entrusted to Panchayat or Municipality under Article 243G or Article 243W respectively, of the Constitution of India or not - Project Development Service (i.e. Detailed Project Report Service) and Project Management Consultancy services (PMCS) provided by the applicant to recipient under the contract for SUDA or not - Project Management Consultancy services (PMC) under the contract for PMAY - pure services or not.
Whether the Project Development Service (i.e. Detailed Project Report Service) and Project Management Consultancy services (PMCS) provided by the applicant to recipient under the contract for SUDA and the Project Management Consultancy services (‘PMC’) under the contract for PMAY would qualify as an activity in relation to function entrusted to Panchayat or Municipality under Article 243G or Article 243W respectively, of the Constitution of India? - HELD THAT:- SUDA has been established as a State level nodal agency, under the Department for Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation by Uttar Pradesh Government. This agency is registered under the ‘Registration of Societies Act’ since 20th November, 1990. As per the website of SUDA the main objectives of Society shall be - (a) To identify the urban poor in the State, (b) To draw the plans and scheme for the upliftment of the urban poor in the State, (c) To implement schemes for the benefit of the urban poor either directly or through other agencies engaged in this direction, whether private, public or cooperative, (d) To review the progress of the execution of these activities as well as effectiveness of the benefits directed towards the urban poor, (e) To set up or establish any specific service such as training facilities, infrastructural etc. in furtherance of the economic interest of the urban poor. Further, as per website of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Housing for All (Urban), Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, the PMAY is a Scheme to provide central assistance to Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) and other implementing agencies through States/UTs for Rehabilitation of existing slum dwellers using their land as a resource through private, participation, and Affordable Housing in Partnership.
Scope of work awarded to the applicant under different contracts - HELD THAT:- The Consultancy services rendered by the applicant under the contract with State Urban Development Agency, Uttar Pradesh (SUDA), and for PMAY are in relation to functions entrusted to Municipalities under Article 243W and to Panchayats under Article 243G of the Constitution of India.
Whether, such services provided by the applicant would qualify as Pure services (excluding works contract service or other composite supplies involving supply of any goods) as provided in Serial Number 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28 June, 2017, as amended (S. No. 3A) by Notification No. 2/2018-Central Tax (Rate), dated 25 January, 2018 issued under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST) and corresponding Notifications No. - KA.N.I.-2-843/X1-9 (47)/17-UP. Act-1 - 2017 - Order - (10) - 2017 Lucknow, dated June 30, 2017 issued under Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (UPGST Act), where the Project cost includes the cost of service rendered along with reimbursement of cost of procurement of goods for rendering such service, and, thus, be eligible for exemption from levy of CGST and UPGST, respectively? - HELD THAT:- The services being rendered by the applicant qualify as “Pure Service (excluding works contract service or other composite supplies involving supply of any goods)” as provided in Serial Number 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28 June, 2017, as amended (S. No. 3A) by Notification No. 2/2018-Central Tax (Rate), dated 25 January, 2018 issued under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST’) and corresponding Notifications No. - KA.N.I.-2-843/X1-9 (47)/17-UP. Act-1 - 2017 - Order - (10) - 2017 Lucknow, dated June 30, 2017 issued under Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘'UPGST Act’), where the Project cost includes the cost of service rendered along with reimbursement of cost of procurement of goods for rendering such service, and, thus, be eligible for exemption from levy of CGST and UPGST, respectively.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1856 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, UTTAR PRADESH
Scope of Advance Ruling - Liability of members of RWA are liable to pay GST - services received by them directly from the third party despite maintenance charges being less than ₹ 7,500/- per month - HELD THAT:- The applications for the advance ruling should be directly related to applicant in respect of supply of goods or services. In the instant case applicant is a recipient of services and not the supplier of the said services, since the applicant has sought ruling which is directly related to supplier of services, their application do not fall under the ambit of Section 95(a) of the Act.
The ruling cannot be given as the matter does not fall within the purview of “Advance Ruling” in term of Section 95(a) of CGST/SGST Act, 2017.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1855 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, UTTAR PRADESH
Exemption from payment of GST - supply of products - use of the name of the applicant i.e. ‘General Mills India Pvt. Ltd. on the packaging for supply of products by the applicant solely for the limited purpose of complying with the mandatory requirement under Chapter 2 of FSSAI Regulations and not for the purpose/with the intention of indicating a connection in the course of trade between the products - whether amount to ‘bearing a registered brand name’ or ‘bearing a brand name on which an actionable claim or enforceable right in a Court of law is available’ in terms of S. No. 73 of the Notification No. 28/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 22 September, 2017? - applicability of exemption under S. No. 73 of Amended Exemption notification if the applicant voluntarily foregoes the brand name used by them.
HELD THAT:- The applicant is packing their product which are classifiable as Wheat or Meslin flour in unit containers using the name of the applicant i.e. M/s. General Mills India Pvt. Ltd. - The Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28th June, 2017 (and corresponding notifications under SGST Acts and IGST Act) is the central point of discussion here. The said notifications exempt various goods and services from the payment of duty - Vide Notification No. 28/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 22-9-2017 the words “other than those put up in unit container and bearing a registered brand name”, the words, brackets and letters “other than those put up in unit container and, - (a) bearing a registered brand name; or (b) bearing a brand name on which an actionable claim or enforceable right in a Court of law is available [other than those where any actionable claim or enforceable right in respect of such brand name has been foregone voluntarily, subject to the conditions as in the Annexure I]”, were substituted. Therefore, for availing exemption from whole of the duty, the goods shall be other than those goods fulfilling the said conditions mentioned in (a) and (b) - Further, the ruling of the Authority for Advance Ruling under GST, Maharashtra in the case of M/s. Aditya Birla Retail Limited [2018 (8) TMI 1072 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING MAHARASHTRA] also supports the said view wherein it was held that “Thus proposed change of removing brand name “MORE” and logo “Aditya Birla Retail” and replacing it with name ‘Aditya Birla Retails Ltd.’ is not going to make any difference so far as establishing connection of goods with manufacturers”.
In the instant case, the applicant is using their name in place of any logo or brand name, which enables the customers to connect the product of the applicant with the name of the manufacturer i.e. General Mills India Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the above rulings of the Authority for Advance Ruling also applicable in the instant case - the supply of the said product by the applicant is not exempted under the Heading No. 73 of Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28th June, 2017 and the corresponding notification issued under the UPGST Act, 2017.
If the applicant voluntarily forego the enforceable right to such brand name (i.e. the expression ‘General Mills India Pvt. Ltd.’), in the manner as prescribed under the Amended Exemption Notification and claim exemption from payment of GST on supply of products under said S. No. 73 of Amended Exemption notification, whether the applicant will be eligible for exemption under the said notification? - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the applicant is packing their product in unit containers with the name ‘General Mills India Pvt. Ltd.’ on the packaging for supply of products. Since, Wheat or Meslin flour packed in unit containers are exempted under the said notification only if the manufacturer fulfills the condition (b) of the said notification subject to the conditions as in the Annexure-I - Therefore, it is clear that if the applicant voluntarily foregoes the brand name used by them subject to conditions as in the Annexure-I of the said notification, the applicant shall be eligible for exemption from duty under the said notification.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1854 - COMMISSIONER OF GST (APPEALS), CHANDIGARH
Refund of tax paid in cash - Scheme of Budgetary Support - Reverse Charge Mechanism - refund based on unutilized tax credit at the end of the quarter July, 2017 to September, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The Government of India vide Notification No. 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 28th June, 2017 notified the payment of IGST on reverse charge basis i.e. for certain category of supply of services tax liability has been shifted on the recipient of services to be paid in cash and under the said scheme the tax paid can be claimed as credit in their book of accounts for utilising the same for discharging their outward tax liabilities. Hence, it is observed that the tax paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism cannot be treated as duty paid under the forward charge i.e. outward tax for claiming the refund of the same under the scheme of Budgetary Support. As such the plea of the appellant does not hold good inasmuch as every payment made in cash has to be treated as tax paid in cash, whereas in this scenario the tax paid on behalf of other person’s liability is available in the form of Cenvat credit. Hence, the adjudicating authority has correctly rejected the claim of the appellants on this issue and there are no infirmity in the impugned order.
Rejection on the ground that they had balance in TRAN-1 by the end of the quarter i.e. July, 2017 to September, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The Scheme of Budgetary Support was introduced by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry vide their Notification dated 5-10-2017 followed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs Circular dated 27-11-2017 whereunder it has been made amply clear that the said scheme has been worked out on quarterly basis for which claims shall be filed on a quarterly basis - In view of the provisions of the Scheme it is quite evident that the refund under budgetary support can only be filed after the end of the quarter from the tax amount paid in cash once the entire credit is exhausted and not on monthly basis as has been pleaded by the appellant in the grounds of appeal. Moreover, it is found that even the jurisdictional Range Officer in his report has categorically mentioned that at the end of the quarter the appellant had balance in their credit account and the claim of the refund on this account was not recommended for sanction. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority has correctly rejected the claim of the appellant in view of the provisions laid down in the scheme of budgetary support ibid.
Further, the appellant has pleaded that the amount of credit which was appearing at the end of the quarter primarily due to Transitional credit which had been subsequently utilized by the appellants in the future tax payments and accordingly, reduced the refund for the quarter ended 31 December, 2017, does not hold good because for any reason once the balance of credit figures out in the records of the appellant, the tax in cash during the said quarter is to be paid only once the entire credit has been exhausted in view of the provisions of the Scheme of Budgetary support. The refund has been correctly rejected by the adjudicating authority.
The appeal filed by the appellant is rejected and the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority is upheld.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1849 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, HARYANA
Scope of Advance Ruling - Taxability - rate of tax - Polypropylene Leno Bags - HELD THAT:- As per clause (c) of section 95 of the CGST/HGST Act, 2017, an “applicant” means any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under this Act. Further, section 97(1) of the Acts ibid provides that an application for advance ruling may be submitted by an applicant desirous of obtaining an advance ruling under this Chapter by way of application submitted under rule 104 of the CGST/HGST Rules, 2017. However, as perused from the documents regarding registration of society, as enclosed with the application for advance ruling, it appears prima facie that Woven Fabric & Bags Manufacturers Association itself is not in the business of goods in respect of which advance ruling is sought and it has merely submitted a representation in the shape of advance ruling application on behalf of members of association.
Since, the association is not covered in the definition of applicant, as provided under clause (c) of section 95 of the CGST/HGST Act, 2017, it cannot seek advance ruling under section 97. Further, an opportunity of being heard has also been provided to the association on 24.12.2018 as required under second proviso to section 98(2), but since neither the applicant nor any authorized agent has appeared before the authority, the application can not be entertained.
The application dated 09.10.2018, submitted by M/s. Woven Fabric & Bags Manufacturers Association, for advance ruling is rejected.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1848 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, HARYANA
Rate of GST - Mineral mining rights in lieu of which Royalty is being paid - at what GST rate should it discharge its GST liability whether at the rate of 5% (Rate applicable on extracted raw material) or 18% (Residual category)? - Applicability of the future GST liability, out of excess GST paid on such Mineral Mining Rights at the rate of 18% in the past - HELD THAT:- The mining contract has been awarded to the applicant for right to use minerals namely “Stone along with associated minor minerals”. Hence, it is argued that the services received by the applicant from state government in respect of grant mining contract are classifiable under sub heading 997337 as covered under entry 257 of the annexure appended to the notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. Further, GST on the said supply of services is payable according to the entry at sr. no. 17 of the table in said notification - Since a perusal of classification of services of right to use natural resources classify under tariff 9973 and since description of services under serial No. 17 (i) to (vii) does not cover such services of right to use minerals, therefore, it would fall under the residual entry at serial number 17 (viii). Being so, the rate of tax applicable on such services, as provide therein, shall be the same rate of tax as applicable on supply of like goods involving transfer of title in goods.
Thus, it is evident that service charge by way of annual dead rent or royalty paid for services of granting right to use mineral would attract GST rate as applicable on supply of mineral which is being extracted through such mining - in view of entry at sr. no. 5 of the CGST notification no. 13/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, GST is payable on reverse charge basis by the recipient of above services i.e. the applicant in the present case.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1804 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Validity of the orders passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 11.7.2011 - constitution of fresh committee with the Chief Secretary as Chairperson and with some other members for the purpose of suggesting the factors to be considered while fixing or increasing the rates of tickets in various classes of Cinema Theatres.
HELD THAT:- Petition disposed off.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1758 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Constitutional Validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act - time limitation - vires of the state's legislative power or on the ground that the demand is barred by limitation under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of M/S. SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) -1, AND OTHERS [2019 (2) TMI 300 - KERALA HIGH COURT] where the petitioner's plea is rejected that the State lacks the vires to graft Section 174 into KSGST Act, 2017.
Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1752 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act - vires of State's legislative power - time limitation under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act - HELD THAT:- The issue covered in the case of M/S. SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) -1, AND OTHERS [2019 (2) TMI 300 - KERALA HIGH COURT] where The petitioner's plea is rejected that the State lacks the vires to graft Section 174 into KSGST Act, 2017.
Petition is dismissed applying the above ratio.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1751 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of M/S. SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) -1, AND OTHERS [2019 (2) TMI 300 - KERALA HIGH COURT] where The petitioner's plea is rejected that the State lacks the vires to graft Section 174 into KSGST Act, 2017 - petition dismissed by applying the ratio of the said case.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1673 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ANDHRA PRADESH
Scope of Advance Ruling application - Section 97(2) of CGST Act, 2017 - Place of supply of services - clarification sought on “place of supply” of the liaison services extended by him to the overseas manufacturers without any Indian subsidiary / India Liaison office - HELD THAT:- The applicant, sought Advance Ruling in “Place of Supply “issue, which is outside the purview of the Advance Ruling Authority as per Section 97(2) of CGST Act, 2017.
The application is not admitted under Sec 98 (2) of CGST Act, 2017 and APGST Act, 2017.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1671 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ANDHRA PRADESH
Government authority/ Government Entity or not - applicable rate of GST - work agreement entered into with the APSPDCL - liability of GST on value of materials recovered from our RA bills issued on cost recovery basis by APSPDCL - reverse charge mechanism - N/N. 13/2017-Central Tax Rate dated 28.06.2017.
Government authority/ Government Entity or not - Whether APSPDCL is a Government authority/ Government Entity or not? - HELD THAT:- The Applicant Contractee i.e. APSPDCL is a Government Company i.e. wholly owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. When a copy of Audited Annual Accounts of M/s APSPDCL for the Financial Year 2016-17 is examined, it is evident from the schedule of Equity Share Capital of the Annual Statement that 100% share capital is held by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the name of Honourable Governor of Andhra Pradesh - Thus, it is concluded that the Government of Andhra Pradesh is having full control over the APSPDCL and covered under the definition of Government Entity.
Nature of work undertaken by the applicant - HELD THAT:- The applicant is engaged in execution of works awarded by M/s Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited for (1) Construction of indoor sub-station with control room and civil works; (2) Electrical Works; (3) Providing bore well (4) Erection of 33KV line with 100 sqmm AAA Conductor (DC); (5) Erection of 11 KV line with100 sqmm Conductor; (6) Erection of 33 KV UG cable; (7) Erection of 11 KV UG cable ; (8) 33 KV Railway crossing. Further, for all civil works, where materials such as sand, metal, gravel etc, are involved, the rates are inclusive of seignorage charges as fixed by the competent authority of Government of A.P. and the same will be recovered from the contract bills for remittance to the Government - The contract with APSPDCL is a single composite contract for supply of the said works on semi turnkey basis under IPDS.
Work undertaken to execute/Implement various schemes for constructing sub stations, providing bore wells, erection of lines and required conductors etc. Moreover, the above works undertaken by APSPDCL are for business purpose and the benefit of Concessional Rate of 12% (6% under Central tax and 6% State tax) as per notification is NOT available to the applicant.
In the instant case, the contract entered by the applicant squarely falls under the works contract and falls under entry no. (ii) of S.No.3 of the table of Notification No.11/2017- Central Tax (Rate), Dated: 28th June 2017 as amended from time to time and corresponding notifications under APGST Act, 2017, and the applicable rate of tax is 18% - Since APSPDCL being the Contractee are recovering the cost of the materials that are used/consumed in the services provided to them by the applicant from the R.A. Bills issued, such cost recovered is to be included in the taxable value of the supply.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1670 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ANDHRA PRADESH
Works contract - Exemption from GST - Services supplied by Electricity Distribution Utilities - benefit of exemption to the Applicant being the contractor executing works to APSPDCL - exemption both for supply of material as well as service or limited only to service? - ITC on inward supplies of material and services for use in the execution of works to APSPDCL - process to get refund of ITC.
HELD THAT:- The works executed by the applicant in this case included design, manufacture, test, deliver, install, complete and commission facilities for conversion of existing LT Net Work into High Voltage Distribution System in various districts of Andhra Pradesh the World Bank Funding on turnkey basis - As seen from the nature of the work stated by the applicant, the works are industrial in nature as it involves conversion of existing LT network into High Voltage Distribution System.
In the instant case, the contract entered by the applicant squarely falls under the works contract and falls under entry no. (ii) of S. No. 3 of the table of notification No. 11/2017 - Central Tax (Rate), Dated - 28th June 2017 as amended from time to time and corresponding notifications under APGST Act, 2017, and the applicable rate of tax is 18% (9% under Central tax and 9% State tax). However, funding by the World Bank to either Government of Andhra Pradesh or to the Contractee i.e. APSPDCL has no bearing on the rate of tax.
Whether exemption under SI.No. 10A of Notification no. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017, amended by notification no. 14/2018-Central Tax (Rate), dated 26.07.2018 is applicable to their works? - HELD THAT:- The said entry clearly states that the services supplied by Electricity Distribution Utilities attract nil rate of tax. Whereas, the said entry do not prescribe any nil rate for the services supplied to the Electricity Distribution Utilities. Therefore, the said exemption is not applicable to the services rendered by the applicant to the Contractee.
Since the works undertaken are classifiable under works contract service, segregation or vivisection will not arise. However, as the said exemption is not applicable to the said works contract, this query and also the queries on entitlement of ITC on the inward supplies, and refund of ITC in the event of the applicant is entitled for exemption from payment of GST, have lost their relevance.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1669 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ANDHRA PRADESH
Benefit of concessional rate of GST - supply of service - supply to Government, Government Agency or Government Entity in terms of the Notification No.20 dated:22-08-2017, Notification No. 24 dated:21-09-2017, Notification No.31 dated:13-10-2017 and, Notification No.32 dated:13-10-2017 - Government entity or not.
HELD THAT:- The Applicant Contractee i.e. APEPDCL is a Government Company i.e. wholly owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. When a copy of Audited Annual Accounts of M/s APEPDCL for the Financial Year 2016-17 is examined, it is evident from the schedule of Equity Share Capital of the Annual Statement that 100% share capital is held by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the name of Honourable Governor of Andhra Pradesh. Thus, based on the above facts, it is concluded that the Government of Andhra Pradesh is having full control over the APEPDCL and covered under the definition of Government Entity.
The works undertaken by APEPDCL are for business purpose and the benefit of Concessional Rate of 12% (6% under Central tax and 6% State tax) are any other concessional rate is NOT available to the applicant - As per Section 2 of CGST Act, 2017 and APGST Act, 2017 defines “works contract” as 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.
The composite supply of works contract as defined at Section 2 of CGST Act 2017 and APGST Act, 2017 is treated as supply of service in terms of Serial No.6, Schedule II of CGST Act 2017 and APGST Act, 2017.
In the instant case, the contract entered by the applicant squarely falls under the works contract and falls under entry no. (ii) of S. No. 3 of the table of notification no 11/2017 - Central Tax (Rate), Dated - 28th June 2017 as amended from time to time and corresponding notifications under APGST Act, 2017, and the applicable rate of tax is 18% (9% under Central tax and 9% State tax).
-
2019 (1) TMI 1668 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ANDHRA PRADESH
Time of supply - Some or part of the events occurred before implementation of GST laws - Levy of “Liquidated Damages” and other penalties like milestone penalties levied on suppliers/ contractors in the nature of making good the damages for any delays in supply of service or goods in the following cases - When some part of the delay in supply has occurred before the implementation of the GST and some part of delay in supply has occurred after GST came into force, whether GST will be applicable to the Liquidated damages imposed for entire period of delay or it would be applicable only to the period falling after introduction of GST?
HELD THAT:- In the normal course of business of steel manufacture and sale/ distribution of its products, RINL enters in to various contracts with vendors for providing materials and services for operational activities. In this case, if there is any delay on the part of the supplier/contractor to provide materials/ services, Liquidated damages (LD) are deducted from the amount payable to such vendor. The LD so deducted is treated as other miscellaneous income. In respect of contracts relating to Construction of new plant in expansion project or renovation of old plant, normally the contract is awarded to vendors to build the sub plant or a part of it on Turnkey basis - If there is any delay in completing the contract, the factual position would be ascertained, particularly to know the fact whether the contractor/vendor is responsible for the delay or not. If the delay is on account of the contractor, then Liquidated Damages would be calculated as per the contractual terms and same will be charged from the contractor.
Time of supply - HELD THAT:- The liquidated damages are determined and imposed upon the contractor after in-depth study. In terms of the agreement, the clauses revealed that the levy of liquidated damages is not when the delay is occurring but the liability of payment of these liquidated damages by the Contractor will be established once the delay in successful execution of work is established on the part of the Contractor. This would define the time of supply.
Liquidated damages if any collected/received under previously applicable Service Tax regime before coming into effect of GST, would be dealt with in accordance with the then existent provisions under applicable laws.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1650 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Constitutional validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act - time limitation - Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act - HELD THAT:- The issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of M/S. SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) -1, AND OTHERS [2019 (2) TMI 300 - KERALA HIGH COURT] where The petitioner's plea is rejected that the State lacks the vires to graft Section 174 into KSGST Act, 2017.
Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1641 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act - time limitation - Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of M/S. SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) -1, AND OTHERS [2019 (2) TMI 300 - KERALA HIGH COURT] where it was held that The petitioner's plea is rejected that the State lacks the vires to graft Section 174 into KSGST Act, 2017.
Petition dismissed.
........
|
