|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 107 Records
-
2019 (1) TMI 1488
Classification of goods - Springs of Iron and Steel for supply to the Railways - whether classified under HSN Code no. 8607 of Chapter 86 of First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or under HSN Code no.7320 of Chapter 73 of the Tariff Act? - Held that:- Chapter Heading 8607 does not anywhere clearly classify Springs of Iron and Steel. It only refers to parts of railway (such as bogies, bissel-bogies, axels and wheels and parts thereof) in a general way; whereas, Chapter Heading 7320 clearly classifies springs of Iron and Steel for Railways. “Leaf-springs for Railways” are classified under Tariff Item No. 73201012 and “Coil-springs for Railways” are classified under Tariff Item No. 73209010 - since Springs of Iron and Steel, are specifically classifiable under Chapter Heading 7320, the general description under Chapter Heading 8607 is not applicable. Springs of iron and steel for railways are classifiable under HSN Code no. 7320 and taxable @ 18% under Serial No. 234 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017- CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
Ruling:- Springs of Iron and Steel for Railways are classifiable under HSN Code no. 7320 (taxable @ 18%) under Serial No. 234 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017- CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1487
Classification of goods - Polypropylene Leno Bags - rate of tax - whether classified under Tariff sub-Heading No. 6305 33 00 of the GST Tariff or under Tariff sub-Heading No. 3923? - Held that:- TRU clarification under Circular No. 80/54/2018-GST issued under F. No. 354/ 432/2018-TRU dated 31/12/2018 in Para 7, sub-Para 7.4 clarifies that Polypropylene woven and non-woven bags and PP woven and non-woven bags laminated with BOPP would be classified as plastic bags under HS Code 3923 and would attract 18% GST - HSN 3923 covers articles of the conveyance or packing of goods, of plastics; etc. Sub- Heading 39232990 is applicable for sacks and bags of plastics which are neither polymers of ethylene nor of poly-vinyl chloride and are subject to 18% GST.
Ruling:- ‘Poly Propylene Leno Bags’ are to be classified as plastic bags under HSN 3923 and would attract 18% GST.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1486
Detention of goods with vehicle - wrong declaration in the e-way bill - Held that:- Division Bench of this Court in Renji Lal Damodaran v. State Tax Officer [2018 (8) TMI 1145 - KERALA HIGH COURT] has dealt with an identical issue - the respondent authorities are directed to release the petitioner's goods and vehicles on its furnishing Bank Guarantee for the tax and penalty due, and a bond for the value of goods in the form as prescribed under Rule 140(1) of the CGST Rules - petition disposed off.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1419
Profiteering - major manufacturers of Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) - benefit of reduction in the GST rate not passed on - contravention of provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Held that:- It is established that the Respondent had denied benefit of reduction in the rate of tax to his customers by increasing the base price exactly by the amount by which the tax was reduced and therefore, he had resorted to profiterring in violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Respondent had further compelled the recipients to pay additional GST on the increased price @ 18% and had he not increased the base price and charged additional GST his customers would have got benefit of further reduction in the MRP. Therefore, the additional amount of tax collected also amounts to profiteering made by the Respondent.
It is quite clear that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of tax reduction in respect of the 109 products supplied by him during the period between 15.11.2017 to 31.05.2018 and hence, it is established beyond doubt that the Respondent had resorted to profiteering of ₹ 6,06,752.72/-, as has been elaborated in Annexure-Il of the DGAP’s Report. The Respondent has not raised any objection against the calculation of the profiteered amount by the DGAP and hence this Authority determines the above amount as the profiteered amount. It has also been found that all the supplies were made by the Respondent in the NCT of Delhi.
Imposition of penalty - Held that:- It is clear from the facts of the present case that the Respondent was fully aware of the provisions of Section 171 of the COST Act, 2017 as well as the Notification dated 14.11.2017 whereby he was bound to pass on the benefit arising due to reduction in the rate of tax to his customers. However, the Respondent has deliberately acted in defiance of the above law and hence he is guilty of the conduct which is contumacious and violative of the provisions of the above Section - appellant has committed offence under Section 122 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, notice be issued asking him to explain why penalty should not be imposed on him.
Application disposed off.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1418
Maintainability of condonation of delay application - period of limitation in filing first appeal - Section 107 of the UPGST Rules, 2017 - Held that:- In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the date of the communication order passed by the Assessing Authority which may be relevant for the purpose of start point of period of limitation to file an appeal - Consequently and clearly the first appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.12.2018 was beyond the period for which delay may have been condoned, by about nine days - there is no error in the order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal as time barred.
Process amounting to manufacture or not - activity of running a brick klin and that the entire production of bricks - Held that:- In the very nature of the activity of running that business, various qualities of bricks emerge in the manufacturing process, for various reasons - matter requires consideration - Notices issued.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1389
Admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid on vehicles - Whether they can utilize/ refund the ITC which is readily available in GST Portal, for the vehicles purchased by them for the purpose of their core business activity?
Held that:- The Input Tax Credit on the vehicles purchased by the applicant for the purpose of their business will fall under Section 17(5) - It is clear from the plain reading of the section, that the goods referred by the applicant do not fall under the exceptions referred in Section 17(5) of CGST / APGST Act, 2017. Hence the applicant is not entitled for claim of ITC.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1369
Government Entity - rate of GST - works contract for raising of western site tailing dam at Turamdih - N/N. 39/2017 - time and value of supply of goods or services or both - Held that:- Government entity means- (i) set up by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature, or. (ii) established by any government, with 90% or more participation by way of equity or control, to carry out a function entrusted by the Central Government, State Government or a local authority - In the instant case, the 100% equity of M/S Uranium Corporation of India Ltd is held by the President of India. Accordingly, M/s. Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. is a government entity.
What will be the rate of GST on the said work order? - Held that:- The works contract has been defined in Section 2(119) of the CGST Act, 2017 as “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.” - In the instant case the applicant applicant has been awarded works contract for raising a Dam as per the requirement/specifications provided by the recipient.
Whether the benefit of the N/N. 39/2017 will be available in the present case? - Held that:- It is evident that the work order is for supply of services with material. It is also seen from the work order that the first four part of the work order is related with clearing of earth, excavation, supplying & laying of earth and impervious clay. The major part of the contract involves earth work i.e., more than 75% of the work involves earth work - Since the major part of the work order, i.e., about 96%, is ‘Earth Work’, the said work order qualifies for the benefit of Serial No 3 of notification 39/2017 dated 13.10.2017 issued under the GST Act, being Composite supply of works contract as defined in clause 119 of sec-2 of the CGST Act, 2017, involving pre dominantly earth work i.e. constituting more than 75% of the value of work in contract) provided to Central Government, State government, Union Territory, Local authority, a government authority or a Government Entity - GST will be applicable at the rate of 5%.
Ruling:- M/s Uranium Corporation of India Ltd has 100% of equity held by the President of India, hence, M/s Uranium Corporation of India Ltd is a government entity.
The work order no. T-964 dt. 20.06.2017 awarded by M/s Uranium corporation of India Ltd, to applicant M/s P. K. AGARWALA constitute of more than 75% of "earth Work", the rate of GST would be 5%.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1368
Profiteering - Failure to reduce Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) - Petition against the decision of NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY - CENVAT Credit - TRAN-2 credit - it is the contention of the petitioner that TRAN-2 credit was made available in March, 2018 - Area based exemption - Loss in North East Exemption being denied - case of respondents is that the documents on the amount refunded to Modern Trade Dealers have not been duly certified - Held that:- The petitioner is directed to deposit ₹ 90 crores with the Central Consumer Welfare Fund in two instalments of ₹ 50 crores and ₹ 40 crores which would be paid on or before 15th March, 2019 and 15th May, 2019 respectively - the said direction is given after being informed that the petitioner has already deposited ₹ 160 crores.
Subject to the said deposit, no coercive steps would be taken in proceedings pursuant to the impugned order. Penalty proceeding would be kept in abeyance - Re-list on 16th April, 2019.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1367
Classification of services - "Works Contract" or "Composite Supply" - rate of tax - combination of services of excavation of sand including loading with machinery at reach, formation of Ramps and maintenance of Roads, transportation charges for the tractors/ tippers of sand from reach to stockyard and loading cost of sand from stockyard to lorries - difference of opinion.
Held that:- Since there is no uniform opinion arrived by the Members representing Central Tax and State Tax and they have expressed two different views on classification of services and applicable rate of tax on the services rendered by the applicant, the application filed by M/s. R. Vidyasagar Rao Constructions, Plot No. 98 & 99, Lumbini layout, near Euro School, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-36 (GSTIN No. 36AAGFR6627L12Q), is being referred to the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling for the State of Telangana in terms of Section 98(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 for hearing and decision on the question on which advance ruling is sought.
Matter referred to the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1347
Maintainability of condonation of delay application - period of limitation in filing first appeal - Section 107 of the UPGST Rules, 2017 - Held that:- In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the date of the communication order passed by the Assessing Authority which may be relevant for the purpose of start point of period of limitation to file an appeal - Consequently and clearly the first appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.12.2018 was beyond the period for which delay may have been condoned, by about nine days - there is no error in the order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal as time barred.
Process amounting to manufacture or not - activity of running a brick klin and that the entire production of bricks - Held that:- In the very nature of the activity of running that business, various qualities of bricks emerge in the manufacturing process, for various reasons - matter requires consideration - Notices issued.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1287
Provisional attachment of Bank Accounts - section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - attachment order passed on the concerned banks without furnishing copy of any such order to the concerned supplier - Held that:- he general practice of the department is to issue provisional attachment order on the concerned banks without furnishing copy of any such order to the concerned supplier. It is difficult to comprehend as to how the supplier whose property is attached would be in a position to file objection under sub-rule (5) of rule 159 if a copy of such order is not furnished to such supplier.
Issue Notice and Notice as to interim relief returnable on 29th January, 2019. Direct service is permitted today.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1286
Grant of Bail - allegations that they were involved in generation of fake invoices by floating dummy companies/firms in the name of poor persons/third persons and of passing on the input tax credit to unscrupulous persons/firms/companies without actual supply of goods - Held that:- In the present case, there are serious allegations against the applicant. Vide detailed order dated 22.12.2018, the application for cancellation of bail of applicant was allowed by Sh. Satish Arora, Id. ASJ, New Delhi and this order was affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court. No ground for bail is made out - Bail application is dismissed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1285
Grant of Bail - allegations that they were involved in generation of fake invoices by floating dummy companies/firms in the name of poor persons/third persons and of passing on the input tax credit to unscrupulous persons/firms/companies without actual supply of goods - Held that:- In the present case, there are serious allegations against the applicant. Vide detailed order dated 22.12.2018, the application for cancellation of bail of applicant was allowed by Sh. Satish Arora, Id. ASJ, New Delhi and this order was affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court. No ground for bail is made out - Bail application is dismissed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1215
Validity of Press Release dated 18.10.2018 and 21.10.2018 - Held that:- The respondent produced copy of order bearing No.02/2018-Central Tax dated 31.12.2018 under Section 16 (4) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 passed by Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and submitted that in view thereof, the present petition has become infructuous and may be disposed of as such - the present petition is disposed of as infructuous.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1154
Opening the official web portal so as to upload FORM GST REG-26 Part B - revival of provisional registration certificate issued to the petitioner firm earlier - Held that:- Now both the counsel agree that GSTN is active and that the petitioner was granted a new registration number - the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent informs the Court that the authorities will look into the petitioner's claim for validation - petition closed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1153
Unable to upload FORM GST TRAN-1 - input tax credit - KVAT Act - CST Act - 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 (1) TMI 1152
Detention of goods - person in registered in other state not in the state of detention - Method suggested for interim custody - Review of earlier order [2019 (1) TMI 23 - KERALA HIGH COURT] - Held that:- As to the first objection, I reckon it is, perhaps, an eminent ground of appeal; not that of review. About the second, at this length of time, I could not recollect whether the petitioner's counsel had agreed to the arrangement recorded in the Writ Petition. At any rate, to that extent, the judgment stands modified and the last paragraph reads as follows: “Recording the arrangement as suggested by the Government Pleader, I dispose of the Writ Petition.”
The Review Petition is disposed of.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1092
Transmission or distribution for electricity - exemption from tax under Entry 25 of Notification No.12/2017 dated 28.6.2017 - period of the negative list regime - scenario post GST Regime - validity of clarification issued in para 4 (1) of the Circular No.34/8/2018-GST dated 1.3.2018 - includibility of charges such an application fee, meter rent, testing fee, etc collected by the Petitioners - composite supply - Section 43 (2) of the Electricity Act - It is the case of the petitioners that service by way of transmission or distribution of electricity continued to be kept out of the tax net even post 1.7.2012, and, the petitioners, therefore, neither collected nor paid any tax under the Finance Act on charges collected in connection with transmission of electricity even post 1.7.2012.
Whether services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity fall within the ambit of clause (k) of section 66D of the Finance Act and, are therefore, exempt? - Held that:- It may be noted that prior to the coming into force of the negative list regime, goods and services were exempted by virtue of notifications issued in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act. By virtue of Notification No. 11/2010 dated 27.2.2010, the Central Government exempted transmission of electricity from the whole of service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the Finance Act; and by virtue of Notification No.32/2010-Service Tax dated 22.6.2010, distribution of electricity came to be exempted from the whole of service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the Finance Act. Thus, what was exempt under those provisions was transmission and distribution of electricity, despite which, during the pre-negative list regime, the respondents have considered services related to transmission and distribution of electricity as exempted from service tax by virtue of those notifications - Insofar as electricity meters are concerned, vide circular No.131/13/2010-ST dated 7.12.2010, it was clarified that supply of electricity meters for hire to consumers being an essential activity, having direct and close nexus with transmission and distribution of electricity, the same is covered by the exemption for transmission and distribution of electricity extended under relevant notifications.
From the very manner in which the respondents have treated the services related to transmission and distribution of electricity during the pre-negative list regime, such services would stand covered by the exemption granted to transmission and distribution of electricity by virtue of inclusion of such services in the list of negative services under section 66D (k) of the Finance Act as well as by virtue of exemption notification issued under the CGST Act.
Scope of bundled service - It is evident that a licensee, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, is required to supply electricity to such premises. For the purpose of supplying electricity, it is the duty of the distribution licensee to provide electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises of the consumer. In case the distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity, it is liable to penalty under sub-section (3) of section 43. Thus, a statutory duty has been cast upon the licensee to provide electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises of the applicant.
Any line which is used for carrying electricity for any purpose as well as any apparatus connected to any such line for the purpose of carrying electricity is mandatorily required to be provided to the consumer by the licensee. Moreover, any plant, equipment, apparatus or appliance or any part thereof used for, or connected with, the generation, transmission, distribution or supply of electricity, except for electric meter and any electrical equipment, apparatus or appliance under the control of a consumer fall within the ambit of electrical plant as defined under section 2(22) of the Electricity Act. Sub-section (2) of section 43 of the Electricity Act casts a duty upon the licensee to provide if required electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises - all the services related to transmission and distribution of electricity are naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business of the petitioner and are required to be treated as provision of the single service of transmission and distribution of electricity which gives the bundle its essential character.
A perusal of the GERC Regulations indicates that the services which are sought to be taxed now are the services, which the petitioner is required to mandatorily provide at the rate prescribed by GERC, a statutory authority constituted under the provisions of the Electricity Act. In the opinion of this court, all these services are essential activities which have a direct and close nexus with transmission and distribution of electricity.
As the phase relating to the negative list regime is concerned, the services in question would fall within the ambit of bundled services as contemplated under subsection (3) of section 66F of the Finance Act, and would have to be treated in the same manner as the service which gives the bundle its essential character, namely, transmission and distribution of electricity and, would therefore, be exempt from payment of service tax - the principal supply of transmission and distribution of electricity is naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with the related/ancillary services in the ordinary course of business, accordingly, in view of the provisions of clause (a) of section 8 of the CGST Act, the tax liability of such composite supply is required to be determined by treating the same as a supply of the principal supply namely, transmission and distribution of electricity.
Applicability of clause (a) of section 8 of the CGST Act - principal supply is exempt from levy of service tax - Held that:- There is nothing in section 8 of the Act to read any such construction. What the section says is that the tax liability of a composite or a mixed supply shall be determined in the manner provided thereunder. In a given case, the tax liability may be nil, but that would not take such service out of the purview of section 8 of the Act, which would be attracted if the supply is either composite or mixed in nature, notwithstanding that the end result may be nil tax liability.
The related supplies cannot be supplied separately nor are the principal supply and related supplies independent of each other. The related supplies are dependent on the principal supply of transmission and distribution of electricity and vice versa, neither service can be provided independent of the other. The transmission and distribution of electricity cannot be done without the help of electric line, electric plant and electric meter, and nor can the related services be used for any purpose other than for transmission and distribution of electricity. The principal supply and the related/ancillary services go hand in hand and one cannot be provided independent of the other.
Thus, the services provided by the petitioner are in the nature of composite supply and therefore, in view of the provisions of clause (a) of section 8 of the CGST Act, the tax liability thereof has to be determined by treating such composite same as a supply of the principal supply of transmission and distribution of electricity.
The impugned summons dated 28.3.2018 is hereby set aside to the extent the petitioners are called upon to produce the documents listed at serial No.5 of the annexure thereto, except clause - (vi); income from shifting of HT lines received from MEGA - the respondents shall drop the proceedings under the Finance Act, 1994 as well as under the CGST/SGST Acts sought to be initiated by virtue of the impugned summons to the extent the same is based upon item No.4 (1) of the impugned circular dated 1st March, 2018.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1091
Classification of services - services provided by the applicant in the nature of Research on the matter related to functioning of the holding of company - services provided by the applicant in the nature of Information on Market in the territory - service supplied by the Applicant under the Marketing Services Agreement dated 1 December 2012 - export of services - supply of “Support services” or intermediary services - future transaction - naturally bundled services - Export of services or not - Section 2(6) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Whether the service supplied by the Applicant under the Service Agreement dated 1 March 2013 constitute a supply of “Support services” falling under HSN code 9985 or “Intermediary service” classifiable under HSN code 9961/9962?
Whether the service supplied by the Applicant under the Service Agreement dated 1 March 2013 constitute a supply of “Support services” falling under HSN code 9985 “Intermediary service” classifiable under HSN code 9961 /9962? - Held that:- The relationship between the parties is that of independent contractors meaning that the agreement does not intend to create relationship of principal and agent. The applicant shall not represent itself to be agent of party A and vice-versa. Further applicant have no authority to conclude or negotiate any contracts or secure any orders or maintain any stock of goods on behalf of Party A in this case. On the contrary applicant would provide service on own account to party A to improve functioning of holding company and further augment its business vis a vis sale of all products manufactured and or sold or to be manufactured and or sold in India territory. Thus we find that applicant is not a person who arranges or facilitate supply of services between two or more persons - Thus applying the test mentioned in the Education Guide to the facts of the case we can safely conclude that the proposed service would not fall to be classified as ‘intermediary service’.
Under the GST Act, a composite supply would mean a supply consisting of two or more taxable supplies of goods or services or both or any combination thereof which are naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business, one of which is a principal supply - In respect of supply which consist of more than two taxable supplies and to fall within the ambit of composite supply, it will be necessary for us to determine whether a particular supply is naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business and what constitutes principal supply.
Services, naturally bundled or not? - Held that:- The nature of the various services in a bundle of services will also help in determining whether the services are bundled in the ordinary course of business. If the nature of services is such that one of the services is the main service and the other services combined with such service are in the nature of incidental or ancillary services which help in better enjoyment of a main service. For example service of stay in a hotel is often combined with a service or laundering of 3-4 items of clothing free of cost per day. Such service is an ancillary service to the provision of hotel accommodation and the resultant package would be treated as services naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business - From the nature of services it is evident that these services are not interdependent but could be provided as standalone services. In as much as we can say that applicant proposes to provide two distinct category of supplies. And as such services provided by this agreement can not constitute ‘composite supply’ as defined under the GST Act. However, we observe that services mentioned at (i) (ii), (iii), (iv) of category B above constitute composite supply among them as these services are clearly independent where the market survey gives bouquet of services its essential character.
Whether the services provided under the Service Agreement Merit classification as support services falling under HSN code 9985? - Held that:- The services provided by the applicant in the nature of Research on the matter related to functioning of the holding of company such as - corporate accounting, corporate finance, corporate personnel and labour relations, corporate research and development, quality assurance and corporate intellectual property, and provide Party A with its report of the research thereon would fall under service code tariff 998599 as other support services nowhere elsewhere classified.
Whether the service supplied by the Applicant under the Marketing Services Agreement dated 1 December 2012 constitute a supply of “Support services” falling under HSN code 9985 or “Intermediary service” classifiable under HSN code 9961 / 9962? - Held that:- The concept of intermediary under the GST Act is substantially identical to the concept of intermediary under the erst while service tax regime. This concept has been explained in the Education Guide issued by CBEC in the year 2012 - We find from the scrutiny of Marketing Services Agreement that the relationship between the parties is that of independent contractors meaning that the agreement does not intend to create relationship of principal and agent. The applicant in no way carries out activities such as conclusion of contracts, acceptance of sales orders, invoicing, determination of sales prices, rebate, discounts, resolution of customers complaints, or settlement of disputes with customers - thus,the proposed service would not fall to be classified as ‘intermediary service’.
Whether the services supplied by the applicant constitute supply of ‘support services’? - Held that:- Applying the test as per Education Guide to the facts of the present case, we find that bouquet of services proposed to be provided would constitute as a package for single consideration. Further we find from nature of services that applicant’s role in respect of adoption and implementation of AM’s advertising policy, conducting sales promotion through exhibition trade, liaising with customer etc. is in the nature of assistance to AM in conducting said activities and not actual provision of services on his own account - the services the applicant proposes to provide would fall under Group 99837 as Market Research Services.
Whether the services provided by the Applicant is an export of services as defined under Section 2(6) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act 2017? - Held that:- The supplier of service i.e. applicant is located in India, the recipient of service i.e. AM is located outside India -Japan; payment is received in convertible foreign exchange, the supplier of service and the recipient of service are not merely establishment of a distinct person and applicant not being an intermediary and services are not specified in sub-section (3) to (13) of section 13, the place of supply of service would be the location of the recipient of services i.e. AM Japan, which is outside India. As the applicant satisfies all the ingredients of ‘export of services’ the service provided by the ‘Marketing Services Agreement’ would qualify as an export of taxable service.
Ruling:- The services provided by the applicant in the nature of Research on the matter related to functioning of the holding of company such as - corporate accounting, corporate, finance, corporate personnel and labour relations, corporate research and development, quality assurance and corporate intellectual property, and provide Party A with its report of the research thereon would fall under service code tariff 99859 as other support services nowhere elsewhere classified.
The services provided by the applicant in the nature of Information on Market in the territory would fall under service code tariff 99837 with service description market research services.
The services supplied by the applicant under the Marketing Services Agreement would fall under Group 99837 as Market Research Services.
The service provided by the ‘Marketing Services Agreement’ would qualify as an export of taxable service.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1080
Unable to upload FORM GST TRAN-1 within the stipulated time - Input tax credit - migration to GST regime - 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.
|
