|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 128 Records
-
2019 (2) TMI 920 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Whether the Tribunal is constituted or not? - Held that:- List this matter on 28th February, 2019 - On that date in addition to standing counsel some responsible officers of the State from Lucknow as well as G.S.T. Council will appear in this matter.
-
2019 (2) TMI 919 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN
Requirement for registration - renting of property in different state - place of business to be considered for the purpose of registration - no billing is done from any other state other than Jaipur - registration of vacant lands on lease for parking of trailers/ trucks at various cities for operational purpose - Held that:- The applicant is supplying transport services to various manufacturers to transport their vehicles to the retail outlets in different states. The applicant is fulfilling the condition of clause (a) of Section 2(71) defining “Location of the Supplier of Service”.
The applicant is registered in Jaipur, Rajasthan which is his place of business from where he is supplying services in Haryana. The same is also evident from the copy of invoices submitted by the applicant during the personal hearing on dated 04.01.20119 wherein invoices are raised by M/s. Maruti Suzuki, Gurgaon in favour of M/s. K.M. Trans Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur - Similarly, the applicant is billing and maintains book of accounts at Jaipur only thus also satisfying the condition in clause (b) of Section 2(85) - Further, the applicant is incorporated as a company having its registered office at Jaipur, satisfying condition mentioned in clause (b) of Section 2(113) of CGST Act, 2017.
From the facts given by the applicant and on harmonious reading of the Section 22 along with the Section 2(71), Section 2(85) and Section 2(113) of the CGST Act, 2017, it is ascertained that the applicant have rightly taken registration in state of Rajasthan as the supply of transport services is initiated from the state of Rajasthan - The vacant land taken by the applicant is situated in the state of Haryana which is beyond the jurisdiction of this authority.
-
2019 (2) TMI 918 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN
Input tax credit - admissibility of credit to the applicant who is registered in Rajasthan State, whereby such tax is paid on inward supplies used for business of person registered in Rajasthan and Central Tax paid in Haryana - Held that:- IGST is payable in the case of inter-state supply of goods and services.
It is observed that in the GST regime SGST and CGST charged for the services provided and availed in a state would be eligible for ITC within that particular state where such services were provided and consumed. As the supplier of services and place of supply both are outside the state of Rajasthan, hence, Input tax credit of Central Tax paid in Haryana is not available to the applicant.
-
2019 (2) TMI 917 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN
Classification of goods/services - activity of supply, design, installation, commissioning and testing of solar energy based water pumping systems supply of goods or supply of services - Works contract - composite contract - rate of GST - CBEC Circular 58/1/2002-CX dated 15/1/2002.
Held that:- The supply of solar energy based water pumping systems along with its installation, commissioning and operation and maintenance is a single supply - the activity of supply, design, installation, commissioning and testing of solar energy based water pumping systems along with construction and O & M work by the applicant is a Works Contract of Composite Supply. This composite supply is a mixed of goods and services and predominant supply is supply of services. Since this supply is undertaken for a Government Department viz. PHED which is a Government of Rajasthan Department, hence the rate of tax applicable on given service (as it is a works contract service) shall fall under Entry 3(iii) with HSN Code 99544 and it should be IGST @12%(CGST@6%, SGST@6%).
-
2019 (2) TMI 916 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Unable to upload FORM GST TRAN-1 within the stipulated time - input tax credit - migration to GST regime - Held that:- The Government of India has issued Circular No.39/13/2018-GST, dated 03.04.2018, 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 second respondent. 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 915 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN
Eligibility for Advance Ruling - Admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid - Determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both - question raised are of the past period i.e. 2017-18 - Section 95(a) of the CGST & RGST Act 2017 - Held that:- Section 95 says that only activities/matter which are either being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken are qualified for advance ruling - In the instant case as the period of activity is past-period i.e. 2017-18 hence, application is not eligible for advance ruling.
-
2019 (2) TMI 914 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Request for withdrawal of Advance Ruling application - CENVAT Credit availed through TRAN-1 - reverse charge mechanism - validity of restriction imposed on admissibility of ITC by a Circular, which is contrary to the legal provisions - Held that:- The request of the applicant to withdraw the application voluntarily and unconditionally is hereby allowed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 913 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Request for withdrawal of Advance Ruling application - classification of services - GTA Services or not? - Applicability of N/N. 20/2017 - Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 22nd August 2017 - Held that:- The request of the applicant to withdraw the application voluntarily and unconditionally is hereby allowed without going into the merits or detailed facts of this advance ruling application by this authority.
-
2019 (2) TMI 834 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN
Classification of supply - Supply of goods or supply of services - activity of supply, design, installation, commissioning and testing of reverse osmosis plant - rate of GST - composite supply of works contract - CBEC Circular 58/1/2002-CX dated 15/1/2002 - Held that:- The supply of Reverse Osmosis plant along with its installation, commissioning and operation and maintenance is a single supply.
According to definition of works contract under GST regime, the supply of goods and services are done by the supplier simultaneously which is for immovable property. Hence in works contract supply of goods and services together is compulsory - Thus, based on above facts and concept such contract shall be a single supply and cannot be treated as distinct supplies. Since all the conditions of composite supply are satisfied, it is a composite supply.
The activity proposed to be undertaken is a composite supply of works contract, the rate of tax in given service shall be determined in accordance with the Notification No 11/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended from time to time.
Thus, the activity of supply, design, installation, commissioning and testing of reverse osmosis plant and O &M work by the applicant is a Works Contract of Composite Supply. This composite supply is a mixed of goods and services and predominant supply is supply of services. Since this supply is undertaken for a Government Department viz. PHED which is a Government of Rajasthan Department, hence the rate of tax applicable on given service (as it is a works contract service) shall fall under Entry 3(iii) with HSN Code 99544 and it should be IGST @ 12% (CGST @ 6%, SGST @6%).
-
2019 (2) TMI 833 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL
Classification of goods - PP Leno Bags - whether classified under Chapter 63 or under Chapter 39 of Tariff Act? - challenge to advance ruling decision.
Held that:- It is pertinent to mention that the Note 2(p) of the Chapter 39 of GST Tariff (plastics and Articles thereof) does not cover the goods of Section XI (Textiles & Textile Products). In the instant case, the impugned product, by no way of stretch of imagination, could be termed as Textiles or Textile Products. Therefore, unless the impugned goods have been manufactured from the material which qualifies as Textiles of the Chapter 63, it would not be proper to consider the same to be classifiable under Chapter 63053300 - the goods i.e., woven, knitted or crocheted fabrics, felt or nonwovens, impregnated, coated, covered or laminated, made from the plastics or articles thereof are excluded from the Section XI of Tariff Act. If the impugned goods were made of textile material of polypropylene, then only the same would be classifiable under Chapter 63 and the aforesaid fact is absent in the instant case. Therefore, the impugned goods cannot be classified under Chapter 63 and shall be classifiable under Chapter 39.
Also, the Respondent cannot be allowed to change the classification which they had pursued for last 9 years in view of the fact that they are now intended to avail lower tariff rate of GST, which is devoid of merit.
CBIC, vide para 7 of the Circular 80/54/2018-GST dated 31-08-2018 has clarified that Polypropylene Leno Bags whether laminated with BOPP or not would be classified as plastic bags under HS code 3923 and would attract 18% GST.
Thus, Polypropylene Leno Bags shall be classifiable under Heading No. 392390 of the Tariff Act.
-
2019 (2) TMI 832 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN
Classification of supply - supply of goods or services or both - Mid-Day Meal Programme - Anganwadi meals programme - Charitable Trusts - scope of supply - Preparation and serving of food to children of government schools under Mid-Day meal Program of Government and serving of food under Government sponsored Anganwadi meals - Transfer of goods/capital equipments exclusively used for mid-day meal program and anganwadi meal programme - sale of scrap which was generated during Mid-Day Meal program.
Preparation and serving of food to children of government schools under Mid-Day meal Program of Government and serving of food under Government sponsored Anganwadi meals - Held that:- The activities undertaken by the applicant are not covered under the definition of charitable activities - The activities undertaken by the applicant under Mid-Day Meal Programme and Anganwadi meals programme is a supply in accordance with the Section 7 of CGST Act, 2017. However, MDM programme is taxed Nil by the virtue of Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28.06.2017 mentioned at serial number 66 heading number 9962 - The Preparation and serving of food under Government sponsored Anganwadi meals programme which is undertaken by the applicant who receives reimbursement from the government of Rajasthan @ ₹ 5.40 per pregnant women/ lactating & nursing mothers/ adolescent girls and ₹ 5.25 per child per day. (as per the MOU dated 22.12.2010 between the TAPF and Director cum Deputy Secretary, Women & Child Development Department, Government of Rajasthan). Therefore, the above said activity is against consideration and hence it is covered under the scope of 'supply' as per section 7 of CGST/RGST Act, 2017.
Transfer of goods/capital equipments exclusively used for mid-day meal program and anganwadi meal programme - Held that:- As the activity of 'transfer' is covered under definition of supply under section 7 of CGST/RGST Act, 2017. Thus, the transfer of goods / capital equipments, exclusively used for Mid-Day Meal (MDM) program and Anganwadi meals program sponsored by Government, between different kitchens of applicant which are 'distinct persons' as per GST law is covered under the scope of 'supply' as per section 7 of CGST/RGST Act, 2017.
Sale of scrap - Held that:- The sale of scrap is an activity of sale for a consideration as mentioned in definition of 'supply' as per section 7 of CGST/RGST Act, 2017.
-
2019 (2) TMI 831 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN
Request for withdrawal of Advance Ruling application - Applicant has not submitted requisite fee for advance ruling - Classification of goods - quilt (other than cotton quilt).
Held that:- Since the applicant withdrew the application, therefore no ruling is given.
-
2019 (2) TMI 829 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Calling for records - applicability of time limitation under Section 25 of the KVAT Act, 2003 - vires of clauses (d) and (e) of Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - existence of powers under erstwhile Entry 54 post 15.09.2017 - 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] relied upon.
-
2019 (2) TMI 828 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - for each invoices, separate e-way bill has not been generated - Held that:- It is to be noted that, it is not a case where e-way bill does not mention all the invoices. There may be practical difficulty for the Department in tracking the invoices, when multiple number of invoices mentioned in the e-way bill generated.
The goods and vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on executing a bond - petition disposed off.
-
2019 (2) TMI 827 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment of Bank Accounts - section 83 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Held that:- A perusal of the record of the case reveals that the petitioner is not a fly by night operator and has paid duty and tax to the tune of more than rupees one hundred crore in the last year. Under the circumstances, the respondent shall explain the expediency and the rationale behind ordering attachment of all the bank accounts of the petitioner and virtually bringing its business to a grinding halt.
Issue Notice returnable on 23rd January, 2019.
-
2019 (2) TMI 742 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Exports or not - goods exported out of India directly by the manufacturer mentioning the applicant as Third Party Exporter for the purpose of Foreign Trade Policy - zero rated supply or not? - scope of Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Held that:- In the present case on the basis of the arguments made by them and scrutiny of records submitted by the applicant and the arguments put forth by them, it is found that their main question is whether the transaction effected in the present case can be considered as exports made by them or the manufacturer exporter Sai Fertilizers - On proper and detailed examination of full facts as put by the applicant at the time of the final hearing, it is found that this question is not covered under the purview of Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The subject application is not maintainable and cannot be entertained and therefore no opinion is given since the matter is beyond the purview of this Authority.
-
2019 (2) TMI 741 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Validity of provisional attachment - section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - various hardships were caused to the petitioner - Held that:- Section 83 of the CGST Act provides for provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases and inter-alia, provides that where during the pendency of any proceeding under section 67, the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue, it is necessary so to do, he may, by order in writing, attach provisionally any property, including bank account belonging to the taxable person in such manner as may be prescribed. Thus, the object of the provision is to protect the interest of the Government revenue.
In the facts of the present case, attachment of the bank accounts of the petitioner has resulted into various hardships to the petitioner which would adversely affect its business and which may result in loss of revenue to the Government, instead if the petitioner provides for some security towards its outstanding dues, the interest of the petitioner as well as the revenue can be protected.
The court is of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is permitted to pay the amount of ₹ 55,00,000/- outstanding towards excise dues by way of equal monthly installments within a period of eight months, subject to the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for an equal amount towards security of such amount within a period of one month from today - petition allowed in part.
-
2019 (2) TMI 740 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Grant of Regular Bail - Section 69 of CGST Act, 2017 - bogus billing - incriminating documents found indicating evasion of CGST duty - Held that:- In view of the fact there were justifiable grounds to arrest the petitioners under Section 69 of the CGST Act and further in view of the fact that case involves evasion of more than ₹ 80 crores of tax under the CGST and offence is punishable with imprisonment for a period of five years and complaint is stated to have already been filed, there are no ground to grant benefit of regular bail to the petitioners - petition dismissed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 739 - THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Profiteering - supply of "Socks" - 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 - application dismissed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 738 - THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Profiteering - supply of "Shirts" - 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:- The product was exempted from the Central Excise Duty, vide Notification No. 30/2004- CE dated 09.07.2004 and only attracted VAT @ 5%. After implementation of the GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, the tax rate of the above product was fixed @ 5%. Therefore, there was no reduction in the rate of tax and hence provisions of provisions of section 171 are not attracted in this case.
As far as the submission of the Applicant No. I regarding deduction of an amount of ₹ 9.5 on account of CST from the pre-GST price is concerned the same does not appear to be correct as the Kerala State Screening Committee has failed to explain under which provisions of the Kerala CST Act, 2017 it can be deducted. Moreover, there has been increase in the rate of inter-state tax as the CST was increased from 2% to 5% of IGST in respect of such sales. Therefore, the claim made by the Applicant No. I is misplaced and hence it cannot be accepted.
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 - application dismissed.
|
