|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 156 Records
-
2020 (2) TMI 1679
Seeking release of the seized gold ornaments - HELD THAT:- The writ application is disposed off, directing the Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise & Customs Opposite Party No.1 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, by passing a reasoned order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
The writ application is accordingly disposed of.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1675
Uploading FORM GST TRAN-1 - HELD THAT:- We take note of the fact that, challenge in these appeals are against an interim order. The said order does not contain any specific directions. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents in the writ petition was only directed to get instruction with respect to the alleged non-compliance of the directions contained in the earlier judgments. It is well within liberty of the appellants herein to point out the above mentioned aspects before the learned Single Judge and to seek appropriate modification of the interim order, if found necessary. We do not find anything to presume that, the learned Single Judge will not consider such submissions, if made with supporting materials.
The above writ appeals are hereby dismissed by reserving liberty to the appellants to raise all the contentions raised herein before the learned Single Judge, in seeking modification of the impugned interim order, if found necessary.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1654
Profiteering - Power Bank Portronics Power Slice 10 - allegation is that the benefit of reduction in the GST rate was not passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in the price - contravention of Section 171 of CGST Act - Interest - Penalty - HELD THAT:- Considering submissions of the Respondent and other material placed on record and it is revealed that the Respondent did not submit the supply chain wise data to the DGAP during the period of investigation. He has also accepted it during the hearings before this Authority and stated that he had not supplied supply chain wise data. However, the Respondent vide his submissions dated 06.12.2019 has furnished the invoices of sale from different locations/segments along with detailed segment wise invoice details in excel sheets before this Authority. The DGAP, after examining the same has reported vide his supplementary Report dated 23.12.2019 that the fresh set of segment/location wise (or in other words supply channel wise) sales data submitted by the Respondent during the hearings before this Authority has been analysed, and that the profiteered amount may vary if the same was determined segment-wise.
Without going into merits of the case and without considering the other submissions of the Respondent and the Applicant No. 1 at this stage, we find it imperative that there is need of re-computation of the profiteered amount. All other submissions of the Applicants and the Respondent will be duly considered after the final computation of the profiteered amount is done - this Authority under rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules 2017 directs the DGAP to further investigate the following issues and to furnish his Report accordingly under Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Application disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1607
Levy of IGST - Job-work - import of iron ore for conversion into pellets and export the resultant product (Iron ore pellets) back to same supplier - import duty is not applicable in view of the exemption under General Exemption No. 66 (Exemption Notification No. 32/97-Cus dated 1st April, 1997) for job work - liability of applicant as recipient of imported iron ore to pay the IGST - input tax credit - IGST so paid as per Section 16 of the CGST Act - refund of unutilised input tax credit on export of services as per Section 16(3)(a) of the IGST Act and 54(3) of the CGST Act - time limitation.
HELD THAT:- It is an admitted position of the appellant that after conversion of iron ore into pellets, the pellets are exported to the non-resident party or to any other non-resident parties as nominated by the non-resident with whom they have/intend to have contract. Hence, their contention that they are exporting only services, but not goods is not tenable.
Whether the said goods exported by appellant are subjected to export duty' whereby the proviso to Sec. 54(3) ibid is attracted? - HELD THAT:- The statutory provision i.e, proviso to Sec.54 (3) ibid speaks of goods which are subject to export duty'. The phrase 'subject to export deity' is equivalent to leviable to export duty', in the given context. It is not denied that the goods exported are covered under the Export Tariff as being subject to i.e., leviable to export duty, though by an exemption Notification such export duty payable is NIL. It is well-settled principle that goods being exempted or chargeable to Nil rate of duty by virtue of Notifications etc., does not remove the goods from the category of those 'leviable to duty'.
In the instant case also, the exported goods are specified in the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as subjected to export duty; while by a Notification issued under Section 25 (1) of the Customs Act, the same were exempted. Hence, the ratio of and principles laid down in the above decisions is clearly applicable, whereby the goods have to be treated as falling within the criterion ' subject to export duty' - the phrase 'subject to export duty’ is used in the proviso, without any qualification/restriction such as 'other than those exempted or Nil rate', as has been used in the clause (ii) immediately preceding the proviso to Section 54(3). It is well-settled that the words in a statute must be given their plain, natural meaning and that the Legislature, when used certain words/phrases in a given situation and not used such words/phrases in another situation, there is a conscious legislative intent in such non-usage. We further find that the appellants have also not provided any authoritative texts/support to negate the finding of the lower authority in this regard.
On a careful reading of the correct position of the statute vis-a-vis the appellant's contention, it clearly emerges that the language employed in the statute as discussed in the paras above are plain and unambiguous and it amply conveys the legislative intent.
Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The AAR decision was communicated to appellant on 21.05.2019. The appeal was filed on 26.06.2019, with regard to the ruling rendered vide point (4) mentioned therein. The same was filed in time and has been answered in the preceding paragraphs. However, the additional grounds of appeal preferred by the appellant vide their letter Ref No. CCPL/GST/19-20/23 dated 16.01.2020 are barred by limitation as contained in Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 as it is filed beyond a period of thirty days from the date on which the ruling sought to be appealed against is communicated to the concerned officer, the jurisdictional officer and the applicant. The said additional grounds of appeal filed by the appellant vide their letter Ref No. CCPL/GST/19-20/23 dated 16.01.2020 is also barred by the further extended period of limitation as contained in the proviso to Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 which provided a further period not exceeding thirty days - As the additional submissions vide which the additional grounds for appeal have been preferred are hit by limitation, this Authority being bound by the statute, is not empowered to entertain the same Hence, the said 'additional ground' is rejected on the grounds of limitation, and thereby without any need to delve into the merits of the same.
The Ruling given by AAR, Goa being consistent with the extant statute is maintained. The appeal dated 26.06.2019 as well as the additional grounds of appeal dated 16.01.2020 of the appellant are rejected.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1606
Service of writ application - HELD THAT:- As an interim measure, it is directed that, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to Annexures- 6 & 7, till the next date.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner shall cooperate so far as the proceeding before the Central GST authority is concerned.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1576
Interest on the belated payment of taxes - Section 50 of the CGST Act - gross tax liability or net tax liability after the adjustment of the input tax liability - HELD THAT:- Interim relief is granted.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1573
Seeking grant of Bail - Evasion of CGST duty - recovery and seizure of a large number of incriminating documents indicating evasion of CGST duty - group of traders fabricating heavy sale and purchase transactions among themselves - HELD THAT:- Despite the grant of opportunity to the learned Senior Special Public Prosecutor to let this Court know how the role of petitioner herein was graver than that of principal accused Vikas Goel, who has already been granted the concession of bail, it could not be explained away.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case including the ground of parity and trial not likely to be concluded in near future and accused having already spent a considerable duration in judicial custody, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of concession of regular bail - The application is allowed and petitioner-accused Vinod Kumar Agarwal is admitted to bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1527
Grant of Regular Bail - offence under Sections 132(1)(B)(C)(F)(J)(K)(L), 132(1)(i) and 132(1)(iv) of the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT:- The applicant is in jail since 18.07.2019 - investigation is over and chargesheet is filed.
Perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.
The present application is allowed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1510
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - Confiscation of detained goods - transportation of goods without valid e-Way bill - inter-State sale - HELD THAT:- Since the order under challenge in this petition is appealable, the petitioner are permitted to pursue such appeal for which, it is informed that limitation period has yet not expired. However, considering the facts of the case, the goods of the petitioner which are in the nature of TMT Bars, shall be released provisionally on the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax and penalty demand and furnishing a bond for securing the rest of the amount.
Petition is disposed of.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1507
Rectification of TRAN-I - Inadvertent error in filing of TRAN-1 Form - High Court directs the Respondents to either open the online portal so as to enable the Petitioner to again file the rectified TRAN-I Form electronically or accept the manually filed TRAN-I Form with the correction on or before 31st July, 2019.
HELD THAT:- Issue Notice.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1490
Permission for withdrawal of petition - When the Bench was dismissing the instant petition for grant of regular bail, learned counsel for petitioner prays for withdrawal of the same - HELD THAT:- The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1471
Classification of goods - Coach Work like Roof Mounted AC Package Unit for passenger coaches - to be classified under Chapter Sub Heading 86079910 or otherwise? - HELD THAT:- The “Roof Mounted AC Package Unit”, specially meant for the Railways, as per the design and layout provided by them, are integral part of the coach and rightly classifiable under chapter 86.07.
In the instant case, the “Roof Mounted AC Package Unit” would be manufactured by the applicant, strictly as per the specification and design provided by the Indian Railways (RDSO) and specially meant to be solely used in railway coaches and nowhere else. Accordingly, we observe that the ratio of the above referred judgments is squarely applicable in the instant case that the “Roof Mounted AC Package Unit” are the interior fittings inside the Coach and they are suitably classifiable under Tariff heading 86079910 i.e. “Parts of Coach work of railways running stock”.
The classification of the “Roof Mounted AC Package Unit”, manufactured as per the specific design and layout provided by the Railways (RDSO) and supplied to the Indian Railways only and no-where else, falls under Chapter 86.07 of the GST Tariff.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1470
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 - Project Management Consultancy services (PMC) under the contract for PMAY - pure services or not - exemption 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 - 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.
Pure services or not - exemption 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 - HELD THAT:- The services mentioned in the contract would 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 Service 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.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1469
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 - Project Management Consultancy services (PMC) under the contract for PMAY - pure services or not - exemption 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 - 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.
Pure services or not - exemption 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 - HELD THAT:- The services mentioned in the contract would 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 Service 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.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1468
Classification of goods - Rate of GST - sleeping bags - whether qualify as "Other Sleeping Bag, filled and/or quilted with other textile material (excluding filling of Feathers or down)" falling under Chapter Heading 94043090 and attract GST at the rate of 12% Adv.? - HELD THAT:- As per the description provided by the applicant and as per the "Specification of sleeping bag" of tender notice of NDRF, the sleeping bag should have insulation of non allergic synthetic fill, outer shell should be of 100% polyester and treated with a durable water repellant finish, inside shell should be of anti-carcinogen, anti-allergic material, containing 50% cotton. Further as per the description provided by the applicant the inner fill is quilted in order to keep the layer intact. In view of this, we observe that the sleeping bag in question is made up of textile material, does not have fill of feather or down and quilted to keep the layer intact.
As per the Rule 3a of the Rules of Interpretation, as applicable to the Customs Tariff, the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to heading having more general description - in view of the application of the applicant the impugned product falls under the category of quilted textile material and accordingly liable to be classified under Chapter Heading 9404 30 90 and accordingly attracts to such GST rate as prescribed under Notification No. 01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended).
-
2020 (2) TMI 1454
Seeking declaration that transitional Input Tax Credit is admissible to the petitioners - Section 140(3) of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- On perusal of Section 140(3) , it is clear that they nowhere provide for the petitioners to submit any CTD to claim the transitional credit.
As far as the reliance placed on behalf of the respondents on the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2017 and the Notification No. 21/2017 is concerned, it is true that the Notification No. 21/2017 issued under sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2017 prescribes procedure to avail the transitional credit of Cenvat by a dealer or a trader, who was not registered under the Central Excise Law - On perusal of the Rule 15 and more particularly explanation thereto, it appears that “Specified goods” for the sub-rule (2) would mean such goods which have a value more than rupees twenty five thousand per piece and bear the brand name of the manufacturer or the principal manufacturer and are identifiable by a distinct number such as chassis or engine number of a car.
Sub-rule (2) provides that a person registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, who was not required to register under the Excise Act shall be deemed to be in possession of a document evidencing payment of duty, if the manufacturer of the specified goods on which duty of Central Excise was leviable has issued a credit transfer document (CTD) to him, in relation to such specified goods held in stock by him on 1st of July, 2017 - In the facts of the case, the petitioners are not having CTD, but have produced on record the copies of the invoice received from the dealers along with copies of invoice issued by the manufacturer of the cars or spare parts (as applicable) in name of the dealers showing the payment of Excise Duty along with the Chassis Number of cars (in case of cars).
The respondents are required to consider the documents furnished by the petitioners in support of the claim of transitional credit with regard to cars and spare parts lying in the stock of the petitioners as on 30th June, 2017 like invoices bearing the name of petitioners issued by the dealer and the invoices issued by the manufacturers in name of the dealer with details such as Chassis Number of the car in case of cars. If the respondents are satisfied on basis of such documents that the Excise Duty has been paid by the manufacturer, the Excise Duty paid should be allowed as transitional credit in the hands of the petitioners - Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1418
Classification of goods - foot/ floor mats which are designed to be used solely and principally only by motor vehicle manufacturers as par and accessories of motor vehicle and are made of Carpets falling under Chapter 57 - foot/ floor mats which are designed to be used solely and principally only by motor vehicle manufacturers as par and accessories of motor vehicle and are made of PVC Plastic falling under Chapter 39 - foot/ floor mats which are designed to be used solely and principally only by motor vehicle manufacturers as par and accessories of motor vehicle and are made of PVC Plastic falling under Chapter 39 - foot/ floor mats which are designed to be used solely and principally only by motor vehicle manufacturers as par and accessories of motor vehicle and are made of top layer of carpets falling under Chapter 56 and lower layer of PVC Plastic falling under Chapter 39.
HELD THAT:- In order to decide the admissibility of the application, the applicant was called upon to appear before this Authority on 25.02.2020 vide memo no. 18 dated 17.02.2020, but neither the applicant appeared before the Authority nor did it seek any adjournment.
Since, the Authority for Advance Ruling is bound to pronounce ruling within 90 days of the receipt of application as per Section 98(6) of the CGST/HGST Act. The applicant cannot be granted any further opportunity of hearing - the application of Advance Ruling is rejected under Section 98 (2) of the CGST/HGST Act.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1416
Input Tax Credit (ITC) of GST charged - GST charged by vendor for Canteen Service availed by it for its employees - service mandatorily to be provided under Factories Act, 1948 by the applicant company - Liability of GST on distribution of Coupons among employees - HSN Code - determination of Fair market value of coupons based on the rate charged to employees - Composite supply or mixed supply.
HELD THAT:- The conjoint reading of section 16 and 17 (5) (b) of CGST Act suggest that the input tax credit with respect to food and beverages and outdoor catering shall be available only where an inward supply of such goods or services or both is used by a registered person for making an outward taxable supply of the same category of goods or services or both or as an element of a taxable composite or mixed supply - In the instant case, the applicant is a registered taxable person who is paying tax (GST) on the inward supply of goods or services or both, food and catering service in this case. But the applicant is engaged in the business of manufacturing of automobiles and not in the business of provision of food or catering. The mandate of the Factories Act to provide meals to the employees does not mean that such provision is in the course of furtherance of business. Even if the provision of food and catering had been in the course of furtherance of business, the applicant would not have been entitled to the input tax credit in light of the express bar provided under section 17 (5) (b)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017.
A careful reading of section 17(5) would suggest that this proviso is with regard to the provision contained in section 17 (5) (b)(iii) and not section 17 (5) (b)(i) - In light of the said provisions, the applicant is not eligible for claim of input tax credit with respect to the goods and services tax paid by it against the receipt of food and catering services supplied by the vendor.
Liability to pay tax on the distribution of coupons - HELD THAT:- The applicant company is incurring expenditure with regard to these facilities provided to the caterer. The caterer provides food and beverage services to the employees of the applicant and payment to that effect is made to the caterer by the applicant company. The company claims that in order to maintain discipline and prevent food wastage, the company recovers a part (25%) of the amount paid to the caterer from the employees. Had the applicant company not provided the above mentioned supplies free of cost to the caterer, the caterer would have had to make arrangements and incur expenditure for the same and it would have led to an increase in the cost of supply. But in this case, these facilities are provided by the company free of cost and in turn, the caterer provides food to the employees of the company at a subsidized rate. The company is charging around 25% of the charges paid to the caterer from the employees. The company claims to be recovering these charges in order to maintain discipline and to check wastage of food, but in essence, these are charges recovered by the company in lieu of facilities provided to the caterer - the applicant has been incurring the cost of LPG etc. and the caterer is subsidizing the food in lieu of that, therefore, in light of the provisions of section 15 (2) (b) and 15 (2) (e) of the Act, the values of coupon is a part of the value of services provided by the caterer and as such the coupon value is taxable.
Company purchases edible items like Sweets, Dry fruits and gifts like electronics, gold & silver coins/articles etc. for the purpose of Business Promotion - Whether Company is eligible to take Input Tax Credit on such business promotion expenses or not? - HELD THAT:- The purchase and distribution of sweets, dry fruits, coins or silver items for the purpose of business promotion cannot be termed as an activity carried out in the course or furtherance of business by any stretch of imagination - The applicant itself has submitted that it is distributing these items to its customers and employees by way of presents. Therefore, the applicant is not eligible for credit of input tax against the inward supply of these items.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1414
Levy of compensation cess - coal rejects to be supplied (disposed of) by way of sale at very nominal price by the power plants of the applicant - coal rejects to be supplied by the power plants of the applicant is covered under HSN 2701 - coal rejects to be supplied (disposed of) by way of sale at very nominal price by the power plants of the applicant - Benefit of N/N. 01/2017compensation cess (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, Sr. No. 41A - coal rejects to be supplied (disposed of) by way of sale at very nominal price by the power plants of the applicant.
HELD THAT:- As per Notification No. 01/2017- compensation cess (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, ₹ 400 per tone is leviable as compensation cess under Chapter Heading / Sub-heading 2701. Further as per Notification No. 01/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, 2.5% Central GST is also leviable for the same heading i.e. 2701 under schedule l. Therefore, the power plant of the applicant attracts levy of compensation cess @ 400/per tonne - Coal rejects to be supplied by the power plant of the applicant is rightly covered under HSN 2701 for levy of compensation cess @ 400/- per tonne as HSN 2701 covers "Coal; briquettes, ovoids and similar solid fuels manufactured from coal."
CBIC prescribes nil rate of GST compensation cess on Coal rejects supplied by a coal washery, arising out of coal on which compensation cess has been paid and no input tax credit thereof has been availed by any person vide notification No. 02/2018- compensation cess (Rate) dt. 26.07.2018. As the applicant is not covered under the coal washery which is also endorsed by the applicant in Para 12 of their application, the applicant is not covered for the exemption from compensation cess vide notification No. 02/2018-compensation cess (Rate) dated 26.07.2018 - Thus, the applicant is not covered under any other exemption from levy of compensation cess.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1378
Validity of Summon Order - it was repeatedly asked to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether summons are issued in accordance with law? - He states that there is power to issue summons but the partner of the petitioner be exempted from personal appearance.
HELD THAT:- No good reason is made out to interfere in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
........
|
