|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 160 Records
-
2021 (7) TMI 742
Constitutional Validity of Sr. No. 9(ii) of the N/N. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - N/N. 10/2017 – Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - Levy of IGST - services by way of transportation of goods by vessel from a place outside India - Scope of 'Importer' within meaning of Section 2(26) of the Custom Act, 1962 - recipient of service - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of Mohit Minerals Private Limited vs. Union of India and Ors. [2020 (1) TMI 974 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] where it was held that impugned Notification No.8/2017 – Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 and the Entry 10 of the N/N.10/2017 – Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 are declared as ultra vires the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as they lack legislative competency. Both the Notifications are hereby declared to be unconstitutional.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (7) TMI 741
Violation of principles of natural justice - Summary of Show cause notice in FORM GST DRC-01 passed in violation of procedure as prescribed in Rule 142 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules 2017 (CGST Rules, 2017) and Bihar Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - Summary of order in FORM GST DRC-07, issued by respondent, without issuing the order under section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 - learned Government Pleader under instructions fairly states that the authority below i.e. Respondent No. 3 namely the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, (Patliputra), Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar committed mistake in passing the impugned order - HELD THAT:- Well, the stand taken by the officer is quite fair, but we only fail to understand as to why the officer did not apply his mind at the time of passing of the impugned order. It is only when this Court pointed out the difference, wide enough for anyone to notice in imposing the amount of penalty, did the officer realizing his mistake, agreed to rectify the same. We only caution the officer to be careful in future and not commit such mistake again, for such type of mistake not only causes harassment to the parties but also shatters faith of the people in the system.
Under similar circumstances in Pinax Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. [2021 (2) TMI 748 - PATNA HIGH COURT], we had quashed the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer.
The order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer is set aside - petition disposed off.
-
2021 (7) TMI 740
Violation of principles of natural justice - Summary of Show cause notice in FORM GST DRC-01 passed in violation of procedure as prescribed in Rule 142 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules 2017 (CGST Rules, 2017) and Bihar Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - Summary of order in FORM GST DRC-07, issued by respondent, without issuing the order under section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 - learned Government Pleader under instructions fairly states that the authority below i.e. Respondent No. 3 namely the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, (Patliputra), Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar committed mistake in passing the impugned order - HELD THAT:- Well, the stand taken by the officer is quite fair, but we only fail to understand as to why the officer did not apply his mind at the time of passing of the impugned order. It is only when this Court pointed out the difference, wide enough for anyone to notice in imposing the amount of penalty, did the officer realizing his mistake, agreed to rectify the same. We only caution the officer to be careful in future and not commit such mistake again, for such type of mistake not only causes harassment to the parties but also shatters faith of the people in the system.
Reliance placed in the case of PINAX STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, PATNA., THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, DANAPUR CIRCLE, PATNA. DEPARTMENT OF STATE TAXES, [2021 (2) TMI 748 - PATNA HIGH COURT] where the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer was quashed.
The order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer is set aside - petition disposed off.
-
2021 (7) TMI 703
Refund of Input Tax Credit - rejection mainly on the ground that no reply to SCN has been received till now - assumption taken that claimant has nothing to submit reply in support of the claim - Time limitation - section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The appellant in appeal memo as well as at the time of personal hearing conducted on 18.06.2021 submitted that he had wrongly filed refund application of ₹ 40,64,000/- by including the ITC of IGST on Capital Goods amounting to ₹ 15,02,542/-. However, he is agreed that the refund of ITC pertaining to Capital Goods are not admissible as per provisions of sub rule 4 of Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017 accordingly, he has withdrawn the refund claim to the extent of ITC amount of Capital Goods and requested to pass an order of refund of ITC to the extent of ₹ 25,61,458/-.
The appellant has submitted a letter dated 05.03.2020 which was acknowledged by the concerned divisional authority on 16.03.2020 in the instant matter of refund claim for the period April-2018 to March-2019 amounting to ₹ 40,64,000/- under which it has been clearly/explicitly stated by the appellant that they will not go for appeal against the refund rejection made by the adjudicating authority and requested to release the input in their credit ledger so that they may re-apply for the refund after removing deficiencies - the appellant has mis-conceived/mis-leaded the facts while filing of appeal to this office as he has not disclosed the vital facts that he had made a request vide written letter to the proper officer for re-credit of amount to their electronic credit ledger which were debited at the time of filing of refund application by the appellant.
The appellant has himself forfeited his right to file the appeal before Appellate Authority by submitting an undertaking before the adjudicating authority/proper officer as per explanation given under Rule 93 (2) of CGST Rules, 2017 - the instant appeal is non maintainable - Appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 700
Classification of goods - rate of tax - Puripapad - Unfried papad - HSN code - whether the said Goods of the applicant can be termed as Papad? - HELD THAT:- The product ‘Papad’ is an eatable item, originated and mainly consumed in India. We find that for determination of the correct classification of any product, ingredients used in the manufacture of the said product are a decisive factor. In the case of MANILAL COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [1991 (2) TMI 276 - CEGAT, BOMBAY], the H’ble Tribunal was of the view that the classification on the basis of predominant contents is generally accepted as proper test.
The entry No. 96 of Not. No. 02/2017- CT (rate) dated 28-6-17 has description of goods which reads as under: Papad by whatever name it is known, except when served for consumption. Therefore it can be deduced that all types of “Papad” as per trade/common parlance name are covered under the said entry. In the matters of classification of goods under taxation statutes, all the judicial forums, including the Apex Court, have stressed upon the importance of the identity of the goods in common parlance and there is a plethora of case laws which hold that for classification of goods under statutes for taxation of commercial supplies thereof, the primary test is their identity in the market, or in other words, their common parlance in the market.
The goods are of different shapes and sizes but similar in respect of the ingredients, manufacturing process and use. Due to advancement of technology, papad does not limit to the same age old traditional round shaped papad but can be in any desired shape and size. In the old era, usually ‘papad’ was manufactured manually, therefore it was easy for them to manufacture the Round Shape papad. In the modern era, by the advent of technology, the product is being manufactured by machines and dies of different shape and size is used in the machine. Therefore, with the help of dies of various size and shapes, it is convenient to manufacture different shapes and sizes of papad. Further, at entry No. 96 of Notification No. 02/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28-6-17, the description goods is 'Papad, by whatever name it is known, except when served for consumption’.
The subject Goods are classified at HSN 19059040.
-
2021 (7) TMI 696
Profiteering - benefit of input tax credit - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Let counter-affidavit be filed by the respondents within four weeks. Rejoinder-affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
List on 10th November, 2021.
-
2021 (7) TMI 694
Application for amendment of the writ petition - HELD THAT:- In the present application, it has been admitted that the unamended Section 2(6) of Integrated Goods and Services Tax, 2017 has been reproduced in the writ petition and at times, IGST Act has been referred to as ‘CGST Act’. It is stated that though they are inadvertent errors, yet they are inconsequential in nature.
Issue notice. Mr. Asheesh Jain, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 4. Mr. Manas Bhatnagar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 3.
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (7) TMI 657
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - condonation of delay in filing appeal - Section 107(1) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In response to the Personal Hearing letters, Sh. Kishan Swaroop Singhal, Counsel for the appellant, vide their letter C.No. Nil dated 07.07.2021 sent through E mail, submitted therein that now the GST portal has allowed to file application for revocation of cancelled GST registration even beyond 90 days but upto within 180 days therefore the assessee prefer to file an application for revocation of cancelled registration and the same has been approved by the competent authority by issuing REG-22.
In view of the request letter of Sh. Kishan Swaroop Singhal, counsel for the appellant dated 07.07.2021 regarding withdrawal of appeal due to revocation of GST registration has been approved by the proper officer by issuing REG-22 in the instant matter - the appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2021 (7) TMI 654
Requirement of audit by a Chartered Accountant or Cost Accountant under section 35(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 - F.Y 2017-18 - F.Y. 2018-19 & succeeding Financial years - Ordnance factories & other Central Government & Public Sector Undertakings (PSU’s) that function under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India - Applicability of exemption to a ‘defence formation’ for preparation and generation of E-way bills - goods transported - applicability of exemption on payment of GST on transport of ‘military or defence equipments’ through a goods transport agency - Input Tax Credit on inputs & input services relating - main business activity of manufacturing - food and beverages consumed in industrial canteen - manpower services hired for industrial canteen and LPG cylinders refilled for use in industrial canteen - medicines purchased in factory hospital and other inputs and input services used in factory hospital.
HELD THAT:- The applicant factory is a unit of Ordnance Factories Board (OFB) functioning under the Department oi Defence Production and Supply of Ministry of Defence. Government of India. The applicant manufactures various types of ammunitions and explosive and non-explosive components and supplies the same, mainly to Indian defence and military forces and also to sister Ordnance factories that use such goods for their production and manufacturing process - when the output is transferred to sister Ordnance factories units of armed Forces as per order, the consideration for transfer is fixed by OFB and is booked in the financial accounts of OFCh organization and the adjustment is done through book transfer. Money consideration is involved only for a small portion of the produce, where the goods are sold directly to units under Ministry of Home affairs, paramilitary forces like BSF. units of state police. defence PSU’s and private entities.
The Applicant is fulfilling all the conditions stipulated for being “Central Government”, as provided under clause (8) of section 3 of the General Clauses Act. 1897 read with Article 53 & Article 77 of the Constitution of India, since the Applicant is functioning under the Department of the Defence Production. Ministry of Defence. Government of India, and all its activities are carried out for and on behalf of the President of India. OFB Procurement Manual clearly shows that all defence contracts are in the name and on behalf of the President of India only. Thus, it is adequately evident that the Applicant is covered under the provision of section 2(53) of the CGST Act. 2017 read with clause (8) of section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 read with Article 53 & Article 77 of the Constitution of India.
Requirement of audit by a Chartered Accountant or Cost Accountant under section 35(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- This issue has been voluntarily withdrawn by the applicant vide written submissions made on 30.12.2019.
Whether the exemption to a ‘defence formation’ for preparation and generation of E-way bills is applicable to Ordnance factories & other Central Government & Public Sector Undertakings (PSU’s) that function under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India? - HELD THAT:- During the course of the hearing it was informed by the applicant that the question pertained only to themselves. Rule 138 of the GST Rules. 2017 provides for information to be furnished prior to commencement of movement of goods and generation of E -way bill. As per para 14(k) of Rule No. 138 of the CGST Rules 2018 (Notification No. 12/2018 (Central tax) e-way bill is not required to be generated when any movement of goods is being caused by defence formation under the Ministry of Defence as a consignor or a consignee - Since the applicant is functioning as a defence formation under the Ministry of Defence we are of the opinion that applicant is eligible for the benefit under Rule 138(14) (k) of the CGST Rules. It is not necessary to issue e-way bills for their supplies whenever movement of goods is being caused by them as a consignor or a consignee.
Whether exemption on payment of GST on transport of ‘military or defence equipments’ through a goods transport agency applicable to goods transported by our organization? - HELD THAT:- Applicant is supplying the subject goods i.e. military or defence equipment through a goods transport agency to the different units of Government. We find that as per clause (h). Heading 9965 or 9967. of Sr. No. 21 of Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 - In the subject case, the applicant is manufacturing and transporting goods like propellant & explosives that are used in the manufacture of ammunition. The aforesaid goods manufactured by the applicant are rightly covered under Entry Sr. No. 21. Heading 9965 or 9967. clause (h) of the Notification No. 12/2017-C.T.- (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 and therefore the said exemption is available to applicant’s transaction in respect of transport of military or defence equipments.
Whether availing of eligible Input Tax Credit on inputs & input services relating to the main business activity of manufacturing is allowed against GST liability on renting of immovable property (which is an ancillary business activity)? - N/N. 3/2018 Central fax (Rate) dated 25.1.2018 - HELD THAT:- Considering the notification and activity and status of the applicant as a ‘Government’, it has no liability to pay GST on said supply which is liable to be paid under reverse charge mechanism by the recipient of the service. As there are no taxes payable on outward supply the question of availing ITC does not arise as per the provisions of ITC under Sections 17(2) of the CGST Act. 2017. Therefore, the Applicant is not entitled to avail ITC in respect of such expenditures.
Whether Input Tax Credit is allowable in respect of food and beverages consumed in industrial canteen? - HELD THAT:- The Applicant’s activities of supply of food and beverages at the industrial canteen inside the factory premises would attract NIL rale of GST. The said supply is held to be exempt supply in terms of Sr. No. 6 of the N/N. 12/2017-C.T.(Rate) dated 28.06.2017. Since the subject supply has been held to be exempt supply by the Applicant, the ITC in respect of the food and beverages consumed in industrial factory canteen of the Applicant will not be available in terms of section 17(2) of the CGST Act. 2017 - in the present case, the applicant’s outward supply is exempted by notification. Therefore, provisions of newly amended Section 17 (5) (b) of CGST ACT is not applicable to these specific transactions of applicant. Hence ITC is not available on this transaction to the applicant.
Whether Input Tax Credit is allowable in respect of manpower services hired for industrial canteen and LPG cylinders refilled for use in industrial canteen? - HELD THAT:- The Applicant’s activities of the supply of food and beverages at the industrial canteen inside the factory premises will attract NIL rate of GST. i.e. since the said supply is exempt supply in terms of Sr. No. 6 of the Notification no. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. Since the subject supply is exempt supply, the ITC in respect of the manpower services hired for industrial canteen and ITC on LPG cylinders refilled for factory canteen of The Applicant will not be available in terms of section 17(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. Similarly the newly amended provision of section 17 (5) (b) of CGST ACT are also not applicable to the transactions of applicant because in the subject case the applicant’s outward supply is exempted from taxes and is therefore not taxable - applicant is not eligible for ITC on the inputs and input services (used for exempt outward supply) in industrial canteen i.e. on hired man power services and refilled LPG cylinder.
Whether Input Tax Credit is allowable in respect of medicines purchased in factory hospital and other inputs and input services used in factory hospital? - HELD THAT:- Considering the amended provision of Section 17(2) of CGST Act. ITC would be available in respect of medicines purchased in factory hospital and other inputs and input services used in factory hospital with effect from 01.02.2019.
-
2021 (7) TMI 653
Classification of supply - supply of goods or supply of services - determination of tariff head - online tendering - offline tendering - If tendering is service then whether it will be considered as administrative services or specific Service? - Registration Activities and their related activities - levy of GST on Registering Fees paid under Rule 73 of the Bombay Dentists Rules, 1951 by the Prospective Dental Practitioners - N/N. 12/20/7-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended.
Whether online tending to be considered as Supply of Goods or Supply of Service? - HELD THAT:- As per Section 2(12) of the CGST Act. 2017, “services”, means anything other than goods, money and securities but includes activities relating to the use of money or its conversion by cash or by any other mode, from one form, currency or denomination, to another form, currency or denomination for which a separate consideration is charged - Online Tendering does not satisfy the definition of ‘goods’ - further, IGST Act has defined Online Information and Data Access or Retrieval Services to include different services - In the present case at hand, it is found that the provisions of e-tender, which is intangible has to be delivered through telecommunication network or internet. Thus, the intention of the legislature is very clear, to treat such activities as supply of services.
Whether offline tendering to be considered as Supply of Goods or Supply of Services? - HELD THAT:- The difference between online and offline tendering is only that in the case of the former, the tender forms are sold on line and in the case of the latter, the tender forms are sold as printed matter. In offline tendering too, there are intangible products such as application, payment of fees, submission of bids. etc. These services are difficult to be identified individually. In both cases i.e offline and online tendering, forms are sold, collected from the applicant, processed and finally after the entire process of documentation, verification of the applicant’s position to perform the contract, tenders are allotted to a particular person to the exclusion of others. In the process, processing fees and other deposits may also be collected from the various persons who are willing to fulfill their requirement for procurement of goods or services.
Offline Tendering does not satisfy the definition of ‘goods’, in its entirety. The definition of ‘services’ as mentioned in the Business Dictionary: “Intangible products such as accounting, banking, cleaning, consultancy, education, insurance, expertise, medical treatment, or transportation”. Sometimes services are difficult to identify because they are closely associated with a goods: such as the combination of a diagnosis with the administration of a medicine. No transfer of possession or ownership takes place when services are sold - Hence offline tendering, will also be considered as rendering of services.
Under which tariff head the Online Tendering should get taxed? - HELD THAT:- The GST Tariff for services comprises of Chapter 99. Headings 9954 to 9999. It is seen that online tendering is not specifically mentioned in any of the Headings and therefore it is fell that the Appropriate Heading in this case would be Heading 9997 since the said heading Covers other services - Since Online Tendering as a service is not specified Anywhere, the same should get taxed under Service Heading 9997.
Under which tariff head the Offline Tendering should get taxed? - HELD THAT:- The process of offline tendering is also a supply of services. The GST Tariff for services comprises of Chapter 99 Headings 9954 to 9999. It is seen that offline tendering is not specifically mentioned in any of the Headings and therefore it is felt that the appropriate Heading in this case would be Heading 9997 since the said heading covers other services - Since Offline rendering as a service is not specified anywhere, the same should get taxed under Service Heading 9997.
If tendering is service then whether it will be considered as administrative services or specific Service? - scope of Advance Ruling - HELD THAT:- This specific question does not fall under the clauses mentioned in Section (97) (2) of the CGST Act. However it is already held the both, online and offline services are classifiable under Service Heading 9997 as other miscellaneous services including services nowhere else specified).
Whether the activities conducted by the Maharashtra State Dental Council are the “Registration Activities and their related activities laid down in the Act” exempted under the N/N. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended and consequently, the receipt of the Registering Fees paid under Rule 73 of the Bombay Dentists Rules, 1951 by the Prospective Dental Practitioners to the Council is exempted from the levy of Goods and Services tax? - HELD THAT:- N/N. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 exempts the intra-State supply of services of description as specified in column (3) of the Table mentioned therein from payment of GST. The services, mentioned in the subject application, as rendered by the applicant does not specifically find mention in the said notification - the activities of the applicant are not exempted under the said notification and consequently, the receipt of the Registering Fees by the applicant is not exempted from the levy of Goods and Service tax.
-
2021 (7) TMI 652
Levy of GST - maintenance charges collected by Emerald Court Co-op Housing Society Ltd (CHS) from members of its society - no sale by the Co-operative Housing Societies to their own permanent members - doctrine of mutuality - Serial No. 77 of N/N. 12/2017 C.T.-(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - HELD THAT:- GST is not liable to be paid on the amounts received by the society them from its members because of the principle of mutuality due to which, the society cannot be considered as an entity, separate from the individual members of the society - there were a lot of litigations and disputes by clubs/associations/ societies on this issue, earlier. However the said issue, with respect to Goods and Services Tax has been sought to be addressed by way of the proposed amendment made to Section 7 of the GST Act in the finance Budget, 2021.
The amendment in section 7 has received the assent of the President of India on the 28th March, 2021 and in view of the same the issue of principles of mutuality in the case of cooperative societies like the applicant has been settled.
In view of the amended Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017, it is found that the applicant society and its members are distinct persons and the amounts received by the applicant, against maintenance charges, from its members are nothing but consideration received for supply of goods/services as a separate entity - The principles of mutuality, which has been cited by the applicant to support its contention that GST is not leviable on the maintenance charges collected by them from its members, is not applicable in view of the amended Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, the applicant has to pay GST on the said amounts received against maintenance charges, from its members.
The applicant is liable to pay GST on maintenance charges (by whatever name called) collected from its members, if the monthly subscription or contribution charged from the members is more then ₹ 7,500/- per month.
-
2021 (7) TMI 651
Classification of goods - Railway parts such as Brush Holder Assembly and parts, Lead Wires for locomotives and Insulating Rods Locomotives manufactured as per the specification and drawings of Indian Railways - to be classified under HSN Heading 8505, 8544 and 8547 @ 18% or under HSN Heading 8607 @12%?
HELD THAT:- As per Note 3 to Section XVII, references in Chapters 86 to 88 to “parts” or “accessories” do not apply to parts or accessories which are not suitable for use solely or principally with the articles of those Chapters. A part or accessory which answers to a description in two or more of the headings of those Chapters is to be classified under that heading which corresponds to the principal use of that part of accessory - Note 3 to Section XVII mentions that references in Chapters 86 to 88 to “parts” or “accessories” do not apply to parts or accessories which are not suitable for use solely or principally with the articles of those Chapters. A part or accessory which answers to a description in two or more of the headings of those Chapters is to be classified under that heading which corresponds to the principal use of that part of accessory.
In the instant case, as per the applicant's submissions, it is found that the impugned goods are suitable for use solely or principally with Railway Locomotives falling under Chapter 86 and therefore Note 3 does not exclude the subject products, rather the said Note 3 includes the impugned products - the second condition of Chapter 86.07 is also fulfilled in the subject case.
The impugned goods i.e. Brush Holder Assembly and parts. Lead Wires for locomotives and Insulating Rods Locomotives manufactured by the applicant as per the specification and drawings of Indian Railways are classifiable under heading 86.07.
-
2021 (7) TMI 650
Release of seized vehicle alongwith the goods - validity of one of the e-way bills had expired - for another consignment, no e-way bill was generated - HELD THAT:- The appellate authority has given the first date of hearing in the month of September, 2021. In the meantime, the assessing officer is demanding full recovery of tax and penalty before releasing the vehicle and the goods. The petitioner has therefore approached this Court for release of the same. Considering the facts of the case and in particular, the fact that the petitioner has preferred appeal against the order of assessment after making pre-deposit of ₹ 64,870/-, if the petitioner provides bank guarantee for 25% of the disputed tax and penalty (inclusive of the pre-deposit which is already made), the vehicle and the goods should be released.
The petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall furnish an unconditional bank guarantee of ₹ 2,60,000/- in favour of the department - Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (7) TMI 647
Validity of blocking of the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner - benefit of the input credit could not be availed - sub-rule (3) of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- There was some technical error on the part of the petitioner in wrongly submitting the details of the input credit in different forms than the requisite form. Be that at it may, such issues are not dwelled upon, suffice it to observe that the primary concern of the petitioner appears to have been redressed by operation of sub-rule (3) of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, to the effect that the impugned blockage has ceased to have effect, as already a period of more than one year has passed, after the electronic ledger of the petitioner was blocked on January 28, 2020.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (7) TMI 645
Seeking direction to the respondents to carry forward CENVAT credit with interest - direction to open the portal to carry forward the excess credit through TRAN-1 - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. Mr.Ruchir Mishra, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1.
Issue notice to respondent nos.2 to 4 through Standing Counsel, returnable for 07th October, 2021.
-
2021 (7) TMI 639
Removal of seal of the factory premises with immediate effect - respondents fairly submits that the seal put by the respondent is only on the cigarette manufacturing machines and is no seal put on the factory premises - section 67(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Response of respondents is that if the petitioner prefers appropriate application for obtaining copies of necessary records and books, the same shall be provided to them in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection - thus, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this petition - the petition is disposed off by holding that there exists no seal on the factory premises and therefore, the petitioner can enter and use the factory premises.
-
2021 (7) TMI 604
Levy of GST - supply of service or not - pure agent services - payment made to American Academy of Professional Coders (AAPC) as examination fee for students on behalf of some of the students of the applicant institute - tax liability, when the applicant is collecting the actual examination fee and remitting that amount to AAPC as such without taking any service charges either from students or from AAPC - payment made to AAPC as examination fee on behalf of outside students - applicability of decision of Karnataka Advance Ruling in IN RE: M/S. ARIVU EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. [2019 (10) TMI 757 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KARNATAKA] that such payment of examination fee is not a service chargeable to tax under GST laws.
Whether the amount of examination fee collected and paid by the applicant to AAPC satisfy the requirement of Rule 33 of the CGST Rules, 2017 so as to be excluded from the value of taxable supply provided by the applicant?
HELD THAT:-In the first situation, the applicant is providing training services in relation to medical coding program to the students enrolled with them to appear in the examination conducted by the AAPC. The applicant is collecting fees for such training provided by them and is discharging GST at the rate of 18% on the fees collected. They are collecting the amount required to be paid as exam fees from the students in addition to their training fees and making payment of the exam fee amount through the online facility to AAPC. The applicant is not collecting any service charge for providing the facility for payment of exam fee either from the students or from AAPC - In the second situation the applicant is providing the same online facilities for payment of fees to students who are appearing for the examination conducted by the AAPC but are not enrolled with them for training. The facility of payment of fees through online platform is extended to interested students who approach them.
The examination fees is paid by the applicant to AAPC for the examination and certification services provided by the AAPC to the students in addition to the training and fee payment facilitation service provided to the students by the applicant. Therefore, all the conditions mentioned in the said Rule 33 for exclusion of the amount collected as examination fee from taxable value of services provided by the applicant is satisfied - In order to come within the scope and meaning of supply as defined in Section 7 of the CGST Act the activity / transaction shall be for a consideration in the course or furtherance of business. Though the fee payment facilitation services are provided by the applicant in the course or furtherance of their business as the same is being made without consideration it falls outside the meaning and scope of supply as defined in Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the applicant is not liable to pay GST on the fee payment facilitation services provided to outside students without consideration.
Scope of Advance Ruling - Applicability of ruling of the Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling in M/s. Arivu Educational Consultants Private Ltd. - HELD THAT:- The question not being in respect of any of the matters on which advance ruling can be sought, this authority is not having jurisdiction to give ruling on the question.
-
2021 (7) TMI 602
Seeking permission to withdraw Writ Petition - the same challenge show cause notice issued under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- This Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to put forth its submissions in regard to the preliminary question of assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer. Let this point be decided first by way of a speaking order before the authority proceeds with the matter on merits, if at all.
-
2021 (7) TMI 600
Levy of interest under Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - interest on cash remittances - interest on remittances by way of adjustment of electronic credit register - HELD THAT:- In this case, the provisions of Section 42 are not relevant, insofar as the impugned order itself records that the assessee has, on receipt of intimation of the wrongful claim of input tax credit (ITC), accepted the error in claim and has reversed ITC, both attributable to CGST and SGST through voluntary payment of tax in Form GST DRC-03 - The provisions of Section 42 can only be invoked in a situation where the mismatch is on account of the error in the database of the revenue or a mistake that has been occasioned at the end of the revenue. In a case where the claim of ITC by an assessee is erroneous, as in this case, then the question of Section 42 does not arise at all, since it is not the case of mismatch, one of wrongful claim of ITC.
Levy of interest on belated cash remittance - HELD THAT:- It is compensatory and mandatory and the levy is upheld to this extent.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (7) TMI 595
Reimbursement of IGST collected on equipment/articles - HELD THAT:- The notifications issued by the State of Haryana and State of Gujarat are appended as Annexures P2 and P3 and are dated 17.05.2021 and 01.05.2021 respectively - Via these notifications, the State of Haryana and State of Gujarat have taken a decision, inter alia, to reimburse the IGST collected on equipment/articles referred to in the aforementioned notifications.
List on 14.09.2021.
|
