Pricing Login

Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice : Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding

For Sales / Support:
WhatsApp

9911796707

Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals Articles News D. Forum Highlights Notes

🚨 Important Update for Our Users

We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.

Home

Case Laws

Home Case Index All Cases GST This

Law
Court
Citation	- -
Landmark
Order by

Advanced Search Options

GST - Case Laws

Showing 201 to 220 of 16293 Records

2025 (6) TMI 994

Seeking release of freezed personal bank accounts of petitioner - contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner's personal account cannot be frozen when the liability is fixed on the club - HELD THAT:- This Court is inclined to allow the writ petition. The impugned order is quashed to the extent the liability is fixed on the petitioner. Consequently, the 2nd respondent bank is directed to lift the attachment of petitioner's personal account No. 612101502039.

Petition allowed.
2025 (6) TMI 993

Duplication of a pre-deposit imposed twice on the same entity - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that there is duplication, the Petitioner is permitted to file two appeals challenging the orders dated 28th January 2025 and 1st February 2025, before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. However, insofar as the prescribed pre-deposit is concerned, the said amount shall be paid only in respect of the total amount as mentioned in the Order-in-Original dated 28th January, 2025 i.e. Rs. 81,41,737/- which is a sum of two amounts i.e. Rs. 64,31,703/- and Rs. 17,10,034/-. No pre-deposit would be required to be made in respect of the Order-in-Original dated 01st February, 2025.

Let the said appeals be filed by 15th July, 2025 with one pre-deposit amount in the above terms. The appeals shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation or lack of pre-deposit and shall be adjudicated on merits.

Petition disposed off.
2025 (6) TMI 992

Challenge to SCN and consequent order - vires of N/N. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 and N/N. 56/2023-State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 - Petitioner had no access to the GST Portal due to cancellation of the GST registration - no reply to the SCN could be filed - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact that the Petitioner was not able to access the GST Portal due to the cancellation of GST Registration, the Petitioner deserves to be provided with a proper opportunity to file a reply and attend a personal hearing. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is relegated to the Adjudicating Authority to be heard on merits.

Petition disposed off.
2025 (6) TMI 991

Retrospective cancellation of GST Registration of the Petitioner - basis for the cancellation of the GST Registration of the Petitioner is a suspicious transaction with one M/s Vardhman Trading Company - HELD THAT:- Petitioner submits that the revocation application filed by the Petitioner be decided at the earliest. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has no objection to this.

It is accordingly directed that the pending application for seeking revocation of the impugned order be decided within one month from the date of this order. The said decision shall be communicated to the Petitioner.

Petition disposed off.
2025 (6) TMI 990

Classification of mango pulp - classifiable under Entry No. 30A of Schedule I of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, attracting GST at the concessional rate of 5% or not - validity of Circular No. 179/11/2022-GST dated 03.08.2022 - HELD THAT:- In Vimal Agro [2024 (5) TMI 266 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], this Court has held that 'as “mango pulp” would fall under the third category of “mangoes (other than mango sliced, dried)” would be liable to levy at the rate of 12% as per Entry No. 16 which was amended so as to clarify the intention of council to continue to levy GST at 12% on “mangoes (other than mango sliced, dried)” which would include “mango pulp” from 1st July 2017.'

The controversy in the present petitions is identical to the issues which were decided in Vimal Agro and therefore the aforesaid decision in Vimal Agro will be squarely applicable to the present petitions. Accordingly, it is clarified that the petitioners would be liable to pay GST on the product “Mango pulp” at the rate of 12% from 1st July, 2017 and not at the rate of 5% (as claimed by the petitioners) or 18% (as claimed by the Respondents) for the period 01.07.2017 to 18.07.2022.

Conclusion - i) Mango pulp is taxable at 12% GST from 01.07.2017. ii) The impugned Circular No. 179/11/2022-GST is valid and not ultra vires. iii) The petitioner's challenge to the Circular and classification is rejected. iv) The petitioner is liable to pay GST at 12% for mango pulp for the period 01.07.2017 to 18.07.2022. v) The show cause notices issued for recovery of differential GST are valid but limited to the 12% rate and relevant period.

Petition allowed in part.
2025 (6) TMI 989

Seeking the details and explanation pertaining to the difference in the value of outward supplies declared in GSTR 1 and value of the E–way Bills raised in the financial year 2020-2021 - HELD THAT:- The scheme of Section 73, 74 and 75 enables the assessee to seek for adjournment not in excess of three times and it is pertinent to note that sub-section 5 succeeds sub-section 4, which enables the assessee to seek for a personal hearing. Section 75 relates to the procedural aspect that is required to be followed by the Authorities in the matter of determination of assessment, more particularly, of tax that has escaped assessment - If the statute stipulates a matter to be performed in a particular manner, the same shall be performed in that manner only. Law in this regard is no more res integra and is well-settled by catena of judgments of the Apex Court.

Conclusion - In the case on hand, the order does not disclose any justifiable reasons for rejecting the application for request for adjournment and that apart, the approach itself appears to be incorrect and contrary to the scheme of Section 75, more particularly, sub-section 4 and 5 of Section 75.

In that view of the matter, the order of assessment is set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the competent authority to proceed from the stage of the 28.11.2024 notice - petition disposed off by way of remand.
2025 (6) TMI 988

Exemption from GST as per Entry 54 (g) of the exemption Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017 - Commission received under “Selling arrangement” clause - services rendered by clinic in relation to health care services under the Entry No. 46 of the exemption Notification No. 12 of 2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 - Veterinary Services - Entry 54(a) of the exemption Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017 - Laboratory testing and analysis services.

Commission charged by VHPL under the selling arrangement for promoting, marketing, and selling birds of VRBFL and Venco should be classified under Service Accounting Code (SAC) 9986 (Support services to agriculture, hunting, forestry, fishing, mining and utilities) or not - HELD THAT:- The applicant is providing services of marketing and selling of chicks, carrying out sales promotion, identification of new customers, etc., in addition to procurement of orders, preparation of invoices, collecting advances, collecting payment and other incidental activities. It is relevant to understand that the applicant is acting as a commission agent for Venkateshwara Research and Breeding Farm Ltd. They are basically engaged in sale of ‘chicks’ which are sold to other poultry farmers who breed these chicks into hens or roosters. These hens and roosters are then sold by these poultry farm owners for food, meat, eggs etc. It is seen from the applicant’s submission that the existing broiler breeders who are engaged in commercial day-old chick gets pitched by the applicant for backward integration, i.e. purchasing parent hicks of new breed from group companies and then producing day old commercial chicks at their own farms. It includes factoring and analyzing the size of business of target customers, the customer’s hatchery farms, background checks etc., for acquiring and pitching these prospective clients. Heading 9986 under Notification 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 covers support services to Agriculture, which includes animal husbandry.

The services provided by the applicant in the instant case is not sale or support services for any agricultural produce but a sale in the general wholesale trade. Therefore, the said services are appropriately classifiable under Heading 996111 - the provisions of Sl.no.54 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 would not be applicable to the said services provided by the applicant.

Veterinary services provided by the applicant - HELD THAT:- The said services would be appropriately classified under Heading 998352 of the Tariff. The explanatory notes also provide that the said services includes animal and veterinary hospital and non-hospital medical, surgical and dental services delivered to livestock. The services are aimed at curing, restoring and/or maintaining the health of the animal; hospital, laboratory and technical services for livestock; provision of dietary recommendations for livestock -The word Clinic has not been defined under the CGST Act, 2017. However, as per general parlance, a clinic is a health care center or establishment or hospital department where outpatients are given medical treatment or advice, especially of a specialist nature. It is seen from the details provided by the applicant that, they employ specialized veterinary doctors at various locations to provide services to their clients. Such services includes diagnostic, preventive healthcare and nutrition advice to the live stock. Such services are therefore covered under the exemption provided by a veterinary clinic to livestock. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to avail the benefit of Sr.No.46 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017.

Laboratory analysis and testing services - HELD THAT:- The services provided by the applicant are more akin to technical testing and analysis services provided by them from their laboratory. Therefore, the said services are appropriately classifiable under heading 998346. Since the services are appropriately classifiable under Heading 998346, the benefit of exemption under S.No.54 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017, which is available only to services classified under Heading 9986 would not be available to the applicant.

Conclusion - i) Commission charged by VHPL under the selling arrangement for promoting, marketing and selling of birds of VRBF and Venco not to be classified under Service Accounting Code 9986. ii) Commission @ 10% of the sale value of birds of VRBFL and Venco received by VHPL under the Selling arrangement for promoting, marketing and selling of birds and handling the sale administration not exempt as per entry number 54 of notification number 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June 2017. iii) Charges received @3% of the sale value of birds of VRBFL and Venco for the Veterinary services provided by VHPL (SAC 99835) would be exempt from levy of GST as per entry number 46 of notification number 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June 2017 as Veterinary service. iv) Laboratory testing and analysis undertaken by VHPL to carry out various laboratory analysis and tests in respect of the birds including feed, water etc. in relation to the brooding, growing and laying of birds, not classified under Service Accounting Code 9986. but classified under SAC 998346. v) Charges received @ 7% of the sale value of birds of VRBFL and Venco for the Laboratory testing and analysis services provided by VHPL not exempt from levy of GST as per entry number 54 of notification number 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June 2017 as agricultural extension services.
2025 (6) TMI 923

Violation of principles of natural justice - ex-parte impugned order - petitioner is ready to deposit 10% of disputed tax and prayed for setting aside the impugned order and remit the matter back for fresh consideration - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the impugned order was passed exparte. Though the petitioner has issued with DRC proceedings and thereafter three personal hearings through web portal, he is unaware of the same. Had they been issued atleast one reminder notice through alternative mode preferably by RPAD, the issue of passing of exparte order would not have been arisen. This Court in number of cases held that in the event of issuing notice in respect of no reply was received, the respondent is bound to issue notice by way of any one of the alternative modes preferably by way of RPAD, otherwise the entire exercise of passing the assessment order is a vexatious one.

No doubt sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of the fact that no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., the Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling the empty formalities.

Conclusion - Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well.

The impugned order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the respondent is set aside subject to the payment of 10% of the dispute tax by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed.
2025 (6) TMI 922

Cancellation of GST registration - non-filing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months - case decided ex-parte - no date for personal hearing was ever notified - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- As per Section 29(2)(c), an officer, duly empowered, may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he deems fit, where any registered person, has not furnished returns for a continuous period of 6 (six) months. Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 has laid down the procedure for cancellation of the registration.

It is discernible from a reading of the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules 2017 that if a person, who has been served with a show cause notice under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, is ready and willing to furnish all the pending returns and to make full payment of the tax itself along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer, duly empowered, can drop the proceedings and pass an order in the prescribed Form i.e. Form GST REG-20.

Having regard to the fact that the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the reason that the petitioner did not submit returns for a period of 6 (six) months and more and the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and cancellation of registration entails serious civil consequences, this Court is of the considered view that in the event the petitioner approaches the officer, duly empowered, by furnishing all the pending returns and make full payment of the tax dues, along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer duly empowered, has the authority and jurisdiction to drop the proceedings and pass an order in the prescribed Form.

This writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioner shall approach the concerned authority within a period of 2 (two) months from today seeking restoration of his GST registration.
2025 (6) TMI 921

Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - petitioner could not submit the returns required to be submitted under Section 39(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 for a period of about 6 (six) months or more - petitioner is ready and willing to comply with all the formalities required as per proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- As per Section 29(2)(c), an officer, duly empowered, may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he deems fit, where any registered person, has not furnished returns for a continuous period of 6 (six) months. Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 has laid down the procedure for cancellation of the registration.

Conclusion - Having regard to the fact that the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the reason that the petitioner did not submit returns for a period of 6 (six) months and more; and the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and cancellation of registration entails serious civil consequences, this Court is of the considered view that in the event the petitioner approaches the officer, duly empowered, by furnishing all the pending returns and make full payment of the tax dues, along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer duly empowered, has the authority and jurisdiction to drop the proceedings and pass an order in the prescribed Form.

This writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioner shall approach the concerned authority within a period of 2 (two) months from today seeking restoration of his GST registration.
2025 (6) TMI 920

Applicability of doctrine of merger - cancellation of GST registration as per Rule 21 (a) of the CGST/SGST Rules - opportunity of being heard not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the record, it shows that the show cause notice was given for failure of filing of return of continuous period of six months, whereas the order of cancellation has been passed on a new ground that no business was performed on the declared place, for which the petitioner was never put to the notice. Once the impugned cancellation order has been passed without putting any notice to the petitioner, the same itself is in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was never put to any notice on the ground on which the order of cancellation of registration has been passed. Further the petitioner was also not afforded any opportunity of being personally heard. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

The record shows that the quasi judicial order which has an adverse effect on the right of the petitioner to run business as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the same has been done without any application of mind which is neither the intent of the Act nor can it be held to be in compliance of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The record shows that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and same does not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority, who shall issue fresh notice to the petitioner mentioning the reason of the proposed cancellation of registration within a period of one week from the date of production of certified copy of this order - Petition allowed by way of remand.
2025 (6) TMI 919

Time limit of availing ITC mentioned in Section 16 (4) of CGST Act, 2017 as applicable on ITC eligible as per Bill of Entry - applicant can avail this IGST paid as per bill of entry in the next GSTR3B or not - HELD THAT:- Sections 16 (4) aims to ensure timely ITC claims, prevent indefinite carry forward of credits and maintains fiscal discipline. This intent could apply to all forms of ITC, including IGST on imports, regardless of the tax paying documents. Since, ITC in respect of all types intra-state or inter-state supply is governed by section 16 of the CGST Act, all conditions under section 16 including the time limitation apply uniformly to all types of ITC. Hence, the condition of time limitation provided by section 16 (4) is applicable to the transactions of IGST paid on imports.

GST Act provides for self-assessment and filing of GST returns based on such self-assessment and making tax payments as per liability shown in these returns. For harmonious operation of GST laws timelines have been provided for filing of all types of returns, ITC availment, filing GST refund claims etc. Similarly, timelines are also provided to officers for granting registrations, scrutiny of returns, grants of refunds, audit or adjudications etc. These timelines are also important as one aspect depends on the other - Further, scrutiny reconciliation or audit is in respect of filings of a particular financial year. If there is no time limit for filing of all the claims including availment of ITC, then there would not be possibility of reconciling or scrutinizing or auditing them within the timelines provided for these activities. Hence, GST law has to be interpreted in a way that allows harmonious working of various provisions of law. Thus, the term 'invoice' in section 16 (4) is to be interpreted to include any document evidencing tax payment such as a Bill of Entry.

Conclusion - i) The time limit of availing ITC as mentioned in Section 16 (4) of CGST Act, 2017 is applicable on ITC eligible as per Bill of Entry. ii) The applicant cannot avail this IGST paid as per bill of entry in the next GSTR-3B.
2025 (6) TMI 918

Scope of Clause 1 & 2 of twelfth Schedule of Article 243W - pure labour services - Services provided by the applicant fall under the Exemption N/N. 12/2017 dated 28th June, 2017 (Entry No. 3 of Exemption Notification) as amended from time to time - Whether the services supplied would be covered under Clause 1 & 2 of Twelfth schedule of Article 243W? - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the work is mainly for assisting and facilitation of property tax assessment. For this, the applicant undertakes property survey, numbering of properties, measurement and data collection digitalization of data etc. As per the agreements with various Municipal Councils, activities being undertaken by the company are assisting Municipal Councils for door to door Numbering, Property Survey, Preparing Computerized proportionate plans, photos, required information of the properties for assessment of property tax and other allied taxes.

The work undertaken by the applicant is in relation to assessment of property tax by the municipal councils. The intent of entire work is to facilitate assessment and collection of property tax. The Maharashtra Municipal Act, 1949 u/s. 99, mandates Municipal Corporations to levy property taxes. Specifically, clause 2 (49) (a) enumerates “tax on building or lands” as a compulsory levy. The applicant submits that Chapter VII, Rule 20 delineates the procedure for property assessment, underscoring the necessity of comprehensive property survey to ensure accurate tax imposition. The applicant has provided services for meeting this end. The function of levy of properly tax may be mandatory and necessary for the functioning of the Municipal Councils. However, it is not listed as one of the functions in the twelfth Schedule of Article 243W of the Constitution. All the services provided by the applicant are for facilitation of levy of properly tax using the appropriate technology and process - The terms of the agreement and the work order indicate that the scope of work and intent of procurement of services is for facilitation and assessment of property tax by the Municipal Councils. The said function does not fall under Article 243G or 243W of the Constitution.

The services supplied by the applicant are pure services provided to the local authority but not by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under article 243G of the Constitution or in relation to any function entrusted to a Municipality under article 243W of the Constitution. Hence the provisions as per SI. No. 3 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28/06/2017 as amended do not apply to the services provided by the applicant.

Conclusion - The applicant is providing pure services (without the supply of goods), to the various Municipal Councils. It is found that the said services are not in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under article 243G of the Constitution or in relation to any function entrusted to a Municipality under article 243W of the Constitution. Hence the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) Dated 28/06/2017 as amended from time to time.
2025 (6) TMI 917

Eligibility to avail ITC - GST paid on goods and services used for construction of Tie-in pipeline, for delivery of re-gasified LNG from FSRU to the National Grid - Tie-in Pipeline qualifies to be a “plant and machinery” as per explanation to Section 17 of the CGST Act, or “plant or machinery”? - applicability of restriction u/s 17 (5) (c) and 17 (5) (d) - HELD THAT:- In view of the amendment to the provisions of Section 17 (5) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, once the aforesaid amendment comes into force, it would become effective retrospectively from 01.07.20217. Then, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd., & Ors [2024 (10) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT], which was based on the fact that the explanation of the words “Plant and Machinery” provided in the said Section would be applicable to the words “plant and machinery” used in clause (c) of the said section and not to clause (d) of the said section where the words used were “Plant or Machinery” would not be applicable to that extent. It was based on the said position of law that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had rejected the explanation of ‘Plant and Machinery’ as provided in the statute for deciding what is ‘plant or machinery’ and espoused the test of functionality to determine whether the Input Tax Credit would be available to the petitioner on the ‘plant or machinery’ installed by the petitioner.

The basic function carried out by the pipeline is to transfer the gasified LPG from the FSRU to the National Grid. In order to carry out the said function, the pipelines use various techniques and technology and devices such as isolation valves, check valves, high pressure loading arms, metering system, pressure regulating system, pig launcher, S.V. Station, SCADA Monitoring system etc. However, it is necessary to understand that all these systems and devices are used by most pipelines carrying petroleum and other products and use of these systems and devices does not in any manner alter the fact that the basic structure is the pipeline laid outside their factory premises and all these devices are part of the said pipeline system. The presence of such system may entitle them to fit in ‘apparatus, equipment and machinery’ but does not take them out of phrase ‘pipelines laid outside the factory premises’. Hence, they would not be called as ‘plant and machinery’ for the purposes of section 17 (5) (c) and 17 (5) (d).

Once it has been established that the premises of the FSRU can be justly considered as factory premises, then there is no doubt that the Tie-in pipeline, to be laid by the Applicant, which will join the FSRU to the National Grid, will be considered as pipeline laid outside the factory premises, and accordingly attract the applicability of the subject exclusion clause i.e. exclusion clause (iii) of the explanation to section 17 of CGST Act, 2017. As a result of this, Applicant will not be entitled to avail the ITC of GST paid on goods and services used for construction of Tie-in pipelines, from the FSRU to the National grid as per the provisions laid out in section 17 (5) (c) and 17 (5) (d) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Conclusion - Applicant is not entitled to avail the ITC of GST paid on goods and services used for construction of Tie-in Pipelines, from the FSRU to the National grid as per the provision laid out in section 17 (5) (c) and (5) (d) of the CGST Act, 2017, as amended by the Finance Act 2025.
2025 (6) TMI 916

Classification of services - job work service falling under SAC 9988 or not - shot blasting activity carried out by the Applicant on the castings of his customer M/s. GPI within the premises of M/s. GPI by using his own shot blasting machine/steel shots as well as labourers - taxable at 12% GST in terms of clause (id) of Sr. No. 26 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT(R), dt.28.06.2017 or not - HELD THAT:- Steel shot blasting is a surface treatment process where small, spherical steel particles are propelled at high speed onto a metal surface to clean or prepare it for further processing. This method is commonly used in various industries for tasks like rust and scale removal, surface preparation for painting or coating, and improving the fatigue life of metal parts through shot peening.

Entry (id) of the notification covers job work services as defined in section 2(68) of CGST Act, 2017, in respect of treatment or processing undertaken by a person on goods belonging to another registered person. Therefore, Sr. No. 26(id) (residual entry) covers job work where inputs are sent by registered person, while Sr. No. 26 (iv) covers manufacturing services (processing) wherein inputs (goods) are sent by an unregistered person.

The applicant is carrying out the processing on the castings provided by M/s. GPI, who is registered under GST Act and that during the course of job work, ownership of the goods does not change and remains with its client.

Conclusion - The short Blasting activity carried out by the applicant on the casting of his customer M/s. Ghatage Patil Industries within the premises of M/s. Ghatage Patil Industries by using his own shot blasting machine / steel shots as well as labourers is classifiable as job work service falling under SAC 9988. Also, the service in question falls within the ambit of entry Sr. No. 26 (id) of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended vide Notification No. 20/2017-CT (Rate) dated 30.09.2019 and is classifiable under SAC 9988 and will attract GST @ 12%.
2025 (6) TMI 915

Classification of goods - baby car seat - to be classified under 94018000 or to be classified as baby carriage and the HSN 87150010? - whether the product can be considered as Safety Equipment under accessory of vehicle and can be classified under the HSN Chapter 87089900? - applicability of entry 210A of N/N. 5/2024-Central Tax (Rate) dated 08th October 2024 - HELD THAT:- The applicant is importing these baby chairs from Italy under HSN code 94018000 and that there is no dispute pending against them with the Customs Department as per the applicant. Further, they are supplying the same to their customers under 9401800 and no dispute has been raised against them by the GST Department, as per their submissions.

The goods sold by the applicant are baby seats which are attached to the seat of a motor vehicle for safe carriage of the baby in the motor vehicle. Though, they are designed specifically for use in a motor vehicle, they cannot be classified under 94012000 as seats of a kind used for motor vehicles because these seats are not used for motor vehicles but are used in addition to the normal seats which are attached to a motor vehicle. Such seats are attached on to the already existing seats of a motor vehicle. The heading 94012000 covers the basic seats which are used for a motor vehicle whereas the goods in the instant case, i.e. baby seats are not affixed to a motor vehicle and used as a primary seat. This is an additional special attachment which is affixed to the seat of a motor vehicle for safe carriage of the baby while driving the vehicle.

The applicant has raised an apprehension that the said baby seats can be classified under 87150010 as baby carriage or under 878089900 as a safety equipment under accessory of vehicle. Baby carriage under 87150010 covers carriages whether or not folding, fitted with two or one wheels and generally pushed by hand (push-chairs, perambulators, strollers, etc). Since in the instant case, the baby seats do not come with wheels and are not meant for carriage of babies by generally pushing by hand, the said seats cannot be classified as carriage under 87150010 - the baby seats are more specifically covered under chapter 94 as ‘Seats’ and therefore, by way of the said exclusion.

With reference to the applicability of entry 210A of Notification No.5/2024 Central Tax (Rate) dated 8.10.2024, it is found that the said entry covers Tariff item 94012000 i.e. seats of a kind used for motor vehicles. It is already discussed hereinabove, that the goods i.e. baby seats are classified under 94018000 and therefore, the said notification would not be applicable to the subject goods i.e. baby seats supplied by the applicant.

Conclusion - i) The product namely baby car seat is correctly classified under 94018000. ii) The entry 210A of Notification No. 5/2024 Central Tax (Rate) dated 08th October, 2024, is not applicable on applicant.
2025 (6) TMI 914

Classification of service - instant provision of testing and commissioning service of Rail Track - classifiable under sl. No. 3 (vi) (a) of Notification no. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended) or not - rate of tax - HELD THAT:- Ongoing through the purchase order/work order, it is found that the order has been divided into two portions i.e. one for supply of goods and one for providing service of erection and commissioning. The contract for the first portion for supply of goods has been awarded to M/s. Gantrex SRP, Belgium while the work of erecting and commissioning of the rail tracks has been given to the applicant.

In order to constitute a composite supply, the goods provided by the applicant should be naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business. The concept of naturally bundled’ supplies is not defined under CGST Act. For this, reliance can be placed on the flyer cum FAQ issued by CBIC to explain the concepts of ‘composite supply’ and ‘mixed supply’, which also makes reference to the Education Guide issued under service tax regime in determining whether a supply is a composite or a mixed supply under GST regime.

In the instant case, with respect to the supply of the goods by M/s. Gantrex, Belgium and the service of erection and commissioning provided by the applicant, the supply by the applicant does not involve any transfer of property in goods from the applicant to their client, the said service cannot be considered as a works contract. The Contract for supply of goods is with one person while the contract for supply of erection service is with another person. Both the said contracts cannot be combined together to treat the same a works contract in view of the fact that it is being supplied by two different persons and liability of both the persons and distinct and separate and the consideration received by both the parties are distinct and identifiable. The time lines for completion of the contract by the two parties are separate and identifiable.

On a careful perusal of the said services covered under the said serial number, it is seen that Sr. No. 3(i) covers construction of complex, building, civil structure or part thereof intended for sale. Sr. No. 3 (ii) to (x) covers various services which are in the nature of composite supply of works contract. Sr. No. 3 (xi) covers services by way of housekeeping, plumbing carpentering etc. while Sr. No. 3(xii) covers construction services other than (i) to (xi). It is found that the applicant has specifically asked whether the services of erection and commissioning of rail tracks provided by them is classifiable under S. No. 3 (vi) (a) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 - the classification under S. No. 3 (vi) (a) of the Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 would not be applicable in the present case as the supply of services of erection and commissioning by the applicant would not qualify as a composite supply of works contract service.

The services provided by the applicant in the present case is pure service of erection and commissioning on the basis of the materials submitted by the client. The details submitted by the applicant does not in any manner point out the fact that any materials/ goods are supplied by them along with the service of erection and commissioning. In fact, all the materials are supplied by M/s. Gantrex SRPL, Belgium as can be seen from the purchase order produced by the applicant - Since the service provided by the applicant cannot be considered as a composite supply nor as a works contract, the classification of the said services would fall under the residuary category of construction services Chapter heading 9954 during the relevant period. The services provided by the applicant of erection and commissioning can be considered as a pure construction service under the said heading 9954 and chargeable to GST under Sr. No. 3(xii) of Notification 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 26.8.2017 which attracts duty @ 18%.

Conclusion - i) The provision of testing and commissioning service of Rail Track is not classifiable under Sl. No. 3 (vi) (a) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 (As amended up to 17.7.2022). ii) The said services shall be classified under Heading 9954 and more specifically under Sr. No. 3(xii) of Notification 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 and the rate of tax will be18% i.e. @ 18%.
2025 (6) TMI 913

Classification of goods - fruit protection bags - to be classified under Tariff Code 4805 or under Tariff Code 48195090? - HELD THAT:- Chapter heading 4819 covers cartons, boxes, cases, bags and other packing containers of paper, paper board, cellulose wadding or webs of cellulose fibres, box files, letter trays and similar articles, of paper or paper board of a kind used in offices, shops or the like.

The present product, in question, is a fruit bag manufactured out of kraft paper coated with a chemical which adds special properties to paper such as anti-bacterial, anti -fungal, fly resistance, insect resistance and sun burn protection. It is sealed on three sides with an adhesive. The fourth side is left open so that the fruit, wile hanging on the trees, can be inserted into the bag. The bag can then be tied to the fruit / tree, thereby enclosing the entire fruit, protecting the fruit from pests, rain water, birds etc. Since the product is manufactured out of coated paper, it goes out of the Tariff heading 4805 which covers uncoated paper. Further, since the said product is sealed on three sides, it takes the character of a bag i.e. is a product manufactured out of paper and will not remain merely paper and paper board, covered under 4805. Therefore, the said product is not classifiable under Tariff Heading 4805.

In the instant case, the product is a bag which can completely cover the fruits. It is sealed on three sides with an adhesive and the fourth side an be sealed with the help of the galvanized wire, thereby enclosing the entire fruit. Therefore, from the product design, it appears that the product in question is a bag and not a sleeve, which is made out of kraft paper coated with chemicals to impart anti bacteria, anti-fungal and other properties. Therefore, the said product would be rightly classifiable under Tariff Heading 48194000 i.e. Other sacks and bags, including cones.

Conclusion - The said product would be classifiable under 48194000. The product will be taxable at 18%.
2025 (6) TMI 912

Supply or not - Liquidated Damages (LD)/Penalty recovered from contractors/suppliers for breach of contract - Liquidated Damages (LD)/Penalty recovered from contractors/suppliers on Deposit Works/ Outright Contribution Works (ORC) - Forfeiture of Security Deposit or Earnest Money Deposit in case of refusal to accept the work order despite of being Lowest One (L1) or failure of performance by the supplier or contractor - Old and unclaimed Creditors balance written back to income A/c after Three (03) Years from the date of completion of the contract - Write back of Old and unclaimed Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) / Security Deposit (SD) to income A/c after Three (03) Years from the date of the completion of the guarantee period as per contract - Penalty or charges applied for violation of conditions of contract - time of supply - HSN/SAC Code and rate of GST for such supplies - utilization of ITC against payment of GST on such supplies - value of supply.

Supply or not - Liquidated Damages (LD)/Penalty recovered from contractors/suppliers for breach of contract - Liquidated Damages (LD)/Penalty recovered from contractors/suppliers on Deposit Works/ Outright Contribution Works (ORC) - HELD THAT:- In case of MSETCL, if a contractor fails to complete all the works within the period stipulated as per the Terms & Conditions of the Contract., then, MSETCL recovers Liquidated Damages/Penalty for breach of contract. MSETCL is interested in getting services within stipulated time. The contract is for performance of work and not for breach of it. This issue is squarely covered by explanation given in para 7.1 and 7.1.4 of the aforesaid circular. The principle laid down in the circular is applicable to the penalties in the nature of liquidated damages. Advance ruling order in the case of MAHAGENCO was delivered on 08.05.2018 and AAAR in the said case was delivered on 11.09.2018 whereas the Circular no. 178/10/2022-GST has been issued on 03.08.2022. This circular reflects current understanding of the issue. Hence, these activities are not in the nature of a consideration for an activity and hence, would not constitute a supply of service.

Supply or not - Forfeiture of Security Deposit or Earnest Money Deposit in case of refusal to accept the work order despite of being Lowest One (L1) or failure of performance by the supplier or contractor - HELD THAT:- The provisions for Forfeiture of Security Deposit or Earnest Money Deposit in the event of non-acceptance of the work order despite the bid being Lowest One (L1) or failure of performance by the supplier or contractor are in place to discourage non-serious supplier/contractor. The said amounts are recovered by the MSETCL not as a consideration for tolerating the act but as penalties for dissuading the non-serious supplier/ contractor and to discourage and deter such a situation. Therefore, such amounts recovered by the MSETCL are not taxable as consideration is not for any supply of service. Since EMD is a security deposit and does not have the character of a consideration, its forfeiture does not amount to taxable supply.

Supply or not - Old and unclaimed Creditors balance written back to income A/c after three years from the date of completion of the contract - HELD THAT:- The company writes back old and unclaimed Creditors balance to income after three years from the date of completion of the contract.

Supply or not - Write back of Old and unclaimed Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) / Security Deposit (SD) to income A/c after three years from the date of the completion of the guarantee period as per contract - HELD THAT:- It is seen that, this transaction is an accounting entry as income and not against any supply. In the above-mentioned transactions, there are no services received or provided by the applicant. The act of writing back unclaimed creditors’ balances is a mere accounting adjustment and does not involve the supply of goods or services. Consequently, such transactions fall outside the purview of GST and the mere write-back of unclaimed deposits does not constitute a supply since it lacks the element of consideration for any service rendered. Accordingly, such transactions are not taxable under GST.

Supply or not - Penalty or charges applied for violation of conditions of contract - HELD THAT:- The recoveries of penalties for violations of conditions of contract made by MSETCL are not consideration for taxable supply.

As all the activities are not held as the supply of services, hence, there is no need to answer other questions.
2025 (6) TMI 911

Classification of goods - Infantometer and Stadiometer, diagnostic medical equipment - covered under Tariff Heading 9018 and liable to GST @ 12% or not - main thrust of the applicant’s submissions is that the products in question i.e. Infantometer and Stadiometer are used for medical examination at medical centres/hospitals/anganwadi’s - HELD THAT:- The term ‘diagnostic instrument or apparatus’ is not defined under the GST Act or the Customs Tariff. In order to understand as to what goods can be termed as a medical appliance used as a diagnostic instrument or apparatus, it is necessary to understand the meaning of the said term in general parlance and the way it is understood by common people and by persons who are engaged in the said profession. A diagnostic instrument is a tool used by healthcare professionals to identify the nature or cause of a medical condition, enabling accurate diagnosis and treatment. Diagnostic instruments are designed to measure, observe and analyze various aspects of patient’s health, helping healthcare providers determine the presence nature and cause of a disease or condition - Such instruments like weighing scale, measuring tapes etc., will not qualify to be termed as an instrument used in medical sciences for the purpose of classifying them under Chapter 9018.

On verification of the pamphlet of the product, the pamphlet of Stadiometer mentions that it is designed to measure height of adults and children. It is nowhere mentioned in the said pamphlet that the said goods are for medical purposes or are medical equipment/ diagnostic instrument or goods to be used by medical professionals in health care setting. In fact, it is found that the said product is designed for measuring the height of children and adults. It would not be out of place to point out that the height of adults and children are not measured only for medical purposes.

A medical professional uses various tools in his day to day work but all such tools will not be termed as a medical instrument. One of the major example will be a weighing scale which is used by medical professionals to find out the weight of a patient. However, such weighing scale does not qualify as a medical equipment for the purposes of classification under Chapter 9018. A weighing scale being a weighing tool will be classified as a weighing scale rather than a diagnostic instrument or apparatus or instrument used in medical science. The use of a product would not be determinative of its classification, unless the goods have been designed and manufactured for that particular uses - There is nothing on record to show that they were designed and manufactured to be used as diagnostic instruments. Merely because the goods are either sold directly by the manufacturer or through a particular channel i.e. the medical stores as claimed by the applicant, but unsubstantiated, would not render that product as diagnostic instrument. All goods sold through a medical store would not be a product or instrument used in medical science. It is also observed that similar goods are available for purchase of general public on e-commerce web sites also.

The applicant has failed to establish that the products sold by him are diagnostic instruments used in medical science. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said products are more specifically classifiable under Heading 9018 and therefore goes out of the purview of Heading 9018 - the stadiometer supplied by the applicant is a measuring instrument, the primary and only function of which is to measure the height of children and adults. The purpose of determining the height may vary from situation to situation and may not be only medical. Therefore, the stadiometer is more appropriately classifiable as other general instruments used for measuring length and are rightly classifiable under Heading 90178090.

With respect to the product infantometer, it is found that an infantometer is a measuring instrument used to measure the length of babies. The pamphlet of Infantometer mentions that the same is designed to measure height of baby in recumbent position and has been approved by the Legal Metrology Department. The product infantometer is normally not used by the general public. It is basically used by a pediatrician to measure the length of the babies to identify whether there is malnutrition and to diagnose the proper growth of babies.

Conclusion - i) Infantometer, being a diagnostic medical equipment, is covered under Tariff Heading 9018 and liable to GST @ 12%. ii) Stadiomeater, being a diagnostic medical equipment, would be correctly classified under tariff Heading 9017 and liable to GST at 18%.