Seeking dismissal of approved Resolution Plan, which was approved on 5th October, 2020 - HELD THAT:- It is noted that after the approval of the Resolution Plan, this Authority has no power to dismiss the approved Resolution Plan. The only course open to the Applicant is to file an Appeal under Section 61 of the Code.
Seeking grant of bail - triable and compoundable offences or not - huge tax evasion - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the offence is triable by Magistrate and there is no allegation of any criminal antecedent against the applicant and the offence is compoundable, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application filed by the applicant deserves to be accepted.
It is ordered that the accused – applicant shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of ₹ 50, 000/- with two sureties of ₹ 25, 000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court/link court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as & when called upon to do so - The bail application is allowed.
Revocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - it is alleged that customs broker had filed the said documents without identifying the importer on record - consignments imported were, upon examination, found to contain ‘imitation raw material glass beads weighing 28,490 kgs.’ and ‘crystal bowl valued at ₹ 81,000’ without corresponding declarations - proper opportunity of being heard not provided - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The plea of the customs broker to the effect that the importer on record, having appeared before the investigating authorities, could not be non-existent is tenable. There are merits in the contention that, with the existence of the importer thus being without doubt, the obligation devolving on the broker could not be alleged to have been breached in substance. The objective of the said obligation could only be established the antecedents of the said persons. Had the customs broker carried out necessary checks as warranted by the Regulations, the facts would not alter in any manner and nor would the importability of goods.
The non-consideration of the first aspect and the insinuation of the second do not advance the propriety of detriment visited upon the appellant by the Commissioner of Customs. This is more so, as the inquiry was conducted ex parte even if that be the fault of the appellant. We cannot also but take note that the intimation letters sent by inquiry authority are dated 23rd October, 2017, 1st November, 2017 and 7th November, 2017 with just a week elapsing between the said communications and the dates, scheduled for hearing, not separated by even the same lapse of time. The notice for adjournments were, therefore, not appropriately phased as to facilitate a proper hearing but merely for technical compliance.
The process initiated cannot be brought to a conclusion in favour of the appellant without proper evidence being placed - matter remanded back to the Commissioner of Customs for conduct of a fresh inquiry and for arriving at conclusion thereto without being influenced by extraneous facts and circumstances - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - barred by time limitation under Section 7 - default enclosed in terms of Section 7(3)(b) or not - HELD THAT:- There are no merit in the appeal.
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - issuance of demand notice - pre-requisite under section 8 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for filing the petition under section 9 - HELD THAT:- The demand notice which is a pre-requisite under section 8 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for filing the petition under section 9, issued by the applicant on 07.10.2019 is signed and issued by an unidentified person on behalf of the applicant company without mentioning designation or full name of the person who has signed it.
On perusal of the records it is found that vide Board Resolution dated 15.11.2019 one Mr. Sudeep Pramanik, Director - Human Resource has been given authority to initiate CIRP proceedings against the corporate debtor. On perusal of the records it is also found that the authority letter/Board Resolution empowering Mr. Sudeep Pramanik (page 13) to initiate action under section 9 of the I & B Code, is dated 15.11.2019. While comparing with the signature appearing in the demand notice and the petition (form 5) it is found that the signatory in both the documents are different. Even assuming that the said demand notice dated 07.10.2019 was signed and issued by Mr. Sudeep Pramanik, it is evident from the records that at the time of issuing the demand notice dated 07.10.2019, Mr. Sudeep Pramanik, Director of the company had no authority to issue demand notice and the person who has signed the demand notice is somebody else who had no authority to issue such notice.
The petition is bad in the eye of law and not maintainable on the very reason that the demand notice is/was issued by an unidentified person who had no authority to issue demand notice and initiate CIRP proceedings against the corporate debtor.
Classification of supply - reimbursement of LIH Damaged beyond repair goods/equipment - supply of drilling services and reimbursement of LIH are composite supply or not - rate of GST applicable to supply of drilling services, being the principal supply, should apply to all the supplies made under the contract with ONGC - challenge to AAR decision - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the appellant uses certain specialized equipment / tools for drilling oil and gas wells in offshore and onshore environment to pre-defined bottom hole targets which are carried out beneath the surface of the earth. There is a probability that the equipment / tools used for drilling services might get stuck or lost due to uncontrollable or unforeseen down hole environmental situations in the Oil and gas well and might not be retrievable. When such equipment / tools are lost in hole or damaged beyond repair, drilling services cannot be performed until new equipment / tools are made available by the Applicant. This leads to disruption of services due to such LIH equipment. The payment made in the form of reimbursement for the damages /replacement of the Lost in Hole (LIH) equipment necessitates the appellant to replace the tools / equipment instantly in order to continue the drilling services. Hence, the reimbursement of LIH is meant to buy and replace the lost goods.
The reimbursement of LIH tools/equipment is nothing but the consideration received for the procurement of damaged goods i.e., the damaged tools/ lost in hole equipment, in the course of its business of drilling operations.
Whether the supply of drilling services and reimbursement of LIH are composite supplies or not? - HELD THAT:- Following are the parameters for determining the supplies as composite supplies
a. There should be a taxable person and a recipient.
b. Transaction should consist of two or more taxable supplies of goods or services or both; and
c. The two or more taxable supplies should be naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business.
It is need to be examined whether all the above parameters are meted out by the present transaction in discussion. The taxable person, being the appellant makes the taxable supplies to the recipient, being ONGC. The supply of bundled services in relation to the drilling/mining services undertaken by the appellant comprise of supply of certain goods and services. While the LIH reimbursement is another supply comprising of the cost in case of damage of equipment or toolsat an agreed depreciated value of the original FOB price of the equipment in case of the damages of equipment /tools beyond repair or loss. In context of the conditions of (a) and (b)cited, being satisfied, it now needs to be scrutinized whether the drilling services and LIH reimbursement are ‘naturally bundled’ and ‘supplied in conjunction with each other’ in the ordinary course of business.
In the instant case the contract agreement expressly provides that there is no single price or at no point of time, the customer pays the same amount for both the supplies in discussion. Besides, the two supplies i.e., the drilling services and LIH reimbursement are nowhere expressly advertised as a package - in terms of the clauses under the Contract, reimbursement towards LIH equipment does not find mention under the scope of work at Annexure II to the General Conditions of the Contract, but is a separate clause under the Special Conditions of the Contract contemplating a potential event that may or may not occur during the tenure of the Contract. Thus, the said supplies are not made in conjunction with each other, which implies that they are not meant to be made together or in combination in the normal course of business as a single package of composite supplies.
It is clarified beyond doubt that the supply of drilling services and reimbursement of LIH are not composite supplies. Therefore, the rate of GST applicable to supply of drilling services shall not be applicable to all the supplies made under the contract with ONGC, Basing on the nature of actual goods involved in the subject activity, and their HSN classification notified for the goods, the provisions relating to chargeability and levy of GST under the CGST Act and the Rules made there under are applicable to the supply of goods.
The Ruling of Authority for Advance Ruling is upheld.
Exemption form GST - activity of renting out a residential building to a company for the purpose of long- term residential accommodation - monthly rentals received on lease of the residential building at Telangana - benefit of exemption under SI.No.13 of Notification No.9/2017 - Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that this transaction is a taxable GST supply. However, what is in question is whether this transaction is exempted from GST in terms of SI. No. 13 of Heading 9963 or Heading 9972 of Notification No. 9/2017-(IT) Rate dated 28-06-2017.
The Lease Deed dated 31.07.2019 stands testimony to the fact that the lessor (The Appellant) and the Lessee (M/s. D-Twelve Spaces) have entered into an agreement to let out and to take the property mentioned above on lease. As per Clause 2 (b) of Schedule II to the CGST Act, 2017 “(b) any lease or letting out of the building including a commercial, industrial or residential complex for business or commerce, either wholly or partly, is a supply of services.” - there is no doubt that the service rendered by the appellant is that of renting of immovable property.
Whether the property being let out is a residential dwelling? - HELD THAT:- The property under question is not a home or residence being used by a family in a conventional sense or a group of members maintaining a regular house hold, but used for commercial purposes of accommodating students or working professionals in bulk numbers for a temporary period of stay. The appellant has referred to a series of definitions, and has pointed out the existence of the words “residential” or “residence” in various licenses, agreements, etc., in their grounds of appeal. But the mere existence of the word or words “residential” or “residence” does not change the character of the property under lease.
Whether leased premises is used for purpose of residence only or not? - HELD THAT:- For availing the exemption from GST, SI.No. 13 of the Notification No.9/2017-IT (Rate), requires that the “Services by way of renting of residential dwelling for use as residence”. However, as seen from the Lease Deed dated 31.07.2019, the Lessee (D-Twelve Spaces Private Limited) was engaged in the business of sub-leasing property and had no intention of using the property as residence. The Notification cited, requires that the lessee use the property as “residence” in order to extend the exemption therein - But for extending the exemption from GST to the appellant, the subsequent Commercial / business activity of the lessee is of no consequence as the Notification requires the recipient of service to use such residential dwelling as residence.
Even assuming, though not admitting, that the property could be treated as a residential dwelling, the fact that the Lessee (recipient of service) is not using the same as residence negates the availability of the exemption under SI. No. 13 of Notification No.9/2017-(IT) Rate - It is therefore evident that the property under lease is not a “residential dwelling” and further the said property, even though not “residential dwelling”, has not been used as “residence” by the recipient of service of renting viz the Lessee - M/s. D-Twelve Spaces Private Limited but instead actually used for the commercial interest and business of the Lessee, and hence, the exemption under SI. No. 13 of Notification No/9/2017 IT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 would not be available to the Appellant.
Thus, the activity proposed / undertaken by M/s. D-Twelve Spaces Private Limited is commercial in nature and it was advised by the Legal Experts to get the Property tax of the said area assessed under commercial headfrom the date of commencement of the definitive Lease Agreement - the Lease Property in question is not a “residential dwelling” and has not been “used as residence” by the recipient (the Lessee).
The order of the Ld. AAR, Andhra Pradesh is hereby upheld - the supply under consideration is classifiable under 'Rental or leasing services involving own or leased non-residential property'. Such “Rental or leasing services involving own or leased non-residential property” is classified under the heading (SAC) 997212 under entry no.16 of Notification No.8/2017 Integrated Tax (Rate), Dt: 28.06.2017, and liable to IGST @ 18%. The exemption under SI. No.13 of Notification No.9/2017-IT (Rate) is not available to the Appellant.
Classification of supply - supply of goods or supply of services or supply of Goods & Services? - transaction would cover SI.No.2 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 or not? - permissibility to file GST ITC-02 return and transfer unutilised ITC from Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh unit to Bengaluru, Karnataka Unit? - In the instant case, whether transaction is qualified to be business being transferred as a going concern to 'another person' or not? - HELD THAT:- The concept of distinct person has been newly introduced under GST law. In brief, the establishments of a person with separate registrations whether within the same State/UT or in different States/UTs are considered as 'distinct person. 'A supplier is required to obtain registration in every State/ UT from where he makes taxable supply provided his aggregate turnover exceeds a specified threshold limit.
The case at hand doesn't qualify to be a 'going concern to another person', as M/s. Shilpa Medicare Limited, Vizianagaram, A.P and M/s. Shilpa Medicare Limited, Bangalore unit are holders of the same PAN and they are distinct persons. Hence, the provisions of Para 4 (c) of Schedule II of CGST Act, 2017 do not apply in this case. Hence, it is treated as deemed supply of goods. The subsequent questions of applicability of SI.No.2 of the Notification No.12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 and the transfer of unutilised ITCdon't arise as the transaction is classified as 'supply of goods' between distinct persons.
Can ITC-02 be filed for transfer of ITC from the Vizianagaram Unit to the Karnataka Unit? - HELD THAT:- There is no supply of service but a supply of goods (assets of the Vizianagaram Unit to the Unit in Karnataka State). Therefore, the question of transfer of ITC would not arise - In the instant case, there is no evidence of “change in the constitution of the registered person”. A change in the constitution would envisage a change from say a proprietorship entity to a Partnership or a Company, or from a Partnership to a Company; or change in the constitution of the Shareholders, etc. There is no such thing happening in this case. M/s. Shilpa Medicare Limited, Vizianagaram is one and the same entity as M/s. Shilpa Medicare Limited, Bangalore, Karnataka. There is no change in the constitution of the entity as required under Section 18 (3) of the CGST Act and therefore the provisions for transfer of ITC under Section 18 (3) would not be permissible in this case.
Further, the GST law comprising of the Central GST Act, the Integrated GST Act and State / UT GST Acts, does not envisage the transfer of ITC in the form of CGST and SGST / UTGST accumulated in one State to another State. The scope of the AP GST Act cannot extend beyond the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Similarly, the KSGST Act cannot extend beyond the borders of the State of Karnataka. Credit (ITC) accumulated under a particular State GST Act cannot be utilized in another State as there is no such provision under the extant law. Therefore, due to the exclusivity of ITC earned in a State, M/s. Shilpa Medicare Limited, Vizianagaram are not entitled to transfer the ITC earned in the State of Andhra Pradesh to themselves in the State of Karnataka. Hence, the facility of transfer of Credit using Form ITC-02 is not available in this case.
Classification of supply - composite supply or not - naturally bundles services or not - supply of mud engineering services along with supply of imported mud chemicals and additives provided on consumption basis by the applicant under the Contract - supplies made under the Contract merits classification under Entry 9986 (ii) - Service of exploration, mining or drilling of petroleum crude or natural gas or both and subject to GST at the rate of 12%/18% as the case may be? - supply of mud chemicals and additives on consumption basis at OIL India's location in India provided under the Contract qualify for concessional GST rate of 5% against an Essentiality Certificate ('EC') under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30th June 2017.
HELD THAT:- The supply of Mud Engineering Services and supply of chemicals and additives are undoubtedly two specialized and distinct supplies. Now it requires to be examined whether both the said supplies of chemicals and additives and rendering the mud engineering services constitute a 'composite supply' or not - the two taxable supplies under discussion are to be examined in light of the two primary conditions i.e., whether they are 'naturally bundled' and are 'supplied in conjunction' with each other. In the absence of the clear cut explanation in the Act, regarding the concept of 'naturally bundled' the reliance is placed on Education Guide issued by CBEC (now CBIC) in the year 2012.
Thus, it is observed that both the supplies are not supplied or provided as a complete package 'at a single price'. The tax invoices filed by the appellant reveal that different invoices are raised for both the supplies separately and individually. With reference to the parameter (b) mentioned above, the supplies of chemicals and additives and mud engineering services are two different supplies and separately available. Section 3 of the contract no.6205290 projects the schedule of rates distinctly for both the supplies. Moreover, in the instant case the supply of chemical and additives and mud engineering services can be procured in a piecemeal approach up to the satisfaction of the service recipient. It is a fact, as admitted by the appellant that it is a clause inserted in the contract to protect the interest of OIL, the right to seek replacement of the personnel/ goods independently if they are not as per satisfaction of OIL. It clearly indicates that both the supplies are not naturally bundled.
The said supplies of the mud engineering services and supply of chemicals and additives are different supplies liable to tax under the CGST/APGST Act. Thus, in view of the discussions the observation made by the Advance Ruling Authority is upheld, rejecting the interpretation of the appellant.
Addition for Short Term Capital Gain - capital gain u/s 45 - relinquishment of rights in property as in the nature of gift - whether in case of transfer of property by way of gift, the provision of section 50C can be invoked? - HELD THAT:- AO while examining this transaction was of the view that this is a valid transfer as per provision of section 2(47)(i) of the Act and provision of section 50C of the Act are applicable as the consideration received is less than the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authorities. On the other hand, it has been contended by for the assessee that section 47(iii) clearly provides that “nothing contained in section 45 shall apply to transfer of a capital asset under a gift or will or an irrecoverable trust”. Therefore, the provisions to section 50C of the Act are not applicable.
We have given our thoughtful consideration and observe that relinquishment of rights are referred to as the surrender of ownership rights and claims in a property in favour of another person. Through a relinquishment deed one person releases or transfers his legal right in the property to the other person, while a gift deed is a deed by which one person gifts his legal right in a property to any person.
Relinquishment may or may not be for consideration but a gift does not require any consideration. In the instant case also all 4 co-owners have relinquished their rights in the said property without receiving any consideration. The said relinquishment of rights in the said property are in the nature of gift only as no consideration have been received and genuineness of the relinquishment deed has not been disputed by the authorities below.
Section 47 provides for the transactions which are not regarded as transfer. If the case of a person does not fall u/s 47 of the Act then only all the remaining provisions of section 45 to 55A come into operation, which also includes substantial provision for full consideration in certain cases i.e. section 50C of the Act.
As far as, the case in hand is concerned as we have held above that the alleged transaction is in the nature of gift/relinquishment of rights. There is no doubt that there is a transfer of the immovable property as provided in section 2(47)(i) of the Act but this being a definition of ‘transfer’ is applicable to whole of the income tax wherever the word ‘transfer’ is mentioned. However for the purpose of computing capital gain the hurdle of section 47 needs to be cleared before computing capital gain.
Section 47(iii) states that nothing contained in section 45 shall apply to any transfer of a capital asset under a gift or will or an irrevocable trust. Assessee’s case is covered in section 47(iii) of the Act as the transfer/relinquishment of rights/gift is out of the purview of the provisions of section 45 of the Act. It is also judicially settled that section 50C of the Act is part of the chapter (IV)(E) of the Act and can be applied only if the case of assessee primarily falls u/s 45 of the Act. Since in the case of assessee transaction is not falling in section 45 of the Act, there is no room available for the revenue authorities to invoke the provisions of section 50C of the Act which in itself requires that firstly consideration should be received and secondly consideration so received is less than valuation adopted or assessed or assessable by the Stamp Valuation Authority but in case of assessee NIL consideration is received.
We the relinquishment of rights in the said property made by the assessee is in the nature of gift along with other co-owners for which no consideration was received and since this transaction of gift, it is out of the purview of section 45 and also provisions of section 50C are not applicable on the transaction referred in the instant appeal. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Classification of supply - zero rated supply/Export of services or not - activity of technical testing services carried out by the appellant - place of supply of services - liability of appellant to pay IGST on the said 'supply' - HELD THAT:- The statutory provisions vide Section 13 of the IGST Act, 2017 are very clearly worded. That is, sub-Section (2) states that place of supply of services, except the services specified in sub-Sections (3) to (13) shall be the location of the recipient of services. Sub-Section (3)(a) is specific with regard to 'services supplied in respect of goods which are required to be made physically available by the recipient to the supplier in order to provide the services'. The appellant has not disputed the applicability of the said sub-Section (3)(a) to their transactions, in any manner. They have not disputed that the 'services in respect of the goods provided by the recipient' are actually performed in India i.e., Goa. The outcome of the services being reports which are sent to the recipient abroad or that the service recipient is concerned only with the test-report, can have no bearing or relevance, once the statutory provision is clearly, plainly and unambiguously worded, as above and it is impermissible to expand the laid down criterion or to interpolate and insert words/phrases which are not used in such provisions.
As the catena of decisions relied upon by the appellant relate to the service tax regime, it does not find statutory support in the GST era. The ratio of the said decisions does not apply to the factual matrix of the extant GST statute. Hence, the same do not support the case of the appellant.
Whether appellant is liable to pay IGST on the supply of services? - HELD THAT:- Since the supplier of service is in Goa, India and place of supply of service as determined under Section 13(3)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 is also in Goa, India, the same falls under “Intra-State” supply of services as per Section 8(2) of the IGST Act, 2017 whereby the provisions under Section 7(5)(c) claimed by the appellant would not be applicable. Consequently, the appellant is liable to pay CGST and SGST on the aforesaid supply of service, as held by the lower authority.
The Ruling given by AAR, Goa is maintained. The appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petition due to low tax effect, but left the question of law open. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Seeking recall of the admission order on the ground that the claim is barred by limitation - HELD THAT:- If at all any limitation point is an issue, the applicant should have argued at threshold, since limitation issue is a mixed question of fact and law, this issue should have been raised at the time of admission or at least in the appeal filed before Hon’ble NCLAT. Moreover, matter is now pending for completion of liquidation of the company.
Now he cannot ask for recall of admission order on the ground of limitation, therefore this recall application is hereby dismissed as misconceived.
Handing over of the custody of the vehicles to the RP within one swe and affidavit - HELD THAT:- The Liquidator, as per section 429 of the Companies Act 2013, are directed to take the assistance of the Commissioner of Police in which jurisdiction this company is lying to locate the vehicle by showing the order already passed by this Bench on 26.09.2019. ‘The Commissioner of Police is hereby suggested to assist the Liquidator in taking the custody of the vehicle within fifteen days hereof - The reason is the Bank financed the vehicle could not get back - the vehicleFlying in the name of the debtor company nor could get any payment. If any delay happens in tracing the vehicle, the value of it will get further reduced.
Income attributed to the PE - Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment of the assessee company in India - Whether the transaction between the assessee and Mitsui India Pvt. Ltd. being at arm’s length only, no further profit could be attributable to the assessee? - HELD THAT:- Issue covered by the order of the ITAT in assessee’s own case right from the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2008-09 and 2010-11, wherein ITAT has consistently held that MIPL is not a DAPE of assessee company. The Assessing Officer has followed the earlier year order wherein Mitsui India Pvt. Ltd. has been held to DAPE of the assessee-company and has attributed 50% of the gross trading profits of MIPL as income of the assessee-company and the commission paid by the assessee to MIPL was registered @ 0.8905556% of the total sale.
CIT (A) has though uphold the action of the Assessing Officer that the MIPL is a DAPE but has attributed only 20% of the gross trading profit of MIPL - commission paid by the assessee-company to MIPL have been accepted at Arm’s Length Price to the TPO that no discount of commission has to be made that since the commission paid was more than 20% attributed to DAPE, the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of Ld. CIT (A) questioning the order of gross profit of sales and deleting the disallowance of commission.
Now that the issues are covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the ITAT for the Assessment Year 2005-06 wherein it has been held that MIPL is not DAPE of the assessee-company. The said order has been followed from Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2008-09 and 2010-11. Once MIPL is not held to be DAPE of assessee-company, then ostensibly no income can be attributed to the assessee company under Article 7 of DTAA, and therefore, there cannot be any question of computing income of PE or any disallowance of commission which is otherwise at Arms’ Length Price as accepted by the TPO. Similar grounds raised by the Revenue dismissed.
Seeking grant of bail - availment of fake and fraudulent input tax credit - compounding of offences u/s 138 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - It is a case of tax evasion and the offences registered against the applicant is compoundable and that the applicant has made his intention clear that he is willing to compound the offences against him in future.
The application is allowed and thus the interim bail granted to the applicant is confirmed as regular bail - this application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail is hereby allowed.
Levy of GST - work order received by the applicant from the Lila Panchayat. Singrauli under Madhya Pradesh Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana. State Rural Livelihood Mission. Panchayat & Rural Development Department. Govt. of M.P. for providing Skill. Training to the youth in the district of Singrauli in Tourism and Hospitality, Healthcare, Retail, IT-ITES and Construction sector - Entry No. 3 of Exemption Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). dated 28th June 2017 - work order received by the applicant from Jila Panchayat, Singrauli under Madhya Pradesh Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana. State Rural Livelihood Mission. Panchayat & Rural Development Department. Govt. of M.P. for providing Skill Training to the youth in the district of Singrauli in Tourism and Hospitality. Healthcare, Retail - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the work order is not issued by Jila Panchayat as claimed by the Applicant but has been issued by M.P. DAY Rajya Gramin Ajivika Mission. Therefore, services shall be deemed to be have been provided to M.P. DAY Rajya Gramin Ajivika Mission. It is not covered in the definition of local authority. Now. it is to be examined whether M.P. DAY Rajya Gramin Ajivika Mission is covered under governmental authority or government entity.
The applicant has been asked to submit the constitution of M.P. DAY Rajya Gramin Ajivika Mission so as to examine whether it is covered under governmental authority or government entity. However, the applicant's could not give requisite information about constitution of M.P. DAY Rajya Gramin Ajivika Mission and how the Exemption is available to the applicant under entry no. 3 to Notification No. 12/2017 CT (Rate) dated 28th June 2017.
The Applicant is not eligible to get benefit covered under the entry no 3 of Exemption Notification No. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 for the work order for which ruling has been asked for.
Classification of goods - Vaccine Carrier - Vaccine Cold Box - falling under chapter 90-MEDICAL OR SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS AND APPARATUS under chapter heading- 9018, sub heading 901890 and Tariff item 90189099 Other instruments and appliances used in medical science and attracting rate of tax @ 6% each under Central, State Tax or not? - falling under chapter 39 PLASTICS AND ARTICLES THEREOF chapter heading 3923, subheading 392310 and Tariff item 39231030 as “Insulated ware” attracting rate of tax @ 9% each under Central and State Tax or not.
HELD THAT:- Vaccine Carrier or Vaccine Cold Box as such is not capable of keeping the vaccines and diluents cold unless the coolant packs or ice packs are placed inside Vaccine carrier or Vaccine Cold Box. As per the literature of UNICEF, the Vaccine Carriers and Cold Boxes are insulated containers. As per the description of vaccine carrier and vaccine cold box submitted by the applicant as well as available on UNICEF website, the same do not merit for classification as instrument and appliances used in medical science. As such, the Vaccine carrier and vaccine cold box do not merit classification under chapter subheading 9089099.
As per note 1 (0 of the Chapter 90, parts of general use, as defined in Note 2 to Section XV, of base metal (Section XV) or similar goods of plastics (Chapter 39) are not covered in Chapter 90. As the Vaccine Carrier and Vaccine Cold Box being manufactured from HDPE and PUF are goods of plastics, the same is not covered in Chapter 90.
As per Rule 3a of the General Rules for interpretation of the first schedule (Import Tariff), the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to heading having more general description. According to Rule 3b of the Rules of interpretation, in case Rule 3a is not applicable, the goods shall be classified as if they consisted of the material/ raw material which give their essential character. In the applicant's case, the essential character of Vaccine Carrier and Vaccine Cold Box is insulated ware. As such, Vaccine Carrier and Vaccine Cold Box merit classification in chapter subheading 39231030.
Exemption u/s 11 - payment of Income Tax as paid on deemed income u/s 11(3) for A.Y. 2013-14 to be allowed as a deduction or application of the income of the current year - CIT-A held AO was right in law in disallowing payment of income tax of ₹ 2,16,50,650/- paid on deemed income u/s 11(3) for A.Y. 2013-14 as application of income or deduction of the income of the current year - HELD THAT:- Referring to thoughtful consideration to the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), we do not see any infirmity into the order of Ld. CIT(A). As in the present case, it is not the case of the change of accounting system. The facts are distinguishable, therefore, no interference in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is called for. Thus, Grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
Rejection of claim of creditors - applicants entered into agreements with the Corporate Debtor or paid money to the Corporate Debtor for allotment of flats or not - Financial Creditors or not - HELD THAT:- Now, when the resolution plan was approved by the CoC on 30.08.2020, the RP says, perhaps having realized in case he remained as financial creditor in class, he would not get on par with independent financial creditors, the Applicant therefore changed his mind and has filed Form-C application on 03.09.2020, i.e., after plan was approved by the CoC.
For this Applicant himself filed Form-CA application and the same being admitted by the RP without any change, thereafter having this Applicant kept quiet for more than seven months, now he cannot subsequently, that too after plan was approved by the CoC, change his mind and ask alteration of his status as separate financial creditor - Application dismissed.
9911796707
