|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 839 Records
-
2020 (6) TMI 459
Forged import licence - Imposition of penalty under Section 112 and 114 AA of the Customs Act - allegation that, the appellant have imported wireless transmitting/receiving apparatus, satellite communication equipment, etc. against the forged import licence purported to have been issued by the Wireless Planning and Coordination (WPC), Wing of the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Government of India.
HELD THAT:- Though the WPC approvals were not appropriately issued, the investigations have not brought out categorically whether the equipments imported and cleared on the strength of such forged WPC approvals were in violation of technical norms prescribed for such equipment for importation or not. Also, no findings in this regard have also been given in the impugned order-in-original. It is also noted that for the equipment which basically meet the technical specifications, the WPC approval were provided as a matter of routine and the appellants have actually been obtaining the required WPC approval from the concerned department but this fact also does not absolve the appellant from the omissions and commissions which have been committed by them in forging the WPC approval.
Quantum of penalty is reduced - appeal allowed in part.
-
2020 (6) TMI 458
Rejection of prayer of the petitioner for delivery of possession of the premises/flat - Sub-Section (2) of the Section 452 of Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The scheme referred to, the quarter/premises being part of the entitlement in terms of service and the settled principles of law which have spelt out the proposition regarding the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 452 of the Companies Act (earlier Sub-Section (2) of Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956), I am of the opinion that the accused/opposite party is unnecessarily dragging the issue relating to vacating the quarter/premises belonging to the company on different pretext.
In view of the conduct of the accused/opposite party and the provisions of law along with the settled principles, it can be held that the order dated 17- 4-2019 passed by the Ld. ACJM, Durgapur is not in consonance with the principles of law and is liable to be set aside.
This Court ordinarily would have directed the accused/opposite party to vacate the quarter being No. LR-153, ABL Township, Durgapur- 713206 immediately, however, having regard to the present socio economic conditions because of the pandemic which has spread world wide, this Court feels that the accused/opposite party must be granted a breathing time of one year, accordingly the accused/opposite party would be entitled to retain the aforesaid quarter till 30th June, 2021.
-
2020 (6) TMI 457
Validity of action of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC), in trying to demolish the billboards/hoardings of the petitioners - demand of fee for two periods, namely, pre GST and post GST - HELD THAT:- Without even answering the query raised as to whether the GMC would have the authority to levy such fee for the post GST period, it is an admitted fact that certain disputes has arisen for the period prior to promulgation of the GST. While the statutory authority of GMC contends that huge sum is pending from the petitioners as fee for the billboards/hoardings erected in the city of Guwahati, it is the case of the petitioners that no amount is payable and rather, excess amount is lying with the GMC. Such questions are no doubt questions of fact and that too, disputed by the parties. This Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be loath to adjudicate any matters constituting disputed questions of fact inasmuch as this Court lacks the mechanism for adducing evidence which would be necessary to prove the respective cases of the parties.
Admittedly, the materials on record suggest that there is a vast difference of opinion regarding the amount due, if any. In that view of the matter, this Court is not in a position to make any comments on the demands made and the challenge made to such demands and it will be left for the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum to adjudicate such questions of fact which are disputed in nature.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 456
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- Apart from the plea of limitation, the rest of the plea raised by the Corporate Debtor are baseless and without any documents being produced to substantiate the same. Further, it may also be seen that the Corporate Debtor has not replied to the Demand Notice issued by the Operational Creditor and the plea of pre-existing dispute is an afterthought.
As to the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Corporate Debtor that the Application is barred by limitation, it may be seen that the Operational Creditor has filed the present Application before this Tribunal on 24.09.2019. The date of the first invoice is 19.07.2016 and the date of the last invoice is 13.12.2016. Since the account is a running account, as no evidence has been placed on record by the Corporate Debtor that it should be treated otherwise and for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation, if the date of the last invoice is to be reckoned i.e. 13.12.2016, then the Application which was filed by the Operational Creditor before this Tribunal on 24.09.2019 is sufficiently well within the prescribed period of Limitation - bare reading of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 would posit the position that Section 4 to Section 24 (inclusive) of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall be applicable to the applications filed under IBC, 2016. Therefore, the contention of the Corporate Debtor that Section 19 of Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the Application filed under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 is required to be brushed aside.
From the list of invoices filed, it is evident that the claim as raised by the Operational Creditor is within the prescribed period of limitation of 3 years. The registered office of the Corporate Debtor is situated within the State of Tamilnadu, amenable to its territorial jurisdiction and this Authority has no hesitation in admitting this Petition and initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as against the Corporate Debtor - this Tribunal is perforce to initiate CIRP in relation to the Corporate Debtor by admitting this Petition under the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Application to Adjudicating Authority Rules, 2016.
Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2020 (6) TMI 455
Consolidation of respective insolvencies of LCL and two of its wholly-owned subsidiaries, WAML and Dasve Convention Centre (DCCL) - Resolution of the Debt of Warasgaon Power Supply Limited (WPSL) and Dasve Retail Limited (DRL) - HELD THAT:- DRL is a wholly owned subsidiary of LCL. It has only one Financial Creditor, i.e. Central Bank of India. In case of DRL also the entire Financial Debt has been Admitted as Financial Debt of LCL pursuant to the Corporate Guarantee and Security provided by LCL. The lone Financial Creditor, i.e. Central Bank of India, as an Applicant in the consolidation Application has mentioned that the financial Debt of DRL be resolved as part of the consolidated Resolution Plan for LCL. Keeping in view that DRL is a 100% subsidiary of LCL the infrastructure is not owned by DRL but by LCL and also revenue stream of DRL will cease to exist once LCL Resolution comes into effect, therefore, it is a fit case for where the Resolution of DRL be linked and decided with LCL. However, since DRL is not under CIRP "Consolidated" CoC of LCL, WAML and DCCL where the sole Creditor of DRL, i.e. a Member, may discuss their issue and take a call on consolidating it with the Consolidated Resolution Plan.
The fate of each of the 100% subsidiaries of LCL viz. WAML, DCCL, DRL and WPSL depends on the outcome of LCL's CIRP. Looking at the substantial inter-dependence, this Bench is of the view that without consolidation of LCL group companies no Resolution of Insolvency of LCL and its 100% subsidiaries is possible and would result into a loss of huge value to all stakeholders and thereby defeating the objective of the Code.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 454
Disciplinary Action - Duty of the IP to appoint registered valuers to determine the fair value and liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor - Appointment of valuers - violation of clause 5 of the Code of Conduct - HELD THAT:- The role of IP is vital to the efficient operation of the insolvency and bankruptcy resolution process. A well-functioning system of resolution driven by a competent IP plays a significant role in cementing together the interests of the Corporate Debtor with those of the creditors. It is for this reason that the need of specialized professionals to complete the resolution processes has been unequivocally emphasized.
The Code also requires an IP to play a catalytic role in CIRP which requires a right combination of experts acting under the overall supervision of the IP. He is the backbone of the resolution process under the Code and success thereof hinges on the conduct and competence demonstrated by him. Also, a corporate debtor undergoing CIRP is a representation of interests of several stakeholders who pin their hopes on the outcome of CIRP. During CIRP, it is the utmost responsibility of an IP to run the company of corporate debtor as a going concern and conduct the entire CIRP in a transparent manner without creating additional insolvency resolution process costs.
The DC is conscious of the fact that the insolvency regime in India is at its infancy. Also, the insolvency profession is new and emerging. Further, it is also recognised that the role of an IP in India is significantly different as compared to other matured jurisdictions. These facts may call for some leniency as long as these are not mala fide - the DC, in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 13 (3) of the IBBI (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017 and section 220 (2) of the Code read with sub-regulations (7) and (8) of Regulation 11 of the IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016, disposes of the SCN with certain directions.
-
2020 (6) TMI 453
Prescription of lower percentage of eligibility marks - prospective or retrospective - it was held by the High Court that the applicant is deemed to have been succeeded in the Examination for Income-Tax Officers held in 2003 and eligible to be promoted as Income-Tax Officer in the available vacancy in preference to his juniors, with consequential fixation of pay - HELD THAT:- There are no ground warranting interference with the impugned order in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
SLP dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 452
Arbitration agreement - Applicability on the party who is not the signatory of the agreement - Scope of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Securing of money received from the sale proceeds of the auction of the hotel in Goa - Bidding Process - whether the relief claimed by the Petitioner for directing Respondent No. 2 to deposit the amount of ₹ 85 crores along with accrued interest, lying in the banks in the form of FDRs, in the custody of Respondent No.2, in this Court and a further direction not to disburse the same to Respondent No.1, can be granted?
HELD THAT:- the scope of power of a Court under Section 9 of the Act is not limited to parties to an Arbitration Agreement and the Court can issue interim directions even against a third party. The distinction between the powers under Section 9 of the Act and Section 17 of the Act has a clear rationale. An Arbitrator is a creature of the contract between the parties and therefore cannot venture outside the contract to issue directions to parties who are non-parties to the Arbitration Agreement. This limitation is not applicable to a Court exercising power under Section 9 of the Act.
As brought out by IFCI, pursuant to Order dated 27.08.2018, SEBI has already written to IFCI seeking release of the money and the same is pending due to a communication of Respondent No.1 that it would be taking steps in the pending writ petition against the release of money. Petition filed by Respondent No.1 in Bombay High Court for redemption of his property is still pending and its claims are yet to be adjudicated against Respondent No.2. Therefore, at present it cannot be argued by the Petitioner that Respondent No.2 is holding the sum of ₹ 85 Crores as a Custodian of Respondent No.1, so as to be entitled to the reliefs sought herein.
The objection raised by Respondent No.2 on its being a non-party and non-signatory to the Arbitration Agreement, becomes irrelevant and does not require any further adjudication - Reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court - Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 451
Works Contract - Composite Supply - supply made by NEC under the Automatic Fare Collection (AFC) project - original works meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry, or any other business or profession - applicability of GST rate of 12% provided in the Notification 24/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 21 September 2017 - HSN classification of supply made by NEC would fall under ‘8470’ or ‘9954’? - maintenance and management services post implementation.
HELD THAT:- The proposed contract is for supply of the AFC system comprising supply of multiple hardware and software and commissioning, installation and integration of the same. Under said contracts, the hardware and software to be provided by the applicant consists of POS machines, ETMs, flap gates, validators, station servers, communication components, control centre hardware, manual swing gates for disabled etc.. All the supplies i.e. hardware, software, installation and integration etc. are integral part of the AFC system - The term “works contract” has been restricted to contract for building construction, fabrication etc. of any immovable property only. Any such composite supply undertaken on goods say for example a fabrication or paint job done in automotive body shop will not fall within the definition of term works contract per se under GST. Such contracts would continue to remain composite supplies, but will not be treated as a Works Contract for the purposes of GST.
As per Para 6 (a) of the Schedule II to the CGST Act, 2017, works contracts as defined in Section 2(119) of the CGST Act, 2017 shall be treated as a supply of services. Thus, there is a clear demarcation of a works contract as a supply of service under GST. Hence, Works contract will be treated as service and tax would be charged accordingly.
The applicant’s contention that the contract for supply of the AFC system to the local authority does not qualify as a ‘Works contract’ under Section 2(119) of the CGST Act, 2017, since the installed AFC system cannot be said to result in the emergence of an immovable property is agreed upon - the AFC system is not an immovable property as it can be dismantled and moved to a different location without any damage. Further, it is found from their submissions and agreement that the contract is considering a clear demarcation of goods & services to be provided by the applicant.
The goods (hardware) and services (software, installation and integration etc.) are supplied as a combination and in conjunction and in the course of their business where the principal supply is supply of goods - there is a composite supply in the subject case.
Classification of supply - Rate of Tax - to be treated as original works or not - HELD THAT:- In this case, the proposed contract is for supply of the AFC system comprising supply of multiple hardware and software and commissioning, installation and integration of the same. All the supplies i.e. hardware, software, installation and integration etc. are integral part of the AFC system and any of such individual supply is not the principal supply. The principal supply would be the goods i.e. the AFC system as a whole. Thus, the services of commissioning and installation cannot be said to be a principal or main supply under the contract - the supply of the AFC system would not qualify as ‘original works’. Thus, the rate of 6% as provided in entry number (vi) of the Notification No.11/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) as amended by the Notification No. 24/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) should not be applied in case of the AFC system.
Whether the HSN classification of supply made by the applicant would fall under ‘8470’ or ‘9954’? - HELD THAT:- The supply to be made under proposed Contract by the applicant does not qualify as a “Works contract”. Since, the supply by the applicant does not qualify as works contract, such supply should not get classified under ‘9954’ - Considering that the main purpose of the AFC system is to compute the fare automatically and issue tickets along with integration of the system with the banks, the most appropriate HSN classification is to be ‘8470’. Considering the rate of GST prescribed for HSN ‘8470’ is 18%, the same should be applicable in this case.
Whether the maintenance and management services post implementation would qualify as composite supply as defined under section 2(30) of the CGST Act, 2017? - whether such supply would be eligible for exemption under Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June 2017 in case value of supply of goods constitutes not more than 25% of the value of the said composite supply? - HELD THAT:- The supply of the maintenance and management services to be provided post implementation of the AFC system under proposed contract would also qualify as a ‘composite supply’ with the AFC system, being the principle supply.
Whether supply of the maintenance and management services post implementation of the AFC system would be eligible for exemption under Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June 2017 in case value of supply of goods constitutes not more than 25% of the value of the said composite supply? - HELD THAT:- The Notification No. 12/2017 – Central Tax (Rate), dated 28th June, 2017, as amended by the Notification No.02/2018–Central Tax (Rate) dated 25th January, 2018 provides that composite supply of goods and services in which the value of supply of goods constitutes not more than 25 percent of the value of the said composite supply provided to the Central Government, State Government or Union territory or local authority or a Governmental authority or a Government Entity 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 would be exempted from levy of GST - the said contract would be awarded for supply of the AFC system along with maintenance and management of the all hardware and software forming part of the AFC system. The supply of the AFC system comprises supply of goods (multiple hardware) and services (software, installation, commissioning, integration of the same). Further, the maintenance and management would also include supply of spares etc. for undertaking repairs of the AFC system. The proposed contract, thus, comprises composite supply of goods and services.
M/s SSCDL is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 and, hence, does not fall under the definition of the local authority or a Governmental authority or a Government Entity. As such, supply of the maintenance and management services to be provided post implementation of the AFC system does not eligible for said exemption.
-
2020 (6) TMI 450
Requirement of GST registration - medical store run by Charitable Trust - medical Store providing medicines at a lower rate - supply of goods or not - HELD THAT:- The applicant is a charitable trust which appears under the definition of ‘person’ and falls at clause(m) of sub-section 84 of Section 2 of the CGST Act, 2017.As per definition, a charitable trust is a person as per clause (m) of sub section 84 of section 2 of CGST Act, 2017. The applicant is providing medicines from its medical store at lower rate, so activity of dealer is to provide medicines with less pecuniary benefit. As per the definition of ‘business’ any trade, commerce, manufacture, profession, vocation, adventure, wager or any other similar activity, whether or not it is for a pecuniary benefit is termed as business. Hence, it is clear that any trade carried out whether for pecuniary benefit or not is a business as per CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the applicant is carrying out business activity as per CGST Act, 2017.
Applicant is selling medicines from its medical store. Medicine is goods as per subsection 52 of Section 2 of the CGST Act, 2017. Medicine is a taxable supply as per sub section 108 of section 2 of CGST Act, 2017 and GST is leviable on medicine as per Chapter-30 of HSN code. Therefore, sale of medicine by the applicant is a taxable supply of goods. Applicant is providing medicines from its medical store at lower rate so price paid by the customers is consideration for the applicant as defined in sub-section 31 of Section 2 of the CGST Act, 2017 - the activity of supply of goods by the applicant does not fall under the list appearing in Schedule-III of the CGST Act, 2017.
The applicant is making taxable supply from its medical store, so as and when aggregate turnover (here medicine) of applicant exceeds threshold limit as specified in sub-section(1) of Section 22 of the CGST Act, 2017, the applicant has to obtain registration under the relevant provisions of the CGST Act, 2017.
-
2020 (6) TMI 449
Computation of threshold limit for the purpose of GST registration - Receipt of Interest on savings / loans - receipts in the course or furtherance of Business or not - scope of supply - Interest received in form of PPF - Interest received on Personal Loans and Advanced to family/friends - Interest received on Saving Bank Account - whether the interest should be considered for the purpose of calculating the threshold limit of ₹ 20.00 Lakh for registration under GST Law?
HELD THAT:- The services regarding interest income are covered under the above Notification. Therefore, such services are exempted from payment of GST and the individual is not required to discharge GST on the activity of providing services by way of extending deposits, loans or advances where the consideration is represented by way of interest. Therefore, in given case GST is not leviable on Interest Income earned by the Applicant.
The applicant is an individual with an annual turnover of more than ₹ 20 Lakh. Since this income is interest-related, the turnover is exempt from GST. However, the Applicant also supplies services of “Renting of immovable property” along with activity of providing services by way of extending deposits, loans or advances where the consideration is represented by way of interest. His turnover from the rent income is ₹ 9.84 Lakh and we know that this transaction (Renting of immovable property) is chargeable to GST. However, his taxable turnover is only ₹ 9.84 Lakh. Going by the definition of “aggregate turnover”, the Applicant is required to consider the value of both the taxable supply i.e. “Renting of immovable property” and exempted supply of service provided by way of extending deposits, loans or advances for which they earned interest income, to arrive at “Aggregate Turnover” to determine the threshold limit for the purpose of obtaining registration under the GST Act.
The Applicant is required to aggregate the value of exempted interest income earned by way of extending deposits in PPF & Bank Saving accounts and loans and advances given to his family/friends along with the value of the taxable supply i.e. “Renting of immovable property” for the purpose of calculating the threshold limit of ₹ 20.00 Lakh for obtaining registration under GST law.
The Interest received in form of PPF should be considered for the purpose of calculating the threshold limit of ₹ 20.00 Lakh for registration under GST Law - Interest received on Personal Loans and Advanced to family/friends should be considered for the purpose of calculating the threshold limit of ₹ 20.00 Lakh for registration under GST Law - Interest received on Saving Bank Account should be considered for the purpose of calculating the threshold limit of ₹ 20.00 Lakh for registration under GST Law.
-
2020 (6) TMI 448
Levy of GST - sale of plot of land for which, as per the requirement of approved by the respective authority (i.e. Jilla Panchayat), Primary amenities such as, Drainage line, Water line, Electricity line, Land levelling etc. - HELD THAT:- The applicant is the owner of the land, who develops the land with an infrastructure such as Drainage line, Water line, Electricity line, Land levelling etc. as per the requirement of the approved Plan Passing Authority (i.e. Jilla Panchayat). After this development of the land, he sales developed land as plots. His sales price includes the cost of the land as well as the cost of common amenities, Drainage line, Water line, Electricity line, Land levelling charges, etc. on a proportionate basis - Schedule II of the CGST Act, 2017 pertains to activities or transactions to be treated as “Supply of goods or supply of services”. As per clause 5(b) of the Schedule-II of the CGST Act, 2017, construction of a complex, building, civil structure or a part thereof, including a complex or building intended for sale to a buyer is a “Supply of service” and, hence, is liable to the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
The activity of the sale of developed plots would be covered under the clause ‘construction of a complex intended for sale to a buyer’. Thus, the said activity is covered under ‘construction services’ and GST is payable on the sale of developed plots in terms of CGST Act / Rules and relevant Notification issued time to time.
-
2020 (6) TMI 447
Classification of goods - Rice Bran (22+0il) - rate of tax on supply - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the information provided by the applicant indicates that the product under consideration has not been obtained by milling rice but rather consists of Rice husk of poha and mamra and Sludge/ Wax oil. Thus, the product is clearly not Rice Bran in light of the meaning of Rice Bran.
Further, in absence of the actual process undertaken on the raw materials it can only be concluded that product is a combination of Rice husk of poha and mamra and Sludge/ Wax oil. From the scarce information provided in the application, it is understood that the assessee is a chemical or allied industry. Further, the actual processes undertaken and the resultant product have not been accurately specified and as such, the only option available is to classify the said product in the residual entry of Chapter 38 pertaining to miscellaneous chemicals Products - Residual products of the chemical or allied industries, not elsewhere specified or included; Municipal Waste; Sewage Sludge; Other waste specified in Note 6 to this Chapter.
The above product can be classified under Chapter 38259000 as the residual entry of the miscellaneous chemical products - Chapter 3825 is covered under Sr. No. 98 of Schedule III of Notn. No. 1/2017 CT (Rate) and attracts rate of 9% CGST and the corresponding State notification specifying the rate of 9% SGST.
-
2020 (6) TMI 446
Maintainability of Advance Ruling Application - scope of Advance Ruling - Levy of GST - online or telephonic educational coaching from India for corporate, individuals or any other entities residing required outside India - Category under which taxable - HELD THAT:- As per Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017, this authority can only pass a ruling on matters or questions specified in subsection 2 of Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant.
The supply of services is to entities situated outside India and therefore to answer their question we will be required to discuss the provisions of Section 13 and Section 2(6) of IGST Act, 2019, pertaining to place of supply of services - As per the Section 97(2) of CGST Act, the questions on which advance ruling is sought under this Act, shall be in respect of, matters or issues mentioned in Section 97 (2) (a) to (g) only.
The “place of supply of services” does not find mention in the said Section 97 - this authority is not allowed to answer the subject question.
The subject application is not maintainable and thus liable for rejection.
-
2020 (6) TMI 445
Classification of goods - Heat Activated Ultra-Violet (HAUV) Polyester Film with Adhesive Coating and UV Printing - applicable HSN code - HELD THAT:- The subject product is nothing but a self-adhesive film which is able to stick permanently to paper and classifiable under Chapter 3919. Our finding is also strengthened by the fact that applicant is importing the said goods under Chapter 3919.
The goods which fall under Chapter 3919, as in the subject case will not fall under Chapter 49. The fact of the matter is that the said goods during import are classified under Chapter 3919 and the same has been accepted by the applicant. It will therefore not be open for them to apply for a change of classification, for the same product, to this authority.
-
2020 (6) TMI 444
Export of Service or not - design & Development services provided by Lear India to Lear entities situated abroad - whether services fall under the category of OIDAR services? - HELD THAT:- A letter dated 23.01.2020 was submitted by applicant, wherein it was requested that they may be allowed to voluntarily withdraw the first question made in the subject application. The request of the applicant to withdraw the first question of application voluntarily and unconditionally is hereby allowed, without going into the merits or detailed facts of the case.
Whether the Design & Development services provided by the Applicant to Lear entities situated aboard would fall under the category of OIDAR services? - HELD THAT:- Prima facie this is a question, pertaining to classification and is covered by Section of the CGST Act, 2017 - he subject services are presently being classified by them as ‘Consulting Engineering Services’. However, the GST department has issued them a Show Cause Notice 27.08.2018 proposing to classify the services of the Applicant under “On-line database access services” wherein the SCN has alleged that the services provided by the Applicant is bundled service of design, prototype, testing in virtual world through computer network and online database access gives the essential characteristic of OIDAR to the said bundled service - In view of the provision to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, this authority cannot admit the application in respect of this question because the question raised in the application is already pending before the department under the provisions of this Act as is seen from the SCN issued to the applicant on 27.08.2018.
-
2020 (6) TMI 443
Maintainability of Advance Ruling Application - Place of supply of services - “Commission” received by the Applicant in the convertible foreign exchange for rendering services as an “Intermediary” from overseas clients - Trade in goods between an exporter abroad receiving such services and an Indian importer of goods, is an ‘export of services” falling under Section 2(6) & outside the purview of Section 13(8) (b) - cross-border sales/purchase of goods - intra-state supply - HELD THAT:- As per Section 97(2) of CGST Act, the questions on which advance ruling is sought under this Act, shall be in respect of, matters or issues mentioned in Section 97 (2) (a) to (g) only. The “place of supply of service” does not find mention in Section 97.
This authority is not allowed to answer the subject question - The subject application filed for advance ruling is rejected, as being non-maintainable as per the provisions of the GST Act, 2017 and Rules made thereunder.
-
2020 (6) TMI 442
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternate remedy - validity of the action initiated by the revenue authorities when an alternate remedy would have been available to the assessee - HELD THAT:- Issue notice, returnable in twelve weeks - Till the next date of listing, there shall be a stay of operation of the impugned judgment and order of the High Court for the State of Telangana dated 4 March 2020 in WP No 2161 of 2020.
-
2020 (6) TMI 441
Grant of Regular Bail - Offence under Section 132(1) a,b,c of Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - prevailing COVID-19 pandemic situation - HELD THAT:- Considering the existing situation due to COVID-19 and the fact that trial is likely to take some time, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the release of the petitioner on regular bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds. However, it is made clear that anything observed herein shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case - Petitioner is also directed to furnish security worth ₹ 10 lacs in the form of bank guarantee/original paper of immovable property, within 15 days.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (6) TMI 440
Reopening of portal for claiming CENVAT Credit - vires of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the judgment in BRAND EQUITY TREATIES LIMITED, MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD., DEVELOPER GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, RELIANCE ELEKTRIK WORKS VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2020 (5) TMI 171 - DELHI HIGH COURT], has not been stayed so far and therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to abide by the directions issued therein by adequately publicising the said decision and uploading it on their website as also by opening its common portal to enable the petitioner and all similarly placed parties to upload Form GST Trans-1, for claiming CENVAT tax credit.
The respondents are directed to ensure compliance of the captioned judgment by 19.06.2020, particularly since the cut of date fixed by the court in the said case is 30th June, 2020, which would leave only ten clear days for the petitioner and similarly placed assessees to take necessary steps.
Petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
