|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 844 Records
-
2020 (7) TMI 425
Grant of Bail - Money Laundering - siphoning of funds - proceeds of crime - money circulation scheme - cheating and defrauding by alluring to invest ₹ 10,000/- in the attractive investment Scheme - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the petitioner has been in possession of the “proceeds of crime” and it appears that he along with others have attempted to project the same as untainted money by transferring the same to different bank accounts in a bid to camouflage it and project it to be genuine transactions. The contention of the petitioner in so far as the question of being a pre-existing “knowledge” as per Section 3(b) of the Act and in order to be held culpable under Section 4 of the Act, the same deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that the question as to whether the accused had prior knowledge needs to be culled out from the facts and circumstances of the case - Even otherwise, the use of the disjunctive “or” in Section 3 makes it clear that presence of knowledge is not the only criteria making the accused culpable under the Act.
The offence of Money Laundering is nothing but an act of financial terrorism that poses a serious threat not only to the financial system of the country but also to the integrity and sovereignty of a nation. The International Monetary Fund estimates that laundered money generates about $590 billion to $1.5 trillion per year, which constitutes approximately two to five percent of the world's gross domestic product - The offences, such as this, are committed with a deliberate design with an eye on personal profit and often shown to be given scant regard for a sordid residuum left behind to be borne by the unfortunate “starry eyed” petty investors. The perpetrators of such deviant “schemes,” including the petitioner herein, who promise utopia to their unsuspecting investors seem to have entered in a proverbial “Faustian bargain” and are grossly unmindful of untold miseries of the faceless multitudes who are left high and dry and consigned to the flames of suffering.
The issue of retrospective application of penal laws/scheduled offences which has been vehemently raised by the petitioner, but for the purposes of the instant application, the said issue need not be gone into, especially in view of the materials on record which point towards prima facie involvement of the petitioner herein and thus at this stage, what is required to be ascertained is the question of the prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the light of Section 24 of the Act - There is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be considered on its facts and circumstances and on its own merits. However, the discretion of the Court has to be exercised judiciously sans any element of arbitrariness.
This Court is not inclined to release the accused Petitioner on bail - Bail application dismissed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 424
Advance Deposit - Section 2(31) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 2(c)(xii)(b) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits)Rules, 2013 - main contention was that the advance against immovable property is deposit and such deposit was given to 1st Respondent based on fraudulent representations of 2nd and 3rd Respondent as their sole intent was to defraud the appellant - HELD THAT:- The appellant has raised the issue of ‘deposit’ in its Company Petition. But this issue has not been determined by the NCLT. Such determination will requiring looking into the facts and the nature of the transactions which may call for more submissions to be examined to arrive at a conclusion. In absence of such exercise having not been done by NCLT, we are unable to express our opinion on this issue.
Matter remanded back to NCLT to decide whether the advance received by the Respondent against allotment of flat is ‘deposit’ in terms of Section 2(31) of Companies Act, 2013 read with the Rule 2(c)(xii) of the Companies (Acceptance and Deposits) Rules, 2014 and whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 2013 - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (7) TMI 423
Permission of Company to revise Board's Report - Corporate Social Responsibility - Section 135 of the Companies Act - HELD THAT:- The instant petition is filed in accordance with law and due notice were ordered to the ROC and the Income-Tax Department, and they have also filed respective affidavits. Therefore, we are convinced with the reasons furnished by Petitioner to seek the relief as sought for. Therefore, we are inclined allow the application as sought for in the interest of justice, and on the principle of ease of doing business, however, without prejudice to the right(s) of Registrar of Companies to initiate appropriate proceedings, if the Company violate any provisions of Companies Act, 2013 and the Rules made thereunder. And the Petitioner is also at liberty to file Application suo-moto seeking to compound of any violation if it thinks so.
The Petitioner Company is permit to revise the Board's report, as sought for, as per Annexure-4 and with a direction to follow all the extant provisions of Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Company (CSR) Rules, 2014 amended from time to time, and also Rule 77 of NCLT Rules,2016 - Application disposed off.
-
2020 (7) TMI 422
Liquidation process - right of the secured creditor - Permission to cause the sale of assets of the Surana Power Limited in Liquidation under Regulation 32 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations 2016 - Application rejected mainly on the ground that BHEL is a Secured Creditors, entitle to proceed under section 52 to realize its Security Interest - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Secured Creditors which 73.76% in value have already relinquished the Security Interest into the liquidation estate. Thus, it would be prejudicial to stall the liquidation process at the instance of a single creditor having only 26.24% share (in value), in the secured assets. The Respondent does not hold a superior charge from the rest of the Secured financial creditors in the secured Assets. The above provision of SARFAESI Act will be applicable in this case to end this deadlock, and the decision of 73.76% of majority Secured Creditors, who have relinquished the Security Interest shall also be binding on the dissenting secured creditors, i.e. Respondent.
It is pertinent to mention that the facts of the present case are different from that in the case of JM FINANCIAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. VERSUS FINQUEST FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., MR. RAVI SHANKAR DEVARAKONDA, EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY, L&T FINANCE LIMITED, BANK OF INDIA, UNION BANK OF INDIA, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. [2020 (1) TMI 275 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] because in this case, the Liquidator has already concluded that the respondents charge on the Secured Assets is not exclusive. Therefore, the Respondent can realise a Security Interest as per provision Section 13(9) of the SARFAESI Act. Since the Respondent does not have a requisite 60% value in Secured Interest, therefore, the Respondent does not have right to realize its security interest, because it would be detrimental to the Liquidation process and the interest of the remaining ten Secured Creditors.
The Appellant/Liquidator is directed to complete the Liquidation Process - Appeal allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 421
Dissolution of Corporate Debtor - section 54(1) of the IBC, 2016 R/w Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 - CIRP process - HELD THAT:- The total outstanding amount payable by Corporate Debtor to Creditors was ₹ 8, 17, 19,714.00 as on date of Admission, out of which IRP/RP received total amount of ₹ 4,31,14,104.00. The total realizable Assets value of the Company as per the valuation done by the IBBI approved Valuers in terms of Regulation 27 is ₹ 8,00,234.00, against which Resolution Professional has recovered ₹ 8,70,479.19, which is over and above the liquidation and Fair Value. Therefore, the Resolution Professional paid on 20.03.2020 with breakup of, IRP/RP Professional Fee - ₹ 3,35,000.00; Towards Publication cost (reimbursement to IRP) - ₹ 29,778.00; To Valuers (4 Nos.) with GST-₹ 1,18,000.00. Therefore, the balance amount is ₹ 3,87,701.19, which is to be disbursed to the workmen as decided and approved by COC in its meeting held on 21.03.2020. However, the total claim of workmen is ₹ 5,29,203.00, which covers the period of twenty-four months preceding the Dissolution order date - it would be just and proper to permit the Resolution Professional to pay an amount of ₹ 3,72,363.00 to workmen on pro-rata basis, on making provision of ₹ 15,338.19 towards Bank service charges levied by the Bank.
There would be no useful purpose be served, by placing the Corporate Debtor under Liquidation process, under the extant provisions of Code. Since the Assets of Company were realized and realised amounts were also distributed to the respective claimants except workmen, the liquidation process under the provisions of Code is deemed to have completed under Chapter Ill of Part Il of Code, and thus it would be just and proper for the Adjudicating Authority to dissolve the Company subject to finally distribute the remaining amounts, as stated by Resolution Professional - the instant Application is filed in accordance with law and the Resolution in question to dissolve the Corporate Debtor was approved by the Sole COC.
It is hereby dissolved the Applicant Company, M/S. My Choice Knit & Apparels Pvt. Ltd., with immediate effect.
-
2020 (7) TMI 420
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Appeal has been filed on 11-11-2019 after about 150 days of the Impugned Order - CIRP process - HELD THAT:- The Appellant admittedly had noted all the passing of the Resolution Plan, at last on 4-7-2019. It is stated that when admittedly Appeal has to be filed at the most within 45 days from the date of the knowledge, the Present Appeal is apparently time barred. The ground raised in the Appeal Para 6 that during the pendency of the said proceedings before "CERC" the Appellant was not in a position to quantify the Operational Debt and do so only when the proceeding was initiated on 25th September, 2019 can not be accepted. The Appellant had admittedly filed claim before the IRP/RP of which major part was admitted by the IRP/RP. Inability to quantify the Operational Debt, as claimed when again, be no reason or obstruction in filing of the Appeal against the Impugned Order.
Appeal is time barred and is dismissed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 419
Validity of declarations filed under Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - issuance of discharge certificates under Section 127(8) of the Finance Act, 2019 - Scheme was held to be not maintainable on the premise that the case involves the confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and Section 129 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 does not grant any relief from the confiscation or redemption fine - HELD THAT:- The writ applicants could not be said to have got a fair opportunity of hearing before the concerned respondent. We are at one with Mr. Dhaval Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants that the concerned respondent could not have fixed the personal hearing during the period of lockdown. We are of the view that one opportunity should be given to the writ applicants to put forward their case before the concerned respondent in person - We do not propose to go into the merits of the various issues raised as regards the claim to avail the benefit under the Scheme. We are of the view that all the relevant aspects of the matter should be explained by the writ applicants before the concerned respondent in person.
The impugned communication in Form SVLDRS-3 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent No.3 herein i.e. the Designated Committee, Ahmedabad-South for fresh hearing on the issues in question - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (7) TMI 418
Condonation of delay in service of SCN - Time Limitation - Dishonor of Cheque - insufficient funds - offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - It is contended that the accused deliberately issued the cheque without maintaining the required balance in his account and he had also not repaid the cheque amount after receipt of the legal notice - HELD THAT:- By way of amendment w.e.f. 6-2-2003, the proviso to Section 142 (1)(b) was appended to, thereby enabling the Court to condone the delay in filing the complaint, if the complainant is successful in satisfying the Court about the sufficient cause for not making the complaint within time.
Admittedly the complainant had filed I.A.No.1 seeking condonation of delay even though I.A.No.1 is filed under section 141 of the Act. It is well settled proposition of law that quoting of the wrong provision of law cannot be a ground to reject the application.
The complainant produced the postal endorsement issued by the Department of Posts dated 4-1-2010 in reply to the complaint dated 09-12-2009, enquiring about Registered Letter acknowledgement Due bearing No. 1705 dated 27-10-2009 and informing that the said RLAD has been delivered on 28-10-2009. Therefore it was clear that even though the Registered Letter with acknowledgement Due was issued on 27-10-2009, addressing the accused, the complainant had not received any intimation regarding its service and it was only on 4-1-2010, the complainant was intimated regarding its service. This reason assigned by the complainant in the application cannot be said to be unreasonable - If the complaint is to be dismissed on technical ground i.e. on delay of about 13 days, that will amount to preventing the complainant at the threshold level, without affording him an opportunity to put forth his contention on merits. Even if delay of the said 13 days is to be condoned, no prejudice will be caused to the accused and he can very well contest the matter on merits.
The delay caused in filing the complaint may be condoned in the interest of justice - the impugned order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside, the complaint is to be restored on file and the matter is to be remanded back to the trial Court to try the same in accordance with law.
-
2020 (7) TMI 417
Validity of assessment order - time limitation - case of the petitioners is that notices/assessment orders are beyond limitation as prescribed under section 29(4) of the Act - HELD THAT:- As per section 29(1), if any amount is found due on the basis of return filed, an intimation is to be sent to the person specifying the sum payable then the same shall be deemed as demand notice. The first proviso to sub- section (1) states that acknowledgment of the return shall be deemed to be intimation under the sub-section either that no sum is payable or no refund is due. Sub-section (2) provides for best judgment assessment in the circumstances prescribed in clauses (a) to (e). As per sub-section (3), the Commissioner on his own motion or on an information received can order framing of an assessment by designated officer by any person or any class of persons for the period prescribed. Sub-section (4) provides limitation for making assessment under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) - it is evident that during the relevant time the limitation prescribed for making the assessment was within three years from the date when the annual statement was filed or was due to be filed, whichever was later. The said provision was amended and the period was extended to six years. In the Explanation added, it was clarified that the period of six years would apply to those cases in which the period of six years had not yet expired.
Thus, we are not considering the issue as to whether the amended period of limitation of six years would apply to the present cases or not. We are proceeding by assuming that there was period of six years from the date of filing of the annual statement or when it was due.
The facts are not disputed, admittedly the notices are beyond limitation and it is in these circumstances that interference is made in the writ petitions. The impugned notices/assessment orders are set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 416
CIRP process - grievance of the writ petitioner is that the police has refused to act on the First Information Report registered by them at the behest of the petitioners against the private respondents - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the police authorities, taken in its full perspective, shows that the police took sufficient steps in connection with the complaint lodged by the present petitioners - However, since the intervening commencement of the CIRP and the moratorium following therefrom, to which effect an order has also been passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, whatever action the police may take, will ultimately lead to an investigation as to the transactions of the company, which are the subject matter of the CIRP.
Therefore, although agreeing with the principle that a moratorium under section 14 might not, in certain circumstances, directly stop a criminal proceeding from going on, however, in the present case, as is evident from the affidavit-in-opposition of the police, the police has done its level best up to the time when the moratorium started operating, and the order in connection with the CIRP was passed - Since any action of the police will have to be based on investigation on the subject matter of the transaction, which is directly within the purview of the CIRP, it is to be deemed that the police cannot take further steps in the matter unless and until the CIRP culminates, in a resolution or otherwise.
The allegation, that the police are not taking sufficient steps on the complaint of the petitioners, cannot be accepted by this court - petition dismissed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 415
Money Laundering - provisional attachment order - whether the appellant has made out a prima facie case for grant of order of status quo ante? - HELD THAT:- Since the respondent has followed the procedure prescribed, there are no illegality in getting the amount transferred in the account of ED.
The appellant has offered Bank Guarantee for the retransfer of the aforesaid amount is not agreed by the respondent. During the course of hearing, the ld. senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is economically hard pressed and the aforesaid amount would be utilized by them for their real estate business. The aforesaid amount is alleged to be the proceeds of crime, therefore, the said amount cannot be allowed to be used by the appellant at this stage. Appropriate decision would be taken after hearing the parties on the merits of the appeal. At this stage, the offer of the appellant cannot be allowed.
The application seeking ad-interim order for reversal of the transfer of funds and restoration of status quo-ante is dismissed - The appeal is already listed on 11th September, 2020.
-
2020 (7) TMI 414
CENVAT Credit - input services - Renting of Immovable Property Service - service tax paid under the deeds for infrastructure development agreement, lease deed and subsequent maintenance on which service tax was paid by the input service provider under the head of renting of immovable property service - effect of amendment with effect from 01.04.2011 - HELD THAT:- As can be seen from the three components of the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, the initial part says that any service used by a service provider in connection with provision of output service or by a manufacturer in or in relation to manufacture of the final products whether directly or indirectly is covered under the definition of input service - This definition has been further enlarged by adding several other input services such as those services used in relation to setting up, modernisation renovation etc. The terms “setting up” has been deleted with effect from 01.04.2011 and hence was not on the Statute during the relevant period - The third part of the definition excludes certain types of services and this exclusion part of the definition also does not have in it, the services used in setting up of the plant.
The services used in relation to setting up of a plant are neither specifically included nor specifically excluded during the relevant period. That takes us to the main part of the definition which, with respect to manufacturer allows CENVAT credit of services used in or in relation to manufacture whether directly or indirectly. This definition is wide enough to cover in its compass any services used for setting up a Plant especially when the services are used for obtaining the land on lease - there is a direct nexus between the manufacture of the final products and the services used for setting up of plant by leasing the land.
The appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit of the disputed amounts and the impugned order needs to be set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (7) TMI 413
COD application - Area Based Exemption - Refund of the amount - statutory time limit with statutory condonable period - can the Commissioner or this Tribunal go beyond provisions of statute and condone the delay beyond the condonable limits, where there is a statutory time limit with statutory condonable period? - If the exemption notification provides for exemption subject to some conditions and if one of the conditions required for getting a larger refund has not been fulfilled by the appellant, can the exemption notification be read, ignoring such conditions? - HELD THAT:- On the question of condonable limit for delay in the case of Singh Enterprises vs CCE, Jamshedpur [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where a statutory time limit is fixed for condonation, the delay cannot be condoned beyond the time limit so fixed.
Interpretation of the exemption notification - HELD THAT:- There were several views on how exemption notifications must be interpreted i.e., either strictly or liberally. There were judgments taking both views at various levels including by the Hon’ble Apex Court, some case laws viewing exemption notifications strictly and others viewing them liberally. It has also been held in some decisions that beneficial notifications must be viewed liberally and the substantive benefits should not be denied on procedural grounds.
It is now well settled that the exemption notification must be strictly construed against the person who is claiming it. In this case, if the appellant wants to claim a higher rate of refund under exemption notification, the condition therein that they should have made an application by 30th of September must be fulfilled. If they were prevented by sufficient cause from making such application the Commissioner could have condoned the delay only up to 30th of October and not beyond. The application was clearly made beyond the condonable time limit and therefore, was correctly rejected - there are no infirmity in the impugned order.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 412
Money Laundering - transfer of the amount directed even prior to the expiry of the period of the limitation for filing of an appeal as prescribed under Section 26(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The appeal is already filed by the petitioner(s) before the learned Appellate Tribunal, the present petitions are disposed of requesting the learned Appellate Tribunal to consider and dispose of the application(s)/appeal(s) filed by the petitioner(s), as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three weeks from today. The petitioner(s) shall be at liberty to produce this order before the learned Appellate Tribunal in support of their request for early hearing of the appeal(s)/application(s) filed by them.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (7) TMI 411
Input tax credit - goods/services received for construction of hotel building - work contract service received for construction of hotel building - goods/services received for construction of banquet hall which is rented further to customer - work contract service received for construction of banquet hall which is rented further to customer - scope of plant & machinery’ - inclusion of ‘hotel/banquet’ under section 17 - specified goods viz. Lifts, sanitary items, under ground cables etc - reverse charge mechanism.
HELD THAT:- Since applicant has sought advance ruling on admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid , therefore, in terms of said Section 97(2)(d) of the Act, the application filed by the applicant was admitted - Thus authority was of the view that before deciding the application, the fate of said writ petition, whether admitted or otherwise, shall be considered and if any issue is there, notice will be issued and personal hearing would be given.
The authority shall not admit the application where the question raised in the application is pending or decided in any proceedings of an applicant under any of the provisions of this Act. No application shall be rejected under this sub section unless the opportunity of hearing given to the applicant. Where the application is rejected reasons of such rejection shall be specified in the order - as per applicant’s argument their application can be admitted in as much as no case is pending before Hon’ble Court in the name of the applicant on the issue in hand. In this context we find that applicant has been defined under Section 95(c) of the Act which means any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under this Act.
All the cases are pending in respective courts on the same issue and thus matter is sub-judice - Application rejected.
-
2020 (7) TMI 410
Contract Carriage or not - Rental service of transport vehicles - services of APSRTC giving Non Air Conditioned Buses on contract for the occasions of marriages, functions etc, for transportation of employees and students of other Organizations/Department, for different purposes like, transportation of passengers to Sabarimala, transporting of public to the places where meetings conducted by political parties and to the places like Polavaram project - Serial No 15 of notification 12/2017 - Whether the APSRTC, being a public sector undertaking, whose books of accounts are subjected to CAG of India or an auditor appointed for auditing the accounts of local authorities under any law for the time being in force, is it required to file reconciliation statement in FORM-GSTR-9C as per proviso to Section 35(5) of the GST Act, 2017?
HELD THAT:- As per serial no.15 in Notification no. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 transport of passengers, with or without accompanied belongings, by non-air conditioned contract carriage other than radio taxi, for transportation of passengers, excluding tourism, conducted tour, charter or hire is exempt from GST - the case of the applicant clearly doesn't fall under serial no.15 in Notification no. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. So the services offered by the applicant are covered by Sl.no. 10 of notification no. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 i.e., 'Rental Services of transport vehicles'.
Charge of GST on rental services - HELD THAT:- In terms of notification no. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by notification no. 20/2017- Central tax (Rate) dated 22.08.2017, notification no. 31/2017- Central tax (Rate) dated 13.10.2017, notification no. 20/2019- Central tax (Rate) dated 30.09.2019, wherein Sl.no. 10, (i) Rental Services of transport Vehicles (Heading 9966) attracts GST at the rate of 2.5% or 6% or 9% CGST. Identical rate would be applicable for SGST also, taking the effective rate to 5% or 12% or 18% - However, the rate of 5% is subject to the condition that the cost of fuel is included in the consideration charged from the service recipient and the credit of input tax charged on goods and services used in supplying the service other than the input tax credit of input service in the same line of business has not been taken.
Applicability of FORM GSTR-9C - HELD THAT:- The applicant's question doesn't fall under any of the clauses mentioned under sub section 97(2).
The rate of tax on the rental services where the cost of fuel is included in the consideration charged from the service recipient is 5% / 12%subject to satisfying the conditions as prescribed under notification no. 11/2017 - CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by notification no. 20/2017-CT ( Rate) dated 22.08.2017, notification no. 31/2017- Central tax (Rate) dated 13.10.2017, notification no. 20/2019-Central tax (Rate) dated 30.09.2019 - In case, the said conditions are not satisfied, the rate of GST is 18% (9% CGST+9% SGST) and the applicant being the provider of rental service has to pay the said tax - The applicability of GSTR-9C cannot be answered as per Section 97(2).
-
2020 (7) TMI 409
Valuation - HSD Oil issued free of cost by the service recipient to the applicant - includible in the value of supply of service or not - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the service recipient i.e., M/s. Sree Jayajyothi Cements Private Limited is providing diesel to the equipments and vehicles used by the applicant for executing the mining contracts at different places stipulated in the work order. Diesel so provided by the service recipient to the applicant for use in the equipments and vehicles of the applicant forms an important and integral component of this business process, without which the process of excavation of limestone at different mines, transportation and delivery of Limestone to Yanakandla Limestone Hopper belonging to the recipient - As per Section 15 (2) (b) of CGST Act, the value of supply includes any amount that the supplier is liable to pay in relation to such supply but which has been incurred by the recipient of the supply and not included in the price actually paid or payable for the goods or services or both.
Any amount that the supplier is liable to pay in relation to such supply but which has been incurred by the recipient of the supply and not included in the price actually paid or payable for the goods or services or both is includible in value.
-
2020 (7) TMI 408
Classification of goods - Tamarind Seed - taxable at Nil Rate under HSN Code 1209 (Forest Trees Seed) or not - HELD THAT:- The appellant at the time of Personal Hearing admitted that the tamarind seed/kernel as traded by them is sold to Millers and meant for commercial /industrial purpose. Moreover no certificate or any other document certifying the tamarind kernel/ seed meant for sowing purpose is submitted by the applicant. Coming to the classification issue, CBIC in its FAQs published on HSN code and GST Rates dt: 03.08.2017 gave a clarification that tamarind kernel falls under HSN Code 1207.
As per the powers vested in the Governor of Andhra Pradesh vide section 28-G of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act 1967, (Act 1 of 1967) in its application to the scheduled Areas in the Andhra Pradesh made A.P. preservation of Private Forest Rules, 1978 - “Chinta” is the Local name of Tamarind. Therefore, as per the Indian forest Act, 1927 and the Andhra Pradesh forest Act, 1967, Tamarind Tree is declared as forest tree. According to the Andhra Pradesh preservation of Private forest rules, 1978, a Product or a tree specified in the schedules to the Rules, whether those are produced in forest area or other than forest area, all rules and regulations are applicable as if those are forest products.
Tamarind trees are forest trees. Seeds of Tamarind trees are nothing but seeds of forest trees which Tamarind seed is classified under HSN code 1207 and attracts tax rate of 5%.
-
2020 (7) TMI 407
Classification of goods - Tamarind Seed - taxable at Nil Rate under HSN Code 1209 (Forest Trees Seed) or not - HELD THAT:- The appellant at the time of Personal Hearing admitted that the tamarind seed/kernel as traded by them is sold to Millers and meant for commercial /industrial purpose. Moreover no certificate or any other document certifying the tamarind kernel/ seed meant for sowing purpose is submitted by the applicant. Coming to the classification issue, CBIC in its FAQs published on HSN code and GST Rates dt: 03.08.2017 gave a clarification that tamarind kernel falls under HSN Code 1207.
As per the powers vested in the Governor of Andhra Pradesh vide section 28-G of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act 1967, (Act 1 of 1967) in its application to the scheduled Areas in the Andhra Pradesh made A.P. preservation of Private Forest Rules, 1978 - “Chinta” is the Local name of Tamarind. Therefore, as per the Indian forest Act, 1927 and the Andhra Pradesh forest Act, 1967, Tamarind Tree is declared as forest tree. According to the Andhra Pradesh preservation of Private forest rules, 1978, a Product or a tree specified in the schedules to the Rules, whether those are produced in forest area or other than forest area, all rules and regulations are applicable as if those are forest products.
Tamarind trees are forest trees. Seeds of Tamarind trees are nothing but seeds of forest trees which Tamarind seed is classified under HSN code 1207 and attracts tax rate of 5%.
-
2020 (7) TMI 406
Classification of supply - supply of goods or supply of services - supply of print on flex - whether under HSN 4911 under entry no 132 of Schedule II of Notification 1/2017- CTR - supply of print on flex non commercial purpose, classifiable under HSN 4911 under entry no 132 of Schedule II of Notification 1/2017- CTR or not - HELD THAT:- The applicant in the instant case is engaged in supply of printed flex material and the raw materials of the goods in questions are completely procured by the applicant himself. Immaterial of the fact that whether the content is supplied by the customer or it is designed by the applicant himself basing on the requirement of the customer, the applicant transfers the title in the goods i.e., printed material on flex to the customer - the applicant is transferring the title in goods to his customers in the form of printed flex material and it amounts to nothing but supply of goods only.
Rate of tax of the goods - HELD THAT:- The supply of print on flex is classifiable vide Notification No.1/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 under Sl.No.132 under HSN code 4911 and attracts tax rate of 12%. Further, the same has been clarified in detail vide the clarification issued under F.No.354/263/2017 - TRU, Dt: 20th October, 2017 in Circular No.11/11/2017-GST.
Whether supply of print on flex non-commercial purpose is also classifiable under HSN 4911 under entry no 132 of Schedule II of Notification 1/2017- CTR? - HELD THAT:- The applicant did not submit any specific details pertaining to the question that what would constitute commercial / Non-Commercial in the context of trade as mentioned by him. Nevertheless, the supplier of the goods i.e., applicant in this context shall levy and collect tax from the recipients for the taxable supplies made by him as per the classification of the goods and tax rates as specified in the notifications of the CGST / APGST Act 2017 from time to time as amended.
............
|
9911796707
