|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 501 to 520 of 14509 Records
-
2020 (12) TMI 913
Levy of Service tax - Reverse Charge Mechanism - consulting engineer service - amount paid to Honda Japan under the Technical Agreement - contention of appellant is that no services were received by the appellant from Honda Japan and, therefore, no service tax could have been levied - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice only refers to various clauses of the Technical Agreement and the taxing provisions and then alleges that the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the amount paid under the Termination Agreement, without identifying or specifying what particular ‘consulting engineer’ service was rendered by Honda Japan to the appellant. The appellant has stated that the amount of JPY 130,000,000/- was paid to compensate for the work undertaken by Honda Japan towards the commencement of volume production of the new Honda CIVIC Model and details have also been provided, which details clearly indicate that the amount was paid to compensate Honda Japan for the research and allied work it had performed at its end and not towards supply of any technical information to the appellant. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have concluded that the aforesaid amount was paid by the appellant to Honda Japan for rendering any taxable service.
It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of the learned authorized representative of the Department that in terms of Article 4.1 of the Technical Agreement, Honda Japan was required to furnish technical information to the appellant on a continuous basis or that the amount was paid for the commencement of the production.
It has also been submitted by the leaned counsel for the appellant that the amount paid by the appellant to Honda Japan is actually in the nature of a cancellation fee and, therefore, neither any service was rendered by Honda Japan to the appellant nor any amount was paid for any service. The contention is that the amount was paid by the appellant only to restitute Honda Japan for the cost incurred, once the Model Agreement to provide the service was terminated - This submissions of learned counsel for the appellant also deserves to be accepted. In view of the specific provisions of the Termination Agreement, it is clear that no service, much less ‘consulting engineer’ service, was provided to the appellant. The appellant, therefore, could not have been subjected to service tax on a reverse charge basis.
In Ford India [2018 (1) TMI 1219 - CESTAT CHENNAI], a Division Bench of the Tribunal, held that no identifiable service can be attributed for payments made if the agreement is terminated, since the consideration is to make good the loss - In Lemon Tree [2019 (7) TMI 767 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], the Tribunal again held that the amount retained after cancellation cannot be subjected to service tax.
The amount paid by the appellant to Honda Japan was not towards any consideration for a taxable service. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the demand confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (12) TMI 912
Declared Service or not - appellant had collected an amount towards compensation/penalty from the buyers of coal on the short lifted/un-lifted quantity of coal; collected amount towards compensation/penalty from the contractors engaged for breach of terms and conditions; and collected amount in the name of damages from the suppliers of material for breach of the terms and conditions of the contract - period from July 2012 to March, 2016 - Whether the appellant is providing a “declared service” contemplated under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, which service became taxable w.e.f July 1, 2012?
HELD THAT:- Liability has been fastened upon the appellant under section 65B read with section 66E(e) of the Finance Act for the period from July 2012 till March 2016 for the reason that by collecting the said amount the appellant had agreed to the obligation to refrain from an act or to tolerate the non-performance of the terms of the contract by the other party - Section 65B (44) defines ‘service’ to mean any activity carried out by a person for another person for consideration, and includes a declared service. Under section 66E (e), a declared service shall constitute agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or situation, or to do an act. Section 66 B provides that service tax shall be levied at the rate of 12 per cent on the value of all services, other than those services specified in the negative list, provided or agreed to be provided in the taxable territory by one person to another and collected in such manner as may be prescribed. Section 66D contains a negative list of services, while section 66E contains a list of declared services.
Section 68 provides that every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay service tax at the rate specified in section 66B in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed - It is, thus, clear that where service tax is chargeable on any taxable service with reference to its value, then such value shall be determined in the manner provided for in (i), (ii) or (iii) of subsection (1) of section 67. What needs to be noted is that each of these refer to “where the provision of service is for a consideration”, whether it be in the form of money, or not wholly or partly consisting of money, or where it is not ascertainable. In either of the cases, there has to be a “consideration” for the provision of such service. Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 67 clearly provides that only an amount that is payable for the taxable service will be considered as “consideration”. This apart, what is important to note is that the term “consideration” is couched in an “inclusive” definition.
The Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX ETC. VERSUS M/S. BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. ETC. [2018 (2) TMI 1325 - SUPREME COURT], while deciding the appeal filed by the Department against the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, also explained the scope of Section 67 of the Act. The Supreme Court observed that any amount charged which has no nexus with the taxable service and is not a consideration for the service provided does not become part of the value which is taxable under Section 67.
It would also be pertinent to refer to TRU Circular dated 20 June, 2012 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs as an Education Guide when the Negative List based taxation regime was introduced from July 2012 to clarify various aspects of the levy of service tax. The Board dealt with “consideration” in paragraph 2.2 of this Circular and pointed out that since the definition was inclusive, it will not be out of place to refer to the definition of “consideration” as given in section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
A service conceived in an agreement where one person, for a consideration, agrees to an obligation to refrain from an act, would be a ‘declared service’ under section 66E(e) read with section 65B (44) and would be taxable under section 68 at the rate specified in section 66B. Likewise, there can be services conceived in agreements in relation to the other two activities referred to in section 66E(e) - It is trite that an agreement has to be read as a whole so as to gather the intention of the parties. The intention of the appellant and the parties was for supply of coal; for supply of goods; and for availing various types of services. The consideration contemplated under the agreements was for such supply of coal, materials or for availing various types of services. The intention of the parties certainly was not for flouting the terms of the agreement so that the penal clauses get attracted. The penal clauses are in the nature of providing a safeguard to the commercial interest of the appellant and it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that recovering any sum by invoking the penalty clauses is the reason behind the execution of the contract for an agreed consideration. It is not the intention of the appellant to impose any penalty upon the other party nor is it the intention of the other party to get penalized.
The activities, therefore, that are contemplated under section 66E (e), when one party agrees to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act, are activities where the agreement specifically refers to such an activity and there is a flow of consideration for this activity - In the present case, the agreements do not specify what precise obligation has been cast upon the appellant to refrain from an act or tolerate an act or a situation. It is no doubt true that the contracts may provide for penal clauses for breach of the terms of the contract but, as noted above, there is a marked distinction between ‘conditions to a contract’ and ‘considerations for a contract’.
It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the view taken by the Principal Commissioner that penalty amount, forfeiture of earnest money deposit and liquidated damages have been received by the appellant towards “consideration” for “tolerating an act” leviable to service tax under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (12) TMI 911
Distribution of CENVAT Credit - Cenvat Credit including Education Cess and SHE cess taken on the Research & Development services received to their manufacturing units - Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- This Bench in its earlier judgement DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD [2020 (3) TMI 1276 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] has held that the services used in the R&D have a direct nexus with the manufacture of the final products. It is not necessary that the pharmaceutical industry has a complete R&D facility in each of its manufacturing units. In order to economise and benefit from the economies of scale, R&D units are set up as independent units for serving various manufacturing units of the manufacturer. In such a case, the services availed in the R&D units have a direct nexus to the manufacture of the products in various units. If the assessee is registered as an input service distributor, the CENVAT Credit availed on the services used in the R&D unit can be distributed to various manufacturing units.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (12) TMI 910
Seeking payment of interest on the rebate sanctioned beyond the period of three months from date of filing of claim as per Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- A circular of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, dated 01.10.2002 reiterating an earlier circular dated 02.06.1998 that stressed the importance of disposing rebate/refund claims within three months from date of receipt of such application, stating that the provisions of Section 11 BB would stand attracted 'automatically' in the case of any refund sanctioned beyond the period of three months, was also noticed - The conclusion of the Court was to the effect that the liability of the revenue to interest under Section 11BB commences from the date of expiry of 3 months from the date of receipt of application for refund under Section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which the the order of refund was made.
The ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] is applicable on all fours to the present matter.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (12) TMI 909
Principles of Natural Justice - Exemption to goods cleared from a unit located in the state of Jammu and Kashmir - benefit of N/N. 01/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010 - opportunity of hearing not provided to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- We have noticed the facts stated by the learned counsel for the parties, however, we are not dwelling on those for the reason that no findings, as such, are being recorded by this Court. The matter is being examined only with reference to violation of principles of natural justice. It is the admitted case of the parties that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing by the authority concerned and the claim made by it, was rejected. It is a case in which the claim regarding exemption was made by the petitioner with reference to notification No. 01/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010, while it was already enjoying benefits as are available in terms of the notification No. 56 of 2002 dated 14.11.2002. The aforesaid claim of the petitioner was not accepted by the competent authority, in terms of the prayer of the petitioner, but without even issuing a show cause notice to it. In case, the competent authority was satisfied with the claim made by the petitioner, a notice may not be required to be issued. But if the authority was of the opinion that the claim made by the petitioner may not be tenable, a notice is certainly required to be issued so that the grounds on which the claim of the petitioner was sought to be rejected could be discussed.
The matter is remitted back to the competent authority to be decided afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (12) TMI 908
CENVAT Credit - few transactions of which consignments were either fake or fictitious - 8 vehicles with respect to 24 invoices were found non-existent in the database - owners of 9 vehicles denied transportation by written communications - CENVAT Credit - HELD THAT:- During the course of search at the factory premises of the appellant neither incriminating documents were recovered nor any shortage/excess of raw materials/finished goods were found by the officers of the anti-evasion. The employees of the appellant in their statements have clearly stated that they have physically received the goods and utilized in the manufacture of their final products.
The adjudicating authority is required to first conduct examination-in-chief of the witnesses whose statement is relied upon by the department and then to form an opinion whether the statements of the witness is admissible in evidence with respect to the facts and circumstances of the case and then only the witness shall be offered for cross-examination - in the present case, since no examinationin-chief has been conducted by the learned adjudicating authority, therefore the statements of witnesses are inadmissible in evidence and are eschewed from evidence.
Also, the department has not confronted various evidences to the appellant, which further creates doubt about the said half-baked investigation conducted by the department - it is found that the investigation conducted at the end of transporter is not reliable piece of evidence and cannot be used against the appellant.
The appellant has taken all reasonable steps as mentioned in Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant has produced duty paid invoices under cover of which goods were received in the factory, showing names of manufacturer and supplier thereon and produced weighment slips evidencing receipt of goods. The payments have been made through the banking channels and the goods received have been duly entered into the RG-23 register - there is no evidence adduced by the department to show any flow back of money in the show cause notice. The department is not disputing the fact that these dealers raised invoices giving all particulars required to be given under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules in respect of materials supplied to the appellant. There is no evidence in the show cause notice that goods are not duty paid.
The investigation conducted by the department at the end of the transporter by searching the vehicles from the site ‘www.vahan.nic.in’ is an evidence which cannot be relied upon inasmuch as by the said evidence, the department is fastening the liability against the appellant, especially when the department could have investigated from the concerned State RTO in order to get the details of the truck owners. This exercise has not been done in the present case, thus, the said evidence cannot be relied upon in order to deny the lawful credit availed by the appellant.
The department is alleging the non-existence of premises of manufacturer/dealers, relying solely upon the alert circulars issued by the different Commissionerates. In the present case, the department has neither relied upon nor stated in the SCN about the Panchnama drawn at the concerned premises. If the said evidences have not been relied upon, then there is no material for the appellant to controvert the same, which is in clear violation of the principle of natural justice. It is well settled law that, merely on the basis of alert circulars, it cannot be said that particular premises are non-existent.
The appellant has taken all reasonable steps as mentioned in Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, therefore, the denial of Cenvat credit is wrong and liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (12) TMI 907
Attachment of Bank Accounts - recovery of tax arrears - TNVAT Act - it is contended that inasmuch as the impugned order for recovery had been issued for the amount under an assessment order which has been set aside, such demand cannot survive and would have to be nullified - HELD THAT:- There is substantial force in the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, which deserves acceptance and the impugned orders of recovery of the amounts demanded for the assessment made for the year 2013-2014 under the TNVAT Act, is set aside. Though obvious, it is made clear that the First Respondent is not precluded from recovering any amount due from the Petitioner in respect of fresh order of assessment passed by the First Respondent in Order No. TIN 33830947422/ 2013-14 dated 21.09.2015, if not already paid, by appropriate legal proceedings in the manner recognized by law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (12) TMI 906
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal available - Petitioner did not prefer any appeal before the Appellate Authority, but has instead filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Respondent - HELD THAT:- Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDAN NAGAR VERSUS DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED AND OTHER [1984 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT] has succinctly explained the legal position relating to the exercise of discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction holding that It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to by-pass the alternative remedy provided by statute.
There is no acceptable explanation from the Petitioner for not having resorted to that alternative remedy provided under the statute. It is also not the case of the Petitioner that the contentions raised in this Writ Petition could not be agitated in the appeal before the Appellate Authority - Viewed from that perspective, this Court is not inclined to delve into the merits of the controversy involved in this case, touching upon disputed questions of fact for effectual and complete adjudication of the matter.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 905
Principles of natural Justice - Non-application of mind - second respondent has observed that no document with regard to the purchase mentioned in the proposal made by the respondents for revision of assessments on the petitioner, has been produced by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered view that the impugned assessment orders passed by the second respondent are arbitrary and have been passed by total non application of mind - The second respondent ought to have furnished the documents which they are relying upon for passing the impugned assessment orders to the petitioner, as the petitioner has discharged his burden, as per Section 17 of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. As seen from the impugned assessment orders, the second respondent has passed the same only on the ground that no document has been furnished by the petitioner with regard to the proposal made by them for revision of assessments.
The other ground for passing the impugned assessment orders is that before the Enforcement Wing Officials during their inspection, the petitioner has admitted that he is not having any documents for having effected inter-state sales / purchases and the Enforcement Wing Officials have also submitted their report that the petitioner has indeed effected sales /purchase from other States.
It is settled law that there must be an independent assessment made by the second respondent, while passing the assessment orders under Section 27(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The second respondent cannot mechanically accept the findings of the Enforcement Wing Officials in his report submitted to the second respondent. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to supra will also reveal the fact that the documents seized by the Enforcement Wing Officials from the petitioner must reveal the fact that the sale / purchase comes within the meaning of “transaction”.
Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned assessment orders have been passed by total non application of mind and principles of natural justice has been violated by the second respondent by not affording copies of the documents sought for by the petitioner in his replies - matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration and the second respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (12) TMI 904
Principles of Natural Justice - petitioner having sent replies to the pre-revision assessment notices sent by the second respondent for the assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, the same has not been considered by the second respondent in the impugned assessment orders - HELD THAT:- It is settled law that personal hearing is mandatory - Hence, this Court is of the considered view that in view of the non-consideration of the replies sent by the petitioner for the revision of assessment notices sent by the second respondent and for not affording personal hearing to the petitioner in the assessment proceedings, the second respondent has violated the principles of natural justice while passing the impugned assessment orders for the assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015.
The matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration and the second respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to raise all objections available to him under law - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (12) TMI 903
Maintainability of Advance Ruling Application - question raised in the application is already pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of applicant under any provisions of this Act - Section 98 (2) of the CGST Act 2017 - Classification of services - Licensing services for the right to broadcast and show original films, sound recordings, Radio & Television Programmes etc. - HELD THAT:- The instant application has been filed on 22.09.2020 and the question raised there in is about the classification of the services being provided by the applicant. It is an undisputed fact that a search, of applicant's registered premises, was conducted by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Anti Evasion, Bangalore West Commissionerate under authorization issued by the competent authority on 30.08.2019, a Statement was recorded on 31.08.2019, an offence case was booked on 11.09.2020 and DRC-01A dated 09.07.2020 was issued on the issue of suppression of taxable value. Further, a summon dated 03.09.2020 was issued seeking clarification on the question of classification. The applicant vide letter dated 08.09.2020 to the Department sought a notice on the issue and informed that they will take up the matter of classification with Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce and CBIC. It is pertinent to mention here that the DRC-01A dated 10.09.2020 clearly specified the grounds of quantification out of which one issue is the “Wrong classification resorted under self assessment by the applicant, under SAC 9973 instead of SAC 9996 14”. Thus it is clearly evident that the issue of classification of the services provided by the applicant was under investigation as evident from DRC-01A dated 10.09.2020.
Rule 142[1A] of the CGST Rules 2017, as amended, stipulates that the proper officer may, before service of notice to the person chargeable with tax, interest and penalty, under sub-section (1) of Section 73 or sub-section (1) of Section 74, as the case may be, communicate the details of any tax, interest and penalty as ascertained by the said officer, in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A. Further the said form is prescribed one and contains a reference of the case proceedings, which clearly indicates that proceedings have been initiated and are not concluded. Thus it proves that the case proceedings are pending.
The issue raised in the instant application and the issue pending under the proceedings are one and same i.e. classification of the services provided by the applicant. Thus first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017 is squarely applicable to the instant case, as all the conditions therein are fulfilled - the application is rejected as “inadmissible”, in terms of first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017.
-
2020 (12) TMI 902
Inputs or not - Gift items - Promotional products / Materials and Marketing Items used by the Applicant in promoting their brand and marketing their products - section 2(59) of the CGST Act, 2017 - input tax credit in terms of section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The applicant states that some of the materials, like display boards, Posters, Outdoor hoardings, remain in his own account and are treated as capital goods. There is no transfer of ownership of these materials to his franchisees, distributors and retailers and hence there is no sale involved in them. Further, it is also seen that these materials have no direct correlation on the amount of sales effected and are only for display in the premises of the franchisees, distributors and retailers and they remain the property of the applicant. The applicant does not show any evidence of these returned back after their effective use - the applicant states that uniforms, gifts and carry bags are provided to the retailers, distributors and franchisees to be used by them or give them free of cost to the purchasers of their materials. Hence they are promotional materials to attract and encourage sales of their goods and hence are expenses in his accounts. In this case, the goods do not remain in the account of the applicant and is transferred to the accounts of the retailers, distributors and franchisees, with a condition that they have to be given free of cost to the ultimate consumers, i.e. sales personnel in case of uniforms, personnel and customers in case of gifts and to the customers in case of carry bags.
Non-distributable goods which are given to the distributors, franchisees and retailers - Input tax credit on capital goods - HELD THAT:- The taxes paid by the applicant on the supply of goods or services or both to him qualify as input tax credit - section 16 of the GST Acts provides for the eligibility for taking/ availing input tax credit. Since the applicant has used or intended to use the goods and services procured in the course or furtherance of business, the applicant is entitled to take input tax credit, subject to other provisions of the Act and there is no blockage attributable to section 17 (1) as the applicant has used the goods in the course or furtherance of business - the non-distributable goods are used by the applicant for the purpose of their business and at the time of such writting off or loss or destroyed, the input tax credit claimed on such goods are to be reversed. The applicant has not made any submissions regarding what is ultimately done to these goods after the end of period of usage. Assuming that they are written off or destroyed or lost, the input tax credit claimed under section 16 needs to be reversed as per Rule 43 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Distributable goods, procured by the applicant and used for sales promotion - HELD THAT:- They are given free of cost and there is no consideration for such transfer. The stock register of the applicant would be credited with these materials when they are procured and debited when they are distributed and hence they would be no longer in the accounts of the applicant - applicant, in the instant case, disposes / issues the distributable goods free of cost i.e, without any consideration to two categories i.e. Franchisees (Exclusive Show Rooms) and other shops / retailers, Avhere all brands are sold (Retailers / All brands stores).
In the instant case, with regard to the first category i.e. the Franchisees of the applicant are associated in the business of one another and hence are related persons. It is an admitted fact that the applicant disposes the distributable goods by way of gifts and free supplies to promote business and hence are to be treated as supplies in terms of para 2 of Schedule I to the CGST Act 2017. Thus the applicant need to discharge applicable GST on such supplies and thereby is entitled to avail input tax credit on the said supply of goods - The second category is that of all brands stores and they do not fall under the related persons to the applicant. Further the above Circular also addresses applicant's contention that items supplied for promotion of the brand is as per contractual obligation & hence can't be called as gifts. The Circular makes it abundantly clear that these items would be called gifts. Hence in this case, since the persons to whom the distributable goods are given are not related parties and are distinct persons and are not employees of the applicant, the transaction is not coming under the scope of supply and hence the applicant is not eligible to claim input tax credit on the same.
-
2020 (12) TMI 901
Permission for withdrawal of Advance Ruling application - levy of GST on the total amount being collected by them from Virat Associate LLP, which includes DMG Royalty, DMF & Owner's Royalty, under forward charge mechanism or on Owner's Royalty only? - HELD THAT:- The applicant vide their letter dated 23.11.2020, requested this authority to permit them to withdraw their application for advance ruling, quoting the reason that certain clauses of the MOU have been mended due to the ill effect of COVID-19 and consequential slow down of the business.
The application filed by the Applicant for advance ruling is disposed off as withdrawn.
-
2020 (12) TMI 900
Requirement of GST registration - import of services or not - place of supply - Supply of consulting services through sub-station Engineer/ expert of the applicant to OPTCL - Whether the applicant is required to be registered under Odisha Goods and Services Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 for the consultancy services rendered to M/s Odisha Power Transmission Corporation Limited? - HELD THAT:- The expert belonging maintains suitable structures in terms of human and technical resources at the sites of OPTCL. It ensures provision of supply of consulting services for the contract period, indicating sufficient degree of permanence to the human and technical resources employed at the sites. The applicant through its expert belonging, therefore, supplies the service at the sites from fixed establishments as defined under section 2 (7) of the IGST Act. The location of the supplier should, therefore, be in India in terms of section 2 (15) of the IGST Act - the contention of the applicant canot be agreed that the services supplied to OPTCL would be covered under the ambit of Entry No. 1 of Notification No. 10/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017 and shall be liable to tax under RCM.
Supply of consulting services through sub-station Engineer/ expert of the applicant to OPTCL is not, therefore import of service within the meaning of section 2 (11) of the IGST Act. The Engineer/expert belonging to the applicant should be treated as a supplier located in India, and made liable to pay GST, the place of supply being determined in terms of section 12 (2) (a) of the IGST Act - Since, applicant is liable for payment of GST, he is required to be registered under Odisha Goods and Services Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 for the consultancy services provided to Odisha Power Transmission Corporation Limited.
-
2020 (12) TMI 899
Works Contract Service or not - nature of supply made by NBCC Ltd. (Applicant) to IIT, BBSR - Legal status of IIT, Bhubaneswar - Governmental Authority’ or a ‘Government Entity’ ? - construction of IIT Bhubaneswar Campus allotted to the Applicant company - construction services related to sewerage project falls under clause (iii) of serial no 3 (classification code 9954) of the table in the Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated the 28th June, 2017 - rate of GST.
Composite supply or not - HELD THAT:- There are number of works entrusted to the applicant under a single contract/agreement made on 02.05.2016. We also find that IIT, Bhubaneswar has engaged the applicant as a “Project Management Consultant”. In order to execute the project, the applicant has engaged contractors through different competitive tender process. The applicant has awarded different types of works to various agencies/contractors with categorical mention of individual works to be carried out by them with specific remuneration for each such work. Hence, it is a supply having distinctly identifiable components with distinct value attributable to each of the components - Mere fact that a number of tasks have been entrusted to the applicant would not make it entitled to be categorized as ‘composite supply’ particularly in terms of Section 2(30) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Legal status of IIT, Bhubaneswar - Governmental Authority’ or a ‘Government Entity’ ? - HELD THAT:- Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development is exercising full control over the activities of IITs all over the country. Needless to say that in the given circumstances IIT, Bhubaneswar qualifies to be called and termed as a ‘Government Entity’ for the purpose of GST law, as it fulfils the necessary and sufficient conditions laid down under Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (R). It therefore leaves no doubt that IIT, Bhubaneswar is a Government Entity for the purpose of provisions of CGST Act, 2017 and OGST Act, 2017.
Sr. No. 3(vi) to the Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate) - HELD THAT:- The applicant has been engaged as a PMC to execute the contract for carrying out different specified works for IIT, Bhubaneswar which includes erection, commissioning, installation, etc. We also find that for executing the project, the applicant shall be paid agency charges of 5.5% in addition to the actual cost of work. The agency charges are type of commission or remuneration for rendering ‘consulting service’ to IIT, Bhubaneswar. We also find it necessary to place on record that there are certain items of supply made to IIT, Bhubaneswar including, but not limited to, ‘supply of consulting services’ which definitely do not find place in the ambit of Sr. No. 3(vi) to the Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate).Needless to mention that such supply shall not qualify for exemption as envisaged under Sr. No. 3 (vi) to the Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate), inasmuch as the said supply is a “ Pure Service” and not in the nature of works contract service - works entrusted to the Applicant namely construction of 800 seater boys hostel, 200 seater girls hostel, Construction of lecture hall complex, Construction of Student Activity Centre, Dispensary, Construction of 1000 capacity Auditorium, Construction of Central Research & Instrumentation facilities, Construction of Central Workshop, Play grounds are within the purview of sub-clause (b) of Clause (vi) of S1 No.3 (heading 9954) of Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate) under CGST Act and corresponding notification under OGST Act, 2017, and hence merit exemption where the applicable tax rate is 12%.
Construction of Directors Bungalow and construction of staff/faculty quarters - HELD THAT:- The civil construction of residential quarters is not the primary work entrusted to IIT, Bhubaneswar. Accordingly, we fail to understand as to why the benefit of concessional rate @ 12% GST should be available to this particular works contract awarded to the applicant? The intention of the Legislature has been to allow concessional rate to such work which has been entrusted to a Government entity for public interest in general, but extrapolating and extending this concessional rate to any or all activities of IIT, Bhubaneswar will not only be unwarranted but also defeat the very purpose of concessional rate. Hence, we hold that construction of Directors Bungalow and construction of staff/faculty quarters is out of the purview of exemption provided under Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 and would attract GST @ 18%.
Thus, the supply of goods and/or services or both which squarely fall within the ambit of scope of work entrusted to IIT, Bhubaneswar by Government of India shall be entitled for concessional rate under Sr. No. 3(vi) to Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (R). Accordingly, each and every supply under the subject contract shall be treated separately for determining the rate of tax under the CGST Act, 2017 read with the provisions of GST Tariff and respective exemption notifications.
-
2020 (12) TMI 898
Validity of attachment proceedings - huge amount is due from the A.K.G Memorial Labour Contract Society Limited for serious violations under the Central GST Act, 2017 including non- remittance and misappropriation of huge amounts of Goods and Service Tax - Section 83 of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent also submits that the 1st respondent has already made the payment on the basis of the direction issued by the District Labour Officer for the period from July, 2020 to October, 2020.
The petitioner cannot be granted any relief in this writ petition - Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 897
Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - E-Way bill had expired - case of the petitioner is that though the authorities were well aware about the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the goods, no notice to the petitioner was issued - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact that the petitioner did not have full opportunity to represent the case before the assessing officer, let the petitioner be given such opportunity. For such purpose, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, impugned order dated 09.12.2020 is set aside. The petitioner shall not insist on a separate notice being issued and appear before the said authority and file the objections within a period of two weeks from today. The assessing officer shall pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the representation that may be made. No useful purpose would be served in detaining the vehicle and the goods till the fresh order is passed.
The respondents shall release the vehicle and the goods upon the petitioner giving Bank guarantee of 25% of the said sum of ₹ 12,48,530/- and furnishing further Bank guarantee/immovable security for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. As soon as the petitioner fulfills these conditions the vehicle and the goods shall be released - Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (12) TMI 896
Validity of Sub-rule (4) of the Rule 36 of the GST Rules - It is argued that the Subrule (4) of the Rule 36 of the Rules speaks to restrict the ITC to a buyer of goods of services on the basis of the details of the outward supply furnished by the supplier of the services of goods or on the basis of the common portal - HELD THAT:- Let Notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 12.02.2021. The respondents shall be served by email over and above the regular service through the Court.
Application disposed off.
-
2020 (12) TMI 895
Permission for withdrawal of petition - Best Judgement Assessment - petitioner defaulted in filing return for the taxable period in form GSTR-3B for a month in financial year 2019-20 - HELD THAT:- Permission granted.
Petitions stand dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2020 (12) TMI 894
Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - some mismatch between the invoice and the e-way bill inasmuch as the invoice had been issued by the writ applicant situated at Bhavnagar where the place of dispatch mentioned in the e-way bill is shown to be Jalna at State of Maharashtra - HELD THAT:- Mr. Antani, the learned AGP has fairly pointed out that he has discussed the matter with the officer concerned and he has been instructed to make a statement before the court that the inquiry conducted so far has revealed that there has been no contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Mr. Antani further submits that, as there was some confusion, the authority concerned thought fit to detain the goods under Section 129 of the Act. However, after thorough inquiry, the authority itself has come to the conclusion that it is no longer necessary to detain the goods and the vehicle.
This writ application stands allowed - The respondent No.2 shall release the goods as well as the vehicle at the earliest.
............
|
9911796707
