Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2020 2020 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 161 to 180 of 1688 Records

• 2020 (1) TMI 1528 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Seeking grant of Bail - recording of statements u/s 161 of 1973 of the code - offence u/s 302 read with Sections 120-B/34, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - HELD THAT:- There has been no wrong or improper exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court in granting bail to the Accused. The factors outlined in the case of MAHIPAL VERSUS RAJESH KUMAR @ POLIA & ANR. [2019 (12) TMI 1461 - SUPREME COURT] for testing the legality of an order granting bail are absent in the order impugned. The materials available do not justify arriving at the conclusion that the order impugned suffers from non-application of mind or the reason for granting bail is not borne out from a prima-facie view of the evidence on record. The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the Accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail.

  The Accused has been in custody for about seven months. In this case also, there are no error or impropriety in exercise of discretion by the High Court in granting bail to the Accused Malkhan Singh.

  The order of High Court is affirmed - appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2020 (1) TMI 1527 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL CHENNAI
  

  Maintainability of application - Applicant has locus to file this Application or not - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- It is true that the Applicant has not placed any material showing that this debt was acknowledged in between 2004 and 2008. When three years have been passed after loan acknowledgement, such claim is to be treated as time barred debt. Any acknowledgement after expiry of three years, date of acknowledgement cannot be called as acknowledgement as stated under Sec. 18 of the Limitation Act.

  We are of the view that no acknowledgement is present to say that this debt is not time barred, for this Applicant has filed Final Order of the DRT before admission of the case by putting it to the notice of the Corporate Debtor, this Bench can even admit this Insolvency and Bankruptcy Application based on the direction given the DRT against the Corporate Debtor by taking the Order passed by the DRT for initiation of CIRP into consideration. For the Debt Recovery Tribunal having passed the order for payment, it is safely inferred that this debt is not time barred, therefore, we hereby admit this Insolvency Bankruptcy Application.

  In Section 7 cases, if debt and default are proved as in existence, even if any difference to the quantum of the claim mentioned in the application and the quantum of claim due and outstanding against the Corporate Debtor, for the Applicant having proved the existence debt and default, merely by seeing the difference in the quantum, the Petition shall not be dismissed against the Corporate Debtor - Moreover IRP/RP, as the case may be, is entitled to verify the claim and modify the same, therefore the difference in quantum cannot militate against the purpose and object of admission u/s. 7 of the Code.

  Application admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2020 (1) TMI 1526 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice u/s 148 was not validly served - no proof of serving notice in the normal course before proceeding with service of notice by way of affixture - mandation of serving officer has to show that all due and reasonable diligent efforts were made to serve the assessee/defendant with the notice - HELD THAT:- As notices are to be served by post or through courier service approved by the Board. In the present case, it is not emanating from records that any effort was made by the Assessing Officer to serve the notice u/s 148 of the Act either through post or courier service approved by the Board. It appears that the Inspector in the first instance itself served the notice on assessee by way of affixture.

  Rule 20 mandates that before proceeding with substituted mode of service of notice/summons, the Presiding Officer has to record satisfaction that the notice/summons could not be served in ordinary course. In the instant case, it is not emanating from the records that due and reasonable diligence was exercised by the Assessing Officer for serving notice in the normal course before proceeding with service of notice by way of affixture.

  As from the records before us it is not emanating that the AO has recorded satisfaction as envisaged under O5 R20 of CPC that the notice could not be served on the assessee in ordinary course and hence, service of notice has to be effected through substituted mode.

  AO has merely observed that notice under Section 148 dated 31.03.2016 was served on the assessee by way of affixture as per Inspector’s report on the same date. The manner of service of notice on assessee is certainly not in accordance with the provisions of Section 282 of the Act or even as per the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Thus, notice u/s 148 of the Act was not validly served on the assessee. In the absence of valid service of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act are void ab initio and the assessment order passed consequent thereto is null and void.

  No notice u/s 143(2) was served on the assessee after filing of return of income - As omission to issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is incurable and the requirement to issue such notice cannot be dispensed with. The assessment proceedings sans valid notice under Section 143(2) of the Act are bad in law. Thus, in view of the fact that reassessment order was passed without valid notice under Section 148 of the Act, and notice u/s143(2) of the Act, the same is unsustainable in law. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2020 (1) TMI 1525 - ITAT DELHI
  

  CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee and had failed to decide the appeal by passing reasoned assessment order - HELD THAT:- We set aside the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with direction to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits by a reasoned order, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee - assessee is also directed to appear before the CIT(A) and participate in the appellate proceedings. The appeal is thus decided on this preliminary issue without going into the merits of the addition.

  Hence this appeal is restored back to the file of CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with notices issued by the CIT(A). The preliminary issue raised in this appeal is thus decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2020 (1) TMI 1524 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - main allegation in the FIR was with regard to misuse of official position of the accused and to hatch criminal conspiracy to cause loss of revenue to the State Exchequer - criminal breach of trust - HELD THAT:- Matter has been listed by the Registry today after converting it as a Criminal Revision Petition, in compliance of the order dt.1st February, 2019, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

  ---

• 2020 (1) TMI 1523 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, DIVISION BENCH - 1, CHENNAI
  

  Condonation of delay of 35 days in filing the Application for extension of a period of 90 days from 01.10.2019 till 29.12.2019 - seeking to follow the entire process under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 in respect of the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- Admittedly from the documents it is seen that the Scheme is proposed by the Ex - Directors and Promoters of the Corporate Debtor and the issue whether the Ex - Directors and Promoters who are ineligible under Sec. 29A of the IBC, 2016 are eligible to file an application for Compromise and Arrangement was a question which fell for consideration before the Hon'ble NCLAT in JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD. VERSUS ARUN KUMAR JAGATRAMKA [2020 (2) TMI 1130 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] - Learned Counsel for the Respondent, contradicting the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Liquidator has emphatically contended that the Corporate Debtor is an MSME and as such the ineligibility in relation to Section 29 A of the IBC, 2016 would have no bearing upon them by virtue of Section 240A of the IBC, 2016.

  This Tribunal is of the view that the Respondents are trying to deceive this Tribunal by claiming themselves as an MSME, so as to enable them to submit the Scheme before the Liquidator, which is nothing short of an abuse of process of IBC.

  The Scheme of Arrangement has been proposed by the Ex-Directors and Promoters of the Corporate Debtor, who are qualified, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 29A of IBC, 2016 - a creditor / member who is otherwise ineligible under Section 29A of the IBC, 2016 is not qualified to be a proposer of the Scheme.

  Application disposed off.

  ---

• 2020 (1) TMI 1522 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Deduction u/s 80IC - AO held that the products manufactured by the assessee fall under schedule 13 (at serial No. 19) which is a negative list and, therefore, profit derived from the manufacture of these products is not eligible for deduction u/s 80 IC - HELD THAT:- We find that the issues involved in this matter are directly and substantially covered in assessee’s own case in earlier years [2019 (2) TMI 1191 - ITAT DELHI] and while respectfully following the same we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80 IC of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2020 (1) TMI 1521 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Enabling to file the custody certificate as well as affidavit of the Investigating Officer, list again on 30.03.2020 - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last about two months and moot question of law regarding the stage of initiation of prosecution under the Finance Act is involved; complaint is triable by a Magistrate; he is not required for further custodial investigation, he is directed to be released on interim bail subject to furnishing his bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, concerned.

  The petitioner will surrender his passport before the trial Court and will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

  ---

• 2020 (1) TMI 1520 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Revenue recognition - Deferred income out of the grant received by the assessee - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee has followed percentile completion method of revenue recognition which is followed in the case of contract work on broad principle that income is accrued corresponding to the expenditure incurred towards execution of the contract project. Since income has been offered by the assessee as and when accrued to it, we do not find any error in the order of CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. We also note that the assessee is consistently following this accounting method and thus, CIT(A) has deleted the addition in view of the rule of consistency. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case above, we do not find any error in the order of the learned CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. Accordingly, we uphold the same. The ground no. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

  Addition on account of difference amount paid by NIRD as 26AS - National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD) deducted TDS on the entire grant issued to the assessing during the year under consideration and the assessee offered income during the year under consideration and claimed the entire credit during the year - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has followed relevant provisions of Section 199 of the Act read with Rule 37(BA)(3) of the IT Rules, 1962 which specify that credit of the tax deducted at source and paid to the Central Government, shall be given for the assessment year for which such income is assessable. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the order of the learned CIT(A) on the issue in dispute - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2020 (1) TMI 1519 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - application is filed by an authorised person on behalf of the operational creditor - proper authority of present petition or not - qualified demand notice or not - proper documents annexed to the application or not - agreement between the applicant and respondent in relation to the rate of interest to be charged on account of delay, present or not - delivery of goods took place or not - HELD THAT:- In toto, the respondent has denied the contentions raised by the applicant. Even the respondent has denied having received the consignment of goods against which the invoices are raised by the applicant.

  Present petition is with proper authority or not - HELD THAT:- The applicant company has duly passed a resolution in meeting of the Board of Directors on 04.12.2017, which has already been produced in the proceedings at page No. 39 whereby Mr. Pratik D. Shah is authorised as authorised representative of the petitioner to file company petition, Insolvency Petition etc. apart from other powers as required to proceed with applications or cases etc. Hence it cannot be said to be bad in law.

  Notice dated 11.12.2017 issued by the applicant qualifies as a demand notice or not - HELD THAT:- The notice issued on 11.12.2017 by the applicant demanding the operational debt is supported by all the required documents like copy of sale contract, list of invoice and copy of invoices as contemplated and envisaged under the provisions of the Code. As per the provisions of the code, Section 8 read with Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 either a demand notice in form 3 or a copy of invoice attached with a notice in form 4, is required to initiate an Insolvency Application and so the demand notice duly qualifies as a demand notice under the Code.

  Whether the copies of relevant accounts from the bank/financial institution maintaining accounts of the applicant confirming that no payment is received from the respondent is annexed to the application or not - HELD THAT:- There is a requirement of furnishing other information and documentary evidence involving particulars of operational debt as well along with the application. This can be gathered from a reading of Section 9(3)(d) of the Code along with the entries mentioned in part V of form 5 under Rule 6. The important condition precedent is an occurrence of a default which can be proved, by means of other documentary evidence such as a letter written by the corporate debtor to the operational creditor confirming that a particular operational debt is due and payable.

  Whether there is an agreement between the applicant and respondent in relation to the rate of interest to be charged on account of delay? - HELD THAT:- In case if there is no agreement with respect to the interest in case of late payment, the provisions on the Interest Act, 1978 would apply. As per the Interest Act, 1978, interest can be claimed in any process of recovery of any debt or damages. Thus, the applicant is entitled to claim interest on the payment even in absence of any agreement between the applicant and the respondent, more so when there is nothing on record in writing showing that the applicant will not charge any interest for the payments delayed beyond due dates. Further, such statement itself is an admission on the part of the applicant that amount is due and payable to the petitioner but not the interest.

  Delivery of goods took place or not - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the records it is found that, prior to filing of the instant application, the respondent has never questioned about the delivery of goods in the communication made between the respondent and the applicant. That itself shows that the claim made by the respondent that no goods have been delivered to them is misleading, more so when all the documents like sales contract, tax invoice, bill of lading, packing list, certificate of origin, certificate of weight and declaration annexed to the application at page 10-16 bear stamp and signature of the respondent which shows that the respondent had received delivery of such goods.

  On perusal of the record it is found that the petition is complete in all respect - the amount involved is an operational debt and the same is due and payable to the applicant - the scheme is approved - application allowed.

  ---

• 2020 (1) TMI 1518 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH
  

  Eligibility of claimant to be made as part of the CoC or not - Applicant hit by Section 5(24) (h) & 5(24) (m) (i) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or not - HELD THAT:- At the time of enactment of IBC, whichever Company falling under the definition of related party, such company shall not have any right of representation, participation or voting in a meeting of the Committee of Creditors - Since this was an unqualified elimination of Financial Service Providers from becoming members of CoC, this situation has been remedied by inserting Proviso 2 to Section 21 (2) of the Code through IBC (2nd Amendment) Act, 2018, and now the Government has come out with an Ordinance dated 28th December 2019 including the bold words in the proviso mentioned widening the scope of exemption of financial Service providers from elimination from participating in CoC.

  The Insolvency Law Committee at the time of recommending second proviso to Section 21 (2) of the Code, it has been stated that this Related Party Rule should not be fastened upon the Financial Creditors such as Banks and ARCs and the Financial Creditors regulated by the Financial Creditor Regulators for taking them as CoC members because Financial Creditors holding large portion of financial debt in Corporate Debtor Companies for fixed returns are unable to participate in the restructuring of the company by way of Corporate Insolvency Resolution - in order to avoid that predicament, the legislature has inserted this amendment stating that though debt has been converted into equity, if the company is regulated by the financial sector regulator, first proviso to Sec. 21(2) of the Code shall not be applied.

  In this case, this Applicant has not even converted its debt into equity and it has not been holding 20% shareholding in the company - this Applicant already initiated Arbitration Proceedings against this Corporate Debtor, and the Arbitrator has also passed an award with respect to the debentures the Applicant has in the Corporate Debtor directing the Corporate Debtor to pay a decretal amount of ₹ 155,32,56,626 to the Applicant.

  This Applicant/Financial Creditor shall be permitted to become member of CoC so as to participate in considering the functioning of the Corporate Debtor and examining the Resolution Plan, if any, that may come up before the Committee of Creditors - the Resolution Professional is directed to make this Applicant as member of the CoC with voting rights proportionate to its claim against the Corporate Debtor.

  Application disposed off.

  ---

• 2020 (1) TMI 1517 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Anti-profiteering - requirement for authority to standardise and lay down methodology and procedure to determine instances of profiteering - Section 171 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- No such Rules have been formulated thus far. The determination of the authority thus varies from case to case with relevant factors not being taken into account to effectively and scientifically determine profiteering or otherwise.

  Interim stay - List on 24.02.2020. Counter by then with an advance copy served on the petitioner.

  ---

• 2020 (1) TMI 1516 - DISTRICT COURT ROHTAK
  

  Grant of Regular Bail - fraudulent availment of irregular credit - issuance of fake invoices - HELD THAT:- As per complainant, accused deprived the exchequer of more than ₹ 16 crores. There are 31 witnesses in this case. It cannot be said that the department is delaying the proceedings. No ground for bail is made out.

  Bail application dismissed.

  ---

• 2020 (1) TMI 1515 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of assessment order - non- application of mind by the 1st respondent to the explanation/objections filed by the petitioner and to the supporting material filed by the petitioner - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Though a counter affidavit is filed justifying the passing of the order by the 1st respondent, it is a settled law that an order passed by a Statutory Authority must contain the reasons for the conclusions in the said order, and the said order cannot be supported by reasons given in an affidavit filed in the Court where the said order is challenged, as held by the Supreme Court in MOHINDER SINGH GILL & ANR. VERSUS THE CHIIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI & ORS. [1977 (12) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT]. This legal position is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes.

  The Writ Petition is allowed - the impugned order dt.20.04.2017 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to consider not only the reply filed by the petitioner on 18.01.2017, but all annexures filed to the said reply, give a personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of six (6) weeks.

  ---

• 2020 (1) TMI 1514 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Dishonor of Cheque - whether the defendants have dealt with the property in any manner whatsoever to the detriment of the plaintiff and/or have mortgaged the same or created any third party rights in the same? - Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC - HELD THAT:- The counsel for the defendants states that the defendants have not done any such thing. The defendants are bound by the aforesaid statement and which, if found to be erroneous, shall make the defendants liable for contempt of the Court.

  The counsel for the defendants also states that the defendants will agree to the declaration as null and void of the Sale Deed before the Ghaziabad Court or before any other forum and shall, in furtherance thereto, do all other things, as the defendants may be required to do and if the property has been mutated from the name of the plaintiff to the name of the defendants, shall also have the mutation reversed.

  The suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of ₹ 8 crores from the defendants, is found to be misconceived and is dismissed.

  ---

• 2020 (1) TMI 1513 - ITAT KOLKATA
  

  Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - Substantial interest - two assessees namely Shri Aloke Kumar Ghosh and Shri Partha Sarathi Mondal are directors in a company namely M/s. Spandan Advance Medicare Pvt. Limited holding its 16% share each - HELD THAT:- No merit in Revenue’s stand invoking section 2(22)(e) deemed deduction of dividend under challenge. The fact remains that although the company hereinabove has paid for purchasing land(s) in the two assessees/directors’ names having 16% shares, the said lands form part of company’s balance-sheet only as its assets than that of these two assessees. The said company’s resolution(s) to this effect also indicates that these directors would not enjoy any right in the land.

  Smt. Biswas at this stage sought to justify the lower authorities’ action that if these two assessees/directors sell the land in future, that sum would indeed be in the nature of deemed dividends only - find no substance in the instant last argument as well as the land in question purchased in these two directors names cannot be taken as a “payment” per se as well - therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition(s) made in these two assessees’ cases. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2020 (1) TMI 1512 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI
  

  Seeking an order of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the operations of the applicant company - seeking reimbursement of entire cost of the CIRP proceeding to the applicant company - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal expects that the respondents would maintain status-quo in respect of the IRP proceedings. As the main company petition was remanded back to the Hon'ble NCLAT for fresh disposal in accordance with law, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has to approach the Hon'ble NCLAT for any further directions in the above matter and accordingly the application stands disposed of with the above observations.

  Even otherwise, the order of admission of the company petition has not attained finality and, therefore, no interim orders as prayed for needs to be passed today.

  Application disposed off.

  ---

• 2020 (1) TMI 1511 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Revocation of Customs House Agent - time limitation - amendment of Regulations by C.B.E & C vide Circular No.9/2010-Cus dated 08.04.2010 - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal has misapplied the time limitation prescribed in the New Regulations known as CBLR 2013, whereas admittedly the proceedings against the Assessee M/s.Sri Shipping Services had been initiated under the Old Regulations known as CHALR 2004.

  Without expressing any opinion by this Court, the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal so that the appropriate case laws in the matter may be considered by the learned Tribunal on the question as to whether the time limits prescribed by the C.B.E & C vide Notification No.30/2010 dated 08.04.2010 can be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case or not.

  Appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2020 (1) TMI 1510 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN
  

  Classification of goods - HSN Code - rate of GST - Copra i.e. edible dried coconut for human consumption - Copra i.e. inedible dried coconut for expression of coconut oil - Dried Coconut not used in expression of coconut oil - Dried Coconut used in expression of coconut oil - Desiccated Coconut that is dried and shredded flesh of coconut used for culinary purpose - HELD THAT:- Notification No. 2/2017- Central Tax (Rate) 28^th June, 2017 at S.No. 47, the supply of goods “Coconuts, fresh or dried, whether or not shelled or peeled” are exempt from GST - supply of Copra other than of seed quality attracts GST @ 5% under the Notification No. 1/2017- Central Tax (Rate) 28th June, 2017 at S.No. 66.

  Desiccated coconuts - HELD THAT:- Desiccated coconuts attracts GST @ 5 % under Notification No. 1/2017- Central Tax (Rate) 28^th June, 2017(as amended).

  ---

• 2020 (1) TMI 1509 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN
  

  Classification of services - composite supply - bundled supply of services or not - principal supply is of rent of hostel accommodation - hostel accommodation along with food facility to the students wherein consolidated amount is charged from the students - exemption from GST under Sr. No. 14 of the CGST (Rate) Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28.06.2017 as amended if the charges per day is less than ₹ 1000/- - taxability on supply of hostel accommodation along with food facility - rate of GST.

  HELD THAT:- The services supplied are more than two and taxable under GST Act, 2017 and are supplied in ordinary course of business by the applicant - Bundling/ Naturally bundled has not been defined in GST law, hence, reference can be taken from CBEC Education Guide issued in 2012 after introduction of negative list in erstwhile Service Tax regime when concept of bundling was introduced for the first time.

  It is found that naturally bundled services are those services wherein one of the services is the main service and the other services combined with such service are in the nature of incidental or ancillary services which help in better enjoyment of a main service - If current nature of supply of services is tested based on above factors, it can be ascertained that the provision of hostel accommodation could be a principal supply but ancillary services like food, gym, housekeeping, play room, cannot be said to arise naturally with the principal service of hostel accommodation and therefore are not bundled naturally with principal supply - the ancillary services like gym, housekeeping, play room, TV in dinning hall are not naturally bundled with principal supply of accommodation service and therefore as per definition of Composite Supply discussed above, the supply by the applicant is not a composite supply.

  Service of serving of food to students in hostel - HELD THAT:- The applicant is providing service of serving of food to students in hostel. The said service is classifiable under HSN 996333 as provided under Annexure to Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and attracts GST @ 5% as defined under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended).

  Providing “playroom” services to students residing in hostel - HELD THAT:- The said service is a kind of sporting/recreational service classifiable under HSN 999652 as provided under Annexure to Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and attracts GST @ 18% as defined under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

  Housekeeping and room cleaning services to students residing in hostel - HELD THAT:- The said service is classifiable under HSN 998533 as provided under Annexure to Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and attracts GST @ 18% as defined under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

  The highest rate of GST is 18% amongst various services provided by the applicant to students in hostel. As the services supplied by the applicant is a Mixed Supply and will attract GST @ 18%.

  Exemption from GST - HELD THAT:- Hon'ble West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling under GST in the matter of IN RE: M/S. SARJ EDUCATIONAL CENTRE [2019 (2) TMI 1605 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL] on the similar issue viz. whether lodging along with food to the students by a private boarding house is a composite supply and eligible for exemption under Sl. No. 14 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 it was held that Sl. No. 66 of the Exemption Notification is applicable to the services provided by or to an educational institution, as defined under clause 2(y) of the said notification. The Applicant is not an educational institution within the meaning of the above clause. Although the services are provided in terms of an MOU with St Michael’s School, the Applicant charges the consideration on the individual students. Being liable to pay the consideration, such students are, therefore recipients of the Applicant’s services and not the educational institution. Sl. No. 66 of the Exemption Notification is, therefore, not applicable

  Thus, the entire charges recovered from the students is not exempted from GST under Sr. No. 14 of the GST (Rate) Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28.06.2017 (as amended).

  ---

1 ....5678910111213........ 85