|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 1601 Records
-
2022 (3) TMI 1381 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Blocking of Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT:- There is no scope of passing any interim order in the matter at this stage since the impugned order of blocking of ITC of the petitioners, prima facie appears to me not illegal or without jurisdiction and for final adjudication on the issues involve in this writ petition, it requires affidavit from the respondents.
List this matter for final hearing after seven weeks.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1380 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - additional evidence pertains to the said transaction which according to the Ld. AR is a business transaction was not accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- Though in the present case, the additional evidence was available with the assessee he was prevented by adducing the same due to wrong interpretation of the provision. We are of the considered opinion that the assessee may be given an opportunity to be heard before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the additional evidence and adjudicate the matter in the light of those evidences produced by complying with the procedures enumerated in Rule 46(A)(3) of the Income Tax Rules 1962. Since the second ground of appeal has to be adjudicated afresh based on the additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A), it becomes infructuous. The matter is remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) with the above observation. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1379 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH
Recovery of dues under IBC - Section 52(4) of the IBC - HELD THAT:- The applicant had an option to recover its dues u/s. 52(4) of the IBC. Once that option is foregone and the charge on the secured assets is relinquished by the secured creditor, the secured creditor cannot once again seek priority payment to the secured first charge creditor. There is no infirmity in the distribution of the assets by the Liquidator.
Application dismissed.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1378 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revision u/s 263 - Demand raised before disposal of the appeal which is pending before the ITAT - notice for demand made by the assessing officer against the assessee till the disposal of the appeal - HELD THAT:- Once an appeal has been filed against the very revisional order under Section 263 of the Act, where date has been fixed for hearing, at least till such time the assessing authority can wait. However in this case, it is the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue that, an assessing officer need not wait endlessly for the outcome of the decision to be made by the Tribunal.
Assuming that, if the assessing officer goes ahead with the completion of the assessment pursuant to the notice dated 06.02.2022 and if ultimately he passes an order, based on which this Court feels that at least the assessing authority would not proceed further to make any demand pursuant to such order of assessment, at least till the disposal of the appeal which is pending before the ITAT.
If this arrangement is made, that would save the interest of both the assessee as well as the Revenue. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following order.
1. That the assessing authority can go ahead with the assessment proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 06.02.2022 on the basis of the order passed by the revisional authority under Section 263 of the Act for which the petitioner shall cooperate by filing any reply or evidence or documents as sought for in the notice dated 06.02.2022 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
2. It is made clear that, once an order is passed by the assessing authority and if it goes against the interest of the assessee, then pursuant to which no further proceedings including the notice for demand shall be made by the assessing officer against the assessee till the disposal of the appeal which is pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, for which already date of hearing is given as 07.04.2022.
3.In view of the above, the ITAT is hereby directed to complete the hearing of the appeal proceedings and pass orders in the appeal on or before 31.05.2022 on its own merits and in accordance with law.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1377 - ITAT PUNE
LTCG - exemption from levy of capital gains tax - business assets of the assessee proprietary business were taken over by the company - whether transaction does not constitute “transfer’ for the purposes of capital gains? - HELD THAT:- As in the case of the assessee before us goodwill is a part of the assets of the proprietary concern as per the balance sheet dated 28-2-2009 - assessee goodwill has not arisen out of succession rather it is within the assets of the proprietary concern as explained through Schedule “G’ and Schedule “A’ corresponding to the assets as per the balance sheet of the proprietary concern of the assessee.
When the facts are substantially different in the decision of KANTILAL G. KOTECHA VERSUS ITO - 8 (2) (4) , MUMBAI [2016 (7) TMI 975 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] referred by the learned D.R., the same cannot be applied to the present facts and circumstances of the assessee’s case before us. Thus, on examination of aforestated facts and circumstances and judicial pronouncements, we are of the considered view that no interference is called for in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the A.O holding that the provisions of sec. 47(xiv) are not applicable since the transaction does not constitute “transfer’ for the purposes of capital gains in view of the said provision. We confirm the order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the said addition and the relief provided to the assessee is sustained. Ground No. 1 of the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed.
Unexplained bank deposits and the subsequent cash withdrawals - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that the ld. A.O should verify the sanctity and correctness of the Bank A/c No. 7922320000307 in HDFC Bank Ltd. belonging to the assessee and examine whether the funds deposited of Rs. 2,64,00,000/- in the bank account No. 07921000006316 of the HDFC Bank, whether they were from this account or not and re-adjudicate this issue in totality as per law. Needless to say that, the ld. A.O. shall comply with the principles of natural justice and provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ground No. 2 of the revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Undisclosed expenditure funds recorded in the seized material - CIT(A) gave benefit of telescoping adjustment and deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- When the only addition made is with regard to the bogus purchases there is no need for separate cash flow statement for telescoping unexplained expenditure. We are in conformity with the submission made by the ld. A.R since it is undisputed fact that for A.Y 2006-07 to 2008-09 and during the year under consideration unexplained cash credit on account of bogus purchases totaling to Rs. 59,58,770/- was made by the ld. A.O and the assessee did not press the addition on merit. Therefore, telescoping benefit on account of cash being available by debiting factious purchases should be allowed. Therefore, availability of cash to that extent is to be considered for telescoping against unexplained expenditure. We agree with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that there is no justification for making separate addition on account of unexplained expenditure. The relief provided to the assessee is sustained. Ground No. 3 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Addition on account of interest income on the interest free advances - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- Revenue also could not bring any materials/documents on record to suggest facts otherwise and therefore, it remains undisputed fact that the assessee’s capital was in excess of advances made for non-business purposes and hence we do not find any reason for interference with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the said addition. Therefore, the relief granted to the assessee is sustained. Ground No. 4 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1376 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Seizure of a Live Exotic Bird (Green Winged Macaw) - petitioner has declared this bird under the “Advisory for Dealing with Import of Exotic Live Species in India and Declaration of Stock”, issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Wildlife Division), Government of India as a Progeny of already declared stock - HELD THAT:- Be that as it may, the Customs Authority shall complete investigation within a period of one month from date, mandatorily and positively.
The Wild Life Warden shall ensure that the process of registration and acceptance thereof, under the aforesaid Advisory, is completed in acceptance or otherwise, of the birds registered by the petitioner. This shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall not be permitted to trade in the said birds until clearance by the Wildlife Warden - Let a copy of this order be served by the Registry on the Chief Wildlife Warden of the State of West Bengal.
Writ petition disposed off.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1375 - ITAT KOLKATA
NP estimation - re-computation of net profit - assessee could not furnish the books of accounts and supporting documents as the factory of the assessee at that time was sealed - AO in the absence of books of account and documents and required verification etc. re-computed the net profits of the assessee against nil income by disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IC - HELD THAT:- DR as submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has given substantial relief to the assessee on assumptions and presumptions of certain facts without appreciating the evidences on record. The Ld. DRs, therefore, have submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for assessment afresh. It has been further submitted that since the facts in all the captioned appeals are identical, therefore, the matter in relation to all the appeal be restored to Assessing Officer.
AR has submitted that even the assessee is not satisfied with the order of the ld. CIT(A). He has also requested that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
In view of the submissions of the Ld. representatives of both the parties, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) are set aside in relation to the captioned appeals and matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment in each case. Appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1374 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL KOLKATA
Legal Jurisdiction - power of NCLT to deal with the matters falling under PMLA - Validity of Provisional Attachment Order - seeking Stay of operation of the Provisional Attachment Order - seeking order of injunction restraining the Respondents from giving any effect or further effect to and/ or taking any steps or further steps on the basis of the Provisional Attachment Order dated December 30, 2021 - HELD THAT:- This Adjudicating Authority, with utmost regard to the order relied upon by the Applicant, is bound by the order dated 3rd of January, 2022 passed by Hon’ble 3 Member Bench of NCLAT which took the view that NCLT is not empowered to deal with the matters falling under PMLA.
In the present case since notice impugned has been issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 therefore, this application is not maintainable and the same is hereby rejected.
Application dismissed.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1373 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Date of issuance of notice - communication in electronic form - objection of the petitioner against the notice under Section 148 - Whether digitally signing notice would automatically amount to issuance of notice ? - Whether digitally signing a notice and issuing it are two different acts ? - Whether issuance of notice shall take place on the date and time when it is dispatched either electronically or through other mode ? - whether merely generating notice from the Departmental Portal and digitally signing it thereafter, would amount to issuance of notice ? - HELD THAT:- All the learned counsels for the parties jointly state that the question of issuance of notice has been decided today by this court in Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and 2 others[2022 (3) TMI 784 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] - They jointly state that since the petitioner has raised objection before the Assessing Authority on the point of issue of notice which is pending disposal before the Assessing Authority, therefore, the Assessing Authority may be directed to decide the objection in accordance with law after considering the judgment in the case of Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent-authority concerned to decide the objection of the petitioner against the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, in accordance with law on the point of date of issuance of notice.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1372 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Regular Bail - availment of fake GST credit - Creation of fake firms - HELD THAT:- After hearing learned counsel for the parties, without commenting anything on merits of the case and considering the long custody of the petitioner and the fact that no investigation is pending against him and it will take some time in conclusion of the trial, as only 01 PW has been examined so far, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing his bail bonds and two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
Petition allowed.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1371 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Seeking issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus for for release of brother of petitioner - the brother of the present petitioner is alleged to be illegally confined by GST - Respondent No.2 herein since 18.3.2022 - It is the grievance made on the part of the petitioner that he was permitted to give two pairs of clothes to one GST officer at the main gate of the GST Office building on 20.3.2022 but till date he is not permitted to meet his brother - HELD THAT:- The safeguards mandated through the guidelines in VIMAL YASHWANTGIRI GOSWAMI VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT [2020 (11) TMI 40 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], particularly the requirement to prepare an arrest memo, are directed towards “transparency and accountability” in the powers to arrest and detain. These safeguards flow from the fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 21 and 22 respectively of the Constitution of India. The life and liberty of a person is secured under Article 21 and supplemented by Article 22 that provides key protection against the arbitrary arrest or detention to every arrested person.”
Issue Notice returnable on 24.3.2022 - Respondent No.2 shall present himself before this Court along with the Corpus at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1370 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Territorial Jurisdiction - proper officer or not - Registration was assigned to Central GST Officer - SCN was issued and adjudicated by the State GST officer - validity of impugned show cause notice and the impugned assessment order - HELD THAT:- It is admitted fact that the taxpayer i.e. the petitioner has been assigned to the Central Officer whereas the impugned show cause notice was issued by the State Officer i.e. the respondent no. 4 ( Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Tax Saharanpur, Sector 10, Saharanpur (B), Uttar Pradesh) before whom, despite show cause notice, the petitioner did not raise any objection as to the jurisdiction and instead participated in the proceedings and submitted to his jurisdiction. Thereafter the respondent no. 4 passed the impugned assessment order creating certain demand against the petitioner. It is thereafter that the petitioner filed the present writ petition and challenged the show cause notice and the assessment order solely on the ground that it is without jurisdiction.
It is clear that the proper officer as defined under the CGST Act and UPGST Act, both are proper officers within their territorial jurisdiction and have been conferred with jurisdiction and powers under both the Acts to exercise their jurisdiction as proper officers subject to a rider that if an order is issued by a proper officer under the State Act or the Union territory Act on a subject matter then on the same subject matter, order shall not be passed by a proper officer under the CGST Act and vice versa and the orders so passed shall be intimated to the other jurisdictional officer under the other Act - Since proper officers under both the Acts have been empowered to exercise powers within their territorial jurisdiction and since both the set of officers i.e. under the CGST Act and UPGST Act are authorized to pass assessment orders, therefore, there arose necessity for division of work between two sets of officers, i.e. under CGST Act and UPGST Act having same territorial jurisdiction.
A proper officer under the UPGST Act/CGST Act has inherent jurisdiction over assessees falling within his territorial jurisdiction but that jurisdiction has to be exercised as per cases assigned by the designated committee comprising Chief Commissioner/Commissioner, Commercial Taxes of respective States and jurisdictional Central Tax Chief Commissioners/Commissioners. In the present set of facts, the Chief Commissioner of Central Taxes, Lucknow and Meerut Zone, Lucknow and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, U.P. issued the aforesaid order no. 04/2018 assigning the taxpayers to proper officers and the case of the petitioner has been assigned to the proper officer under the CGST Act i.e. Central Officer and not to the respondent no. 4.
Present case is not a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction rather it is a case of error of jurisdiction on account of non allotment of case of the petitioner assessee to the respondent no. 4/State officer.
The respondent no. 4 being proper officer under the Act having territorial jurisdiction over the petitioner assessee is competent to exercise the powers conferred under the Act in respect of assessee, falling under his territorial jurisdiction. But as per minutes of the meeting of the G.S.T. Council and the circular issued in this regard, the distribution of work for administrative convenience was made and as per which the case of the petitioner was assigned to a central officer. Thus it is not a case that the state officer i.e. the respondent no. 4 lacks inherent jurisdiction but it is a case where the jurisdiction has been exercised by the respondent no. 4 in the absence of any objection or pointing out by the petitioner that the case has been assigned to a central officer - the impugned show cause notice and the impugned assessment order do not suffer from any inherent lack of jurisdiction and instead it is the result of contributory error of jurisdiction by the respondent no. 4., in the circumstances that the petitioner submitted to the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 4 without informing or without raising objection as to the assignment of the case to the central officer and after well participating in the assessment proceedings allowed the assessment order to be passed by the respondent no. 4.
The writ petition is dismissed.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1369 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Validity of Show Cause Notice (SCN) - service tax is leviable on royalty paid on mining operations or not - petitioner contended that this issue is pending before the larger bench of the Supreme Court in a reference to 9 judge bench in the meantime, service tax should not be allowed to be recovered - HELD THAT:- Firstly this petition is directed against the show cause notice and in this adjudication process is still not over. It is true that even against the show cause notice this Court would entertain the writ petition if jurisdiction question is raised. In other words, if the authority issuing show cause notice has no jurisdiction to levy a tax, this Court would not insist on the assessee submitting to such notice. However in the present case the issues as of now stand concluded against the petitioner.
Petitioner has candidly placed for consideration a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of UDAIPUR CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHERS [2017 (10) TMI 975 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] in which the question of service tax on royalty on mining lease was examined and decided against the assessee. The decision of 5 judge bench of the Supreme Court in case of STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER VERSUS KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANOTHER [2004 (1) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT] would also be applicable. Merely because the Supreme Court in subsequent decisions has doubted the correctness of the view of the 5 judge bench and referred the issue to 9 judge bench, would not persuade us to stay the department from issuing notice and adjudicating the demands.
It is noted that the reference was made to the larger bench by an order passed in MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC. VERSUS M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS [2011 (3) TMI 1554 - SUPREME COURT]. If all the proceedings are stayed awaiting the reference judgment even before the adjudication has been completed, there is serious apprehension of the evidence and materials getting lost. We would therefore not like to stop the department from even carrying out the adjudicating process on the petitioner’s expectation that the larger bench of 9 judge may reverse the decision in the case of Kesoram Industries.
Petition dismissed.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1368 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
Input Tax Credit - ITC on Gift - GST paid on inputs/input services procured by the appellant to implement the promotional scheme under the name 'Buy n Fly' - Section 16 read with Section 17 of the CGST Act, 2017 and TNGST Act, 2017 - contention is that these goods/services do not fall under 'gift' (Section 17(5)(h)) as the same was not given in volition, but on contractual obligation, on retailers achieving the targeted sales nor these goods/services called as goods/services used for personal consumption - HELD THAT:- Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 empowers the taxpayer for entitlement of taking the tax charged on the Inputs as input tax credit on the goods or services or both supplied to him which are used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of his business and such unbridled flow of input tax credit got restriction in section 17 of the Act. The sub-section (5) of the section 17 begin with Non-obstante clause that Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 16 and sub-section (1) of section 18 and hence the sub-section (5) of section 17 would independently apply and the Parliament consciously restricts the input tax credit which is a concession and not a vested right.
The clause (g) forbid the input tax credit for the goods or services used for personal consumption and the Parliament in its wisdom did not place any further restriction as to who use the goods or services or both for personal consumption and it is obvious reason that under the GST law the flow of input tax credit is allowed until its consumption and hence such personal consumption be by the appellant or by its retailers would disentitle them to avail such input tax credit. Hence the plain reading of clause (g) reveals that the goods or services or both used for personal consumption by the appellant or its retailers would make the related input tax credit unavailable for the appellant, as the retailers of the appellant ultimately consumed the goods and services provided under reward scheme and the contention that the clause (g) would be applicable to the stage of procurement use and not on the last use would be of no avail to the appellant
In the case at hand, the actual costing which is assessed has not been substantiated to hold the expenses at hand tor which credit is claimed. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has stated that the M.R.P. remained the same both Pre and Post Campaign, which points that the goods and services distributed under the scheme were without valuable consideration - It is interesting to note that the appellant provided rewards by way of goods and also foreign tours by providing valid air tickets and that's why they coined the reward scheme as “Buy n Fly”. Thus what they provided in the scheme was goods and services. The provisions of the clause (h) stipulates that input tax credit would not be available for goods lost, stolen, destroyed, written off or disposed of by way of gift or free samples.
The appellant has referred to the Circular No.92/11/2019 dated 7.3.2019 issued under Section 168 (1) of the Act, and claimed that their situation falls under ‘C. Discounts including 'Buy more, save more offers'. Para: 'C' provides clarification in cases when staggered discount is offered to customers; periodic/year ending discounts to stockiest, etc based on the criteria spelt in, whereas in the case at hand, the retailers/stockiest are extended rewards which are definitely not' 'Discounts' discussed in Para C of the circular. The appellants case more aptly falls under Para A of the Circular - It has been established that the giving away of goods/services under the scheme is not a 'Supply' and therefore ITC of the GST paid on the goods/services procured for the 'Buy n Fly Scheme' is not available to the appellant.
Thus, as per the provisions of the CGST Act/TNGST Act 2017 more precisely, Section 17 (5) of the Act, the gifts or rewards given without consideration even though they were given for sales promotion do not qualify as inputs for the purposes of Credit, since no GST is paid on its disposal. Therefore, the input tax credit on the inputs and input services involved in the goods and services used for the purpose of reward is not available for the appellant and accordingly the ruling given by the Advance Ruling Authority of Tamil Nadu requires no intervention.
The appeal is dismissed.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1367 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Classification of supply of services - composite supply - principal supply is supply of services or not - activity of design and development of patterns used for manufacturing of camshafts for a customer - naturally bundled services or not - intermediary services or not - HELD THAT:- The applicant, on instructions of the OEMs / Machinists and on the basis of the specifications agreed between itself and the OEM / Machinist identifies and engages a third party Indian manufacturer to manufacture the pattern and tools which are then delivered to the applicant on behalf of the overseas OEMs/Machinists (since the ownership of tools lie with OEMs/ Machinists), for use in manufacture of camshaft prototype. Therefore, the applicant on behalf of the overseas OEMs/Machinists, not only identifies third party vendors who can manufacture the pattern and tools as per the design/drawings, but also explains and closely works with third party manufacturer to develop the patterns and tools thereby engaging with the third party manufacturers for supply of tools.
The applicant is not only providing services to the overseas OEMs/Machinists, but they also actively identify and closely engage with third party vendors on behalf of the overseas OEMs/Machinists. The supply in the instant case consists only of service and there is no supply of goods. Such supply of services appears to be that of an intermediary service - the Applicant is located in India and in the subject case, in respect of patterns and tools, the applicant represents it's overseas OEMs/Machinist as their representative. The applicant actively identifies and closely engages with third party vendors, for manufacture of patterns and tools; by such third party vendors (on behalf of the overseas OEMs/Machinist). Thus, the applicant is effectively connecting the third party vendors in India with the requirements of its overseas OEMs/Machinist.
In the subject case the main supply would be supply of tools and patterns to the overseas customers by the third party vendors, which is not actually happening physically since the tools and patterns are moving from the third party vendors directly to the applicant. Such movement of goods to the applicant appears to be on behalf of the overseas vendors because the ownership of the tools and patterns is with such overseas vendors as submitted by the applicant. Secondly the ancillary supply would be the supply of designs and drawings of the patterns and tools by the applicant, on behalf of the overseas customers to third party vendor/s and also the activity of identifying the third party vendors who can manufacture the pattern and tools as per the design/drawings (requirements) and explaining and closely working and engaging with such third party manufacturer to develop the patterns and tools.
It is very clear from the applicant's submissions that they are not providing any services on its own account. The designs are provided to the third party vendors on behalf of the overseas customers of the applicant. The service provided by them is to their overseas customers and as per the requirements and directions of its overseas principals - thus the applicant is satisfying all the conditions of an intermediary and we have no hesitation in holding that, the applicant is supplying intermediary services as per the relevant provisions of the IGST Act, 2017.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1366 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TELANGANA
Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - appropriate forum - Levy of GST - HR supply service received by pimpri chinchwad smart city - exemption from GST - HELD THAT:- As seen from the material papers submitted by the applicant, the place of supply of service under Section 12(2) of the IGST Act is in the State of Maharashtra and therefore this AAR is not the appropriate forum in terms of Section 96 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The application is rejected.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1365 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TELANGANA
Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - appropriate Forum - Requirement of registration - provision of service related to Renting of Immovable property - requirement of registration of person registered in the State of Telangana who is in possession of an immovable property in the State of Maharashtra - HELD THAT:- As seen from the material papers submitted by the applicant, the place of supply of service under Sub Section 3 of Section 12 of the IGST Act is in the State where the immovable property is located and therefore this AAR is not the appropriate forum in terms of Section 96 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The application is rejected.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1364 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TELANGANA
Levy of GST - classification of "Interest" portion of equated installments under Annuities Model - payment of interest is a Pure Service or not - applicable rate of GST - HELD THAT:- The clause (d) of sub section 2 of Section 15 clearly states that the value of supply shall include interest or late fee or penalty for delayed payment of any consideration for any supply. Therefore all the monies paid to the contractor by the applicant including the interest on delayed payments is liable to tax under CGST Act, 2017 under this provision.
Interest is part of consideration as per the valuation rules discussed above. Therefore no separate classification exists - there is no requirement of discussing the issue applicability of Entry No. 3 of the Notification Number 12/2017 - Central Tax (Rate), dt: 28th June, 2017.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1363 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TELANGANA
Classification of services - rate of GST - Ready to Eat popcorn sold in retail packages - HELD THAT:- As seen from the facts of the case the tariff heading ‘2008’ pertains to a class of commodities covering fruits, nuts and other parts of plants and not the preparations pertains to cereals etc., which are enumerated in the competing tariff entry ‘1904’. Therefore the commodity under question clearly does not fall under tariff head ‘2008’ - Regarding the contention of the applicant with respect to classification of RTE popcorn under a general tariff heading ‘2016’ it is to inform that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of case laws held that a general entry or a residual entry will be preferred for a classification of commodity only in the absence of a specific entry.
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of DUNLOP INDIA LTD. & MADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [1975 (10) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT] held that “when an article has, by all standards, a reasonable claim to be classified under an enumerated item in the Tariff Schedule, it will be against the very principle of classification to deny it the parentage and consign it to an orphanage of the residuary clause.
Thus when a specific entry is available for enumerating the commodity ‘RTE popcorn’ to relegate it to the orphanage of the residuary entry will be against the principle of classification as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the above precedents. Hence RTE popcorn is classifiable under tariff head ‘1904’ enumerated at Serial No. 15 of Schedule III of Notification No. 01/2017 dated: 28.06.2017 - thus, HSN classification is ‘1904’ and the rate of tax is 9% SGST & CGST each.
-
2022 (3) TMI 1362 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TELANGANA
Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - Recipient of supply seeking ruling - Levy of GST - purchase of a plot for residential purpose - Levy of GST on sale/purchase of plots, when it is immovable property - HELD THAT:- Section 95(c) defines applicant as any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under this Act. And Section 95(a) enumerates that a Advance Ruling needs decision for providing in relation to supply of goods or services undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant - In the present case, the person applying for Advance Ruling does not qualify under Section 95(c) to be an applicant and also he is not making or proposing to make any supplies of goods or services.
An Advance Ruling cannot be given by this authority. Hence the application is rejected.
............
|
