9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 (1) of the above Rules alleging that the Respondent had not charged GST on the base price of the lift ordered by him from the Respondent, after excluding the pre-GST Excise Duty on the material component and thus he had been charged tax twice on the same material. 2. The above application was examined by the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering and was referred to the DGSG, vide the minutes of it's meeting dated 15.02.2018 for detailed investigations under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. 3. The DGSG after summoning both the parties had found that an order for supply of two lifts was placed by the Applicant on the Respondent in December 2016 and for the first lift, the invoice was raised by the Respondent on 26.06.2017, against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove Act, in pursuance of a contract entered into prior to the appointed day were liable to GST but no tax was payable under this Act to the extent the tax was leviable on the said goods or services under the erstwhile VAT Act of the State or Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. He had also submitted that as per the explanation to Rule 3 of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, wherever any advance was received by the service provider against the taxable service, the point of taxation was to be construed as the date of receipt of such advance. He has further submitted that the installation of elevator was completed in the GST regime, and hence the point for levy of tax for supply of material fell under the GST regime and accordingly, two more invoic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were given by him in his letter dated 28.03.2018 to the DGSG. 6. We have carefully considered the material placed before us as well as the claim made by the Applicant and it has been revealed that the Applicant had placed an order for installation of two lifts on the Respondent in the month of December, 2016. It has also been revealed that the Applicant has no grievance against the price of the first lift supplied by the Respondent and the tax levied upon him. It has further been revealed that in respect of the second lift the Applicant has claimed that the Respondent had issued three invoices one of which was issued on 28-06-2017 on which the then applicable Service Tax was charged but on the two invoices issued on 27-07-2017 i.e. a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
