FLASH NEWS

GST - Govt to move 54 amendments in law; eyeing Monsoon Session for amendment bill

TOP NEWS

Renting of agri land or support services to agriculture exempt from GST: Govt

e-Way Bill for Intra-State movement of goods - State tally goes up to 27

 

NOTIFICATIONS

CGST RATE

11/2018

Seeks to amend notification No. 04/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 so as to notify levy of Priority Sector Lending Certificate (PSLC) under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM)

IGST RATE

12/2018

Seeks to amend notification No. 04/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 so as to notify levy of Priority Sector Lending Certificate (PSLC) under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM).

CGST RULES

24/2018

Seeks to notify NACIN as the authority for conducting the examination for GST Practitioners under rule 83 (3) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

UTGST RATE

11/2018

Seeks to amend notification No. 04/2017- Union Territory Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 so as to notify levy of Priority Sector Lending Certificate (PSLC) under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM)

 

SGST NOTIFICATIONS + CIRCULARS

GUJARAT RATES NOTIFICATION

24/2018

Notifying National Academy of Customs for GSTP Exam - Not 24

11/2018

Reverse Charge On Priority Sector Lending Certificate - Not 11

KERALA

CIRUCLAR

Circular 13/2018

KVAT Act 2003 - Scrutiny and Assessment of Presumptive dealers and Amnesty Scheme

RAJASTHAN RULES NOTIFICATION

48/2018

Notification us 48 of the RGST Act - 2017

 

ARTICLES

Composite and Mixed Supply: Double Trouble?

Import valuation under the Customs Act and IGST Act - An overview

 

CASE LAWS

AAR CASES

2018-TIOL-39-AAR-GST

Rashmi Hospitality Services Pvt Ltd

GST - Applicant has submitted that they are having business of caterers and they normally pay GST @18% by classifying their services under heading 9963 as outdoor catering - applicant submits that one of their customers has given the contract for catering services to be provided to the staff and premises have also been made available to applicant which is non-air conditioned; that the customer has asked applicant to charge GST @12%, therefore, the present application for clarification/ruling - agreement copy submitted.

Held: Expression ‘Outdoor catering' has not been defined under the CGST Act/GGST Act, 2017 or the notifications issued thereunder - Nevertheless, the observations made by the High Court in its decision in Indian Coffee Workers Co-op Society - 2014-TIOL-499-HC-ALL-ST are relevant to decide the issue - HC has held that such services are to be treated as 'Outdoor catering' - therefore, supply of the services by the applicant is covered under Serial no. 7(v) of Notification 11/2017-CT(R) attracting CGST @9% + SGST @9%: AAR. - Application disposed of : AUTHORITY ON ADVANCE RULINGS

2018-TIOL-38-AAR-GST

Skilltech Engineers And Contractors Private Ltd

GST – Applicant is engaged in execution of works awarded by M/s Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) for construction of power lines, erection of transmission towers and transformers – contract is a single composite contract with three connected agreements for supply of materials, erection and civil works respectively – Ruling sought as to whether the contract is a divisible contract [Supply of Goods & Supply of Services] or an Indivisible Contract [Works Contract]; whether rate of tax of 12% [CGST + SGST] is applicable in terms of notification 24/2017-CT(R). Held: Contract entered by the applicant is of the nature of “indivisible” and squarely falls under Works Contract service – M/s KPTCL is registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a separate entity, therefore, cannot be considered as State Government or a State Government authority - applicant is not entitled for benefit of concessional rate of 12% under notification 24/2017-CT(R): AAR - Application disposed: AAR

2018-TIOL-37-AAR-GST

Sayre Therapuetics Pvt Ltd

GST - Applicant is involved in the diagnosis, pre and post counseling therapy and prevention of diseases by providing tests -application filed seeking advance ruling claiming that services are covered under health care services and hence is a Nil rated supply. Held: Medical team of the applicant is involved in the complete cycle and hence they facilitate the diagnosis process and, therefore, the services provided qualify to be health care services -Intra-state supply of said services attract Nil rate of Central Tax as per Sl. No. 74 of Notification 12/2017-CT(R): AAR - Application disposed: AAR

2018-TIOL-36-AAR-GST

Rajashri Foods Pvt Ltd

GST – Applicant having three manufacturing units situated at Ramanagara, Hiriyur and Bengaluru (Seshadripuram) intend to sell the unit situated at Hiruyur along with all its fixed assets namely land, building, plant and machinery etc., current assets namely stock & trade receivable etc. and liabilities namely, bank term loans, bank working capital loans, creditors for supplies etc. for a lumpsum consideration – such transaction of transfer of one of the units of the applicant as a going concern amounts to supply of service and is covered @ Nil rate under Sl. No. 2 of the Notification 12/2017-CT(R) subject to the condition that the unit is a going concern as the applicant has only asserted but not proved or shown conclusively that the transaction involves a going concern - Application disposed: AAR

2018-TIOL-35-AAR-GST

Tathagat Health Care Centre Llp

GST – Applicant is a cardiology specialized hospital running on a premises taken on lease and are providing cardiology related, life saving health care services to the patients and which output services are exempt from GST – They have also taken premises of one floor on rental basis from existing building of Mallige Hospital for heart care services only – Applicant seeks advance ruling on the question whether GST is leviable on the rent payable by a Hospital catering to life saving services. Held: Applicant has taken the premises on lease and running exclusive heart care centre and providing health care services on commercial basis – impugned service of Rental or leasing services involving own or leased non-residential property is classified under heading SAC 997212 and is taxable under GST – Further no specific exemption is available in respect of the said service under any notification for the time being in force – also there is no provision in the Act which allows exemption on an Input service if the Output service provided by the taxable person is exempt – GST is, therefore, leviable on the rent paid/payable for premises taken on lease by the applicant: AAR - Application disposed of: AAR

 

HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-42-HC-ALL-GST

Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd Vs State of UP

GST - the assessee company is engaged in manufacturing medicines & mineral water - It transferred certain stock against the stock transfer invoices after paying the IGST @ 18% - The goods were being transferred to its unit in Himachal Pradesh - The e-Way bill was downloaded & details were mentioned - Similarly, stock transfers were made from its branch in Punjab after payment of IGST & under cover of e-Way bills - Thus, the assessee claimed to have generated E-Way Bill prescribed under the UPGST Rules for all the transactions, by mentioning all the relevant details - It also sought to mention the numbers and details of two vehicles used in such transactions, but since the portal was not accepting two vehicle numbers for one transaction, it had to mention the subsequent vehicle number by hand - During transit, the goods were seized & detained for this reason, with notice being issued u/s 191(3) of the UPGST Act.

Held - Apparently due to resistence by transport unions the vehicles belonging to the State of Himanchal Pradesh were not permitted to transport the goods beyond Chandigarh - Thus, vehicles had to be changed to take the goods onwards - In such case, the e-way bill had to accomodate the details of two vehicles - Since the portal did not accept details of both vehicles, the details of the second vehicle had been entered by hand - In such circumstances, the assessee had no option but to take such recourse - Any short-fall in tax can be recovered from the assessee - Hence the goods & the vehicle be released: HC - Writ Petition Allowed : ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-41-HC-KERALA-GST

Alukka Gold Palace Vs State Tax Officer

GST - Petitioner committing mistake in providing PAN number of another firm for the purpose of registration under Kerala VAT - consequently, request made for registration under GST statutes was delayed and was granted only w.e.f 12.08.2017 - Petitioner submitting that on account of the delay they are unable to comply with the statutory requirement under GST for the period from 01.07.2017 to 12.08.2017 and seek appropriate directions. Held: To err is human - it is obligatory for respondents to make appropriate provisions to tackle issues of the instant nature - having regard to the orders passed in similar writ petitions, petition disposed by directing the fourth respondent to provide registration within two months to the petitioner under the GST statutes with effect from 01.07.2017 - no proceedings whatsoever shall be initiated against the petitioner for non-compliance of the statutory provisions: High Court - Petition disposed of : KERALA HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-40-HC-KERALA-GST

Kairali Granites Vs Assistant State Tax Officer

GST - a consignment of marble, granite slabs & tiles was detained - Later, detention notice was issued to the assessee u/s 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 - The assessee claimed that the defect in the notice was purely technical - That the vehicle details were not updated in the e-Way bills - The assessee claimed that such defect did not warrant detention of goods, particularly without there being any evasion of tax. Held - Goods detained under a detention notice issued under CGST or SGST, cannot be released without furnishing security equivalent to the duty demand raised - Hence assessee directed to deposit bank guarantee, upon payment of which, the goods & vehicle would be released - Department to then adjudicate upon imposition of penalty: HC (Para 1,2) - Writ petition disposed off : KERALA HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-39-HC-KERALA-GST

State Tax Officer (INT) Vs Kerala Gujarat Cargo Express

GST - Alleged evasion of SGST and CGST - Single Judge ordered release of the vehicle and goods by executing a simple bond - State has challenged the order contending that it is passed overlooking Rule 140 of the SGST Rules. Held: On a reading of Rule 140, Division Bench of High Court is of the view that the impugned order has to be modified - In the absence of any challenge against the rules, the goods and vehicle can be released only in accordance with Rule 140 - Therefore, interim order modified directing to release the goods and vehicle either on furnishing the bank guarantee or depositing the amount demanded - Writ Appeal disposed: High Court - Appeal disposed : KERALA HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-38-HC-KERALA-GST

Leena P Nair Vs GST Council

GST - Petitioners state that all of them have though attempted to upload FORM GST TRAN-1 within the time limit stipulated, they could not complete the process of uploading the form due to IT related glitches - petitioners seek appropriate directions.

Held: In the light of the submission made by the counsel for the GST Network, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the GST Network to make appropriate facilities/provisions to enable the petitioners to complete the filing of FORM GST TRAN-1 as directed in circular No.39/13/2018-GST dated 03.04.2018: High Court - Petition disposed of : KERALA HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-37-HC-CHHATTISGARH-GST

Shree Raipur Cement Plant Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

GST - the assessee company is engaged in mining Limestone, further used to manufacture Cement & for which High Speed Diesel (HSD) is used - The assessee is permitted to purchase goods during inter-state trade, at rates specified u/s 8(1) of the CST Act 1956 - Prior to introduction of GST, the Department would issue C-Forms to the assessee for the goods covered u/s 2(d) of the CST Act 1956 - Such C-Form would be used for purposes of Section 8 of the CST Act - The assessee claimed that the after the transition to GST, the C-Form was not being issued - Attempts to obtain C-Form showed an error message on the website stating that the invoice date should be prior to July 1, 2017 - Hence the present writ - The assessee claims that its registration certificate is w.r.t. HSD covered u/s 2 of the CST Act - It also claimed that HSD is exempted from the purview of GST & till now the GST Council made no recommendation to bring HSD under GST - Hence assessee claimed that denial of C-Form was illegal & that the assessee was otherwise entitled to receive the same u/s 8(3)(b) of the CST Act.

Held - In the present case, the assessee's registration certificate under the CST Act continues to be valid for purposes of inter-State sale & purchase of HSD, even after migration to GST - The definition of goods u/s 2(d) of the CST Act had been amended to include HSD, prior to the introduction of GST - Besides, the GST Council made no representation to bring HSD under the ambit of GST - Thus the assessee's registration certificate under the CST Act is still valid for goods mentioned u/s 2(d) of the CST Act, which includes HSD - Hence the assessee is entitled to C-Form for inter-state purchase of HSD against the C-Form - The Department is directed to issue C-Form in this regard & also rectify the error on the website to entertain the assessee's application: HC (Para 2,3,32-35,39) - Writ Petition Allowed : CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-36-HC-ALL-GST

Vardh Paper Products Pvt Ltd Vs CCT/GST

GST - Petitioner has prayed for a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the seizure, u/s 129(1) of the UP GST Act, 2017, of the goods transported in vehicle from Delhi to Siliguri.

Held: Court has no reason, prima facie, to disbelieve that the Assistant Commissioner had sufficient reasons at the time of inception to pass the impugned orders - Without giving any definite opinion on the subject, Court declines to interfere with the impugned order - Writ Petition dismissed, since misconceived: High Court - Petition dismissed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

SUPREME COURT

2018-TIOL-01-SC-GST

Vardh Paper Products Pvt Ltd Vs CCT/GST

UP GST Act, 2017 - High Court had observed that it had no reason, prima facie, to disbelieve that the Assistant Commissioner had sufficient reasons at the time of inception to pass the impugned orders of seizure and accordingly, dismissed the Writ Petition as misconceived - Appeal to Supreme Court.

Held: Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order - however, it is open to petitioner to assail the final order passed in the proceedings u/s 130 of the Act, 2017 - Special Leave Petition dismissed: Supreme Court - Petition dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA