GST NEWS
GST Refund - Seva Bhoj Yojna - Govt notifies Guidelines
AAAR CASES
2018-TIOL-32-AAAR-GST
Shrimad Rajchandra Adhyatmik Satsang Sadhana Kendra
GST - The applicant is a charitable trust, engaged in advancement of religion, spirituality & yoga - It approached the AAR seeking to know whether such activities classifies as 'business' so as to attract levy of CGST or SGST - It also sought to know if it was liable to obtain registration under GST and whether sale of spiritual products anciliary to its main activity classify as 'business' u/s 2(17) of the CGST Act - It also sought to know if such sales are 'supply' u/s 7 of the Act - The AAR observed from the trust deed that the applicant engaged in trade & commerce by selling goods & services & so was covered under the definition of business u/s 2(17) of the Act as well as under 'supply' u/s 7 of the Act - Regarding its claim for exemption, being a charitable trust, the Act did not exempt supply of goods - The applicant's activities of holding 'Satsang' and 'Shibir' are not covered u/s 12AA of the I-T Act or Rule 2(r) of Notfn No 12/2017-CT(R).
Held - the applicant contended that the AAR omitted to consider the decision of the Apex Court in Sai Publication case - It is seen that this decision pertains to the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959 wherein the definition of 'business' is different from that provided in the CGST Act 2017 - The scope of the definition of the CGST Act is much wider - In this case, various aspects of the charitable institutions w.r.t. the definition was considered - The judgment in Sai Publication is given in a different context - The BST Act has no Notfn exempting charitable trusts, while the same is present in the CGST Act - As per the doctrine of Harmonious Interpretation, every statute has a purpose & specific intent which must be read as a whole & interpreted accordingly - Courts must avoid interpretations which are inconsistent or repugnant - Hence the judgment is inapplicable to this case - The findings of the AAR warrant no interference: AAAR
- Appeal dismissed: AAAR
HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-201-HC-AHM-GST
Sahitya Mudranalaya Pvt Ltd Vs Additional Director General
GST - The petitioner is engaged in result processing and pre/post examination facilities provided to (i) Maharashtra State Council of Examinations, (ii) Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, (iii) Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board and (iv) Gujarat Technological University - During the period of dispute, it was served SCNs proposing to levy service tax on such activities under 'Educational Institutions' - The petitioner claimed that such SCNs lacked jurisdiction since the Finance Act 1994, which sanctioned levy of service tax, had been repealed u/s 173 of the CGST Act 2017.
Held - Notices be issued to the parties, returnable on January 23, 2019 - As interim relief, stay is granted on the proceedings initiated by the SCN: HC
- Notice issued: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-200-HC-ALL-GST
Bhumika Enterprises Vs State Of UP
GST - The assessee, a dealer engaged in buying & selling Iron & Steel items, made some sales during the period of dispute - While the goods were in transit to the buyer, they were detained along with the vehicle carrying them - The grounds for seizure were stated to be that the invoice for the goods had been kept in a sealed envelope, the goods were being transported without e-way bill & that the GSTIN number on the invoice belonged to some other dealer - The assessee claimed to have been denied opportunity of personal hearing before seizure of the goods.
Held - Perusal of facts reveal that the e-way bill was issued in favor of the petitioner, one day before the seizure order was passed - There is also no substance in the submission that the transaction was made with some unknown entity, considering that the tax invoice raised in favor of the consignee was available with the seizing authority - Such authority also made no attempt to enquire into the details of the consignee, whose TIN number was mentioned in the invoice - Nonetheless, considering that the e-way bill was downloaded before the seizure order was issued, there is no justification in such order - The seizing authority is directed to release the goods & permit the assessee to deliver them to the consignee: HC
- Assessee's writ petition allowed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-199-HC-AHM-GST
Federation Of Gujarat Weavers Welfare Association Vs UoI
GST - The petitioner is an association, which challenged the constitutional validity of Notification No.5/2017 - The petitioner claimed that Section 54(3) of the CGST Act empowered the Govt to notify those goods upon which the provisions of Section 54(3) were inapplicable - It was also claimed that the section did not empower the Government to provide for lapsing of ITC - Hence the petitioners were aggrieved by the denial of refund, the grant of which was conditional upon them reversing ITC received up to July 31, 2018.
Held - Notice be issued to the parties, returnable by January 18 2019 - As interim relief, the petitioner is permitted to reverse ITC subject to final outcome of this petition: HC
- Notice issued: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2018-TIOL-198-HC-KERALA-GST
Husky Injenction Molding Systems (I) Pvt Ltd Vs CST
GST - The assessee-company, a dealer, sent some goods across the State of Tamil Nadu, during the period of dispute - The goods were intercepted & detained, whereupon an order u/s 129 of the CGST Act was issued - Hence the present writ, seeking that goods be released and that further proceedings u/s 129 of the Act be stayed.
Held - When the assessee agreed to pay duty for release of the goods, the seizing authority insisted upon the assessee obtaining a temporary registration, remit the amount & then seek release of the goods - Apparently, the assessee-company did not follow such procedure & sought for the release of the goods using its existing registration - Nonetheless, an arrangement can be worked out in the sense that the assessee can approach the seizing authority to remit the amount, whereupon the latter would generate a challan in the assessee's name using a temporary registration - The assessee can then remit the amount to the bank & produce proof of payment to the seizing authority, which would then release the goods: HC
- Assessee's writ petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT
CGST CIRCULAR
79/2018
Clarification on refund related issues
78/2018
Clarification on export of services under GST
77/2018
Denial of composition option by tax authorities and effective date thereof
76/2018
Clarification on certain issues (sale by government departments to unregistered person; leviability of penalty under section 73(11) of the CGST Act; rate of tax in case of debit notes / credit notes issued under section 142(2) of the CGST Act; applicability of notification No. 50/2018-Central Tax; valuation methodology in case of TCS under Income Tax Act and definition of owner of goods) related to GST
75/2018
GST - Seva Bhoj Yojna - Govt notifies guidelines for CGST refund
ARTICLES
Cross Charge under GST: A necessary evil?
Government Entity - Meaning and Scope
GST: Santa Claus comes calling 'Merry Christmas'...! - Part III
GST: Santa Claus comes calling 'Merry Christmas'...! - Part II
