CGST RULES NOTIFICATION
32/2019
Seeks to extend the due date for furnishing the declaration FORM GST ITC-04
31/2019
Seeks to carry out changes in the CGST Rules, 2017
30/2019
Seeks to provide exemption from furnishing of Annual Return / Reconciliation Statement for suppliers of Online Information Database Access and Retrieval Services(“OIDAR services”).
29/2019
Seeks to prescribe the due date for furnishing FORM GSTR-3B for the months of July, 2019 to September,2019.
28/2019
Seeks to extend the due date for furnishing FORM GSTR-1 for registered persons having aggregate turnover of more than 1.5 crore rupees for the months of July, 2019 to September,2019
27/2019
Seeks to prescribe the due date for furnishing FORM GSTR-1 for registered persons having aggregate turnover of up to 1.5 crore rupees for the months of July, 2019 to September,2019.
26/2019
Seeks to extend the due date of filing returns in FORM GSTR-7
CGST CIRCULAR
105/2019
Clarification on various doubts related to treatment of secondary or post-sales discounts under GST - reg.
104/2019
Processing of refund applications in FORM GST RFD-01A submitted by taxpayers wrongly mapped on the common portal - reg.
103/2019
Clarification regarding determination of place of supply in certain cases - reg.
102/2019
Clarification regarding applicability of GST on additional / penal interest - reg.
CGST ROD
ROD-06/2019
Seeks to extend the due date for furnishing FORM GSTR-9, FORM GSTR-9A and FORM GSTR-9C under section 44 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
AAR CASES
2019-TIOL-195-AAR-GST
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd
GST - Prohance-D (Chocolate) is a food preparation which is meant to be consumed by dissolving the same in water or milk - It is thus a food preparation squarely covered under CH 2106 of Customs Tariff - It is a compound preparation in powder form and after mixing with water or milk is a non-alcoholic beverage and is, therefore, clearly covered under the description 'Compound preparations for making non-alcoholic beverages' - Prohance-D (Chocolate) is, therefore, appropriately classifiable under Chapter Heading 2106 90 50 and attracts GST @18% as per Schedule III, Sr. no. 23: AAR
Application disposed of : AAR
2019-TIOL-194-AAR-GST
Nagpur Integrated Township Pvt Ltd
GST - Applicant is a SPV into development of land and construction of flats to be given out on lease as per the agreement of lease entered by them with customers - developed units will be transferred to prospective customers through an agreement wherein the allotment is given to customer referred to as lessee - the lessee agrees to take on lease from Developer (applicant) and applicant agrees to lease out to respective buyer the respective flat as mentioned specifically in the agreement - Applicant seeks to know as to whether the transaction is outside the purview of GST as a transaction in immovable property and if not what is the appropriate classification and rate of GST.
Held: There is a taxable supply in the subject case, which is a supply of services in the form of construction of a complex, building, civil structure or part thereof, including a complex or building to their prospective lessees, a part of which i.e. flats are intended to be handed over to the buyer, for which consideration is received by the applicant in installments, on completion of work, slab wise viz. the developed units will be transferred to the prospective customers through an agreement wherein the allotment is given to customers - In the form of construction service a composite supply of works contract as defined in s. 2(119) of the Act is provided to prospective lessee in compliance of an agreement and the same is taxable under GST laws - Transaction between applicant and lessee is taxable under GST - It is not a transaction in immovable property - supply is a composite supply and classifiable under CH 9954(ii) and will attract tax @18%: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2019-TIOL-193-AAR-GST
Hyva India Pvt Ltd
GST - Hydraulic kits are appropriately classifiable as 'Other engines and motors' under heading 8412 and the rate of GST would be as applicable to that heading in the Schedule at the relevant time: AAR
- Application disposed of : AAR
2019-TIOL-192-AAR-GST
Golden Tobacco Ltd
GST - Applicant is a manufacturer of cigarettes and intends to offer extra quantity of cigarettes (quantity discount) in additional to normal quantity against same consideration, as a taxable supply to its distributors from their depot - so, as a marketing strategy instead of supplying a quantity of say 100 packs for an agreed price of say Rs.5000/- they would be supplying 110 packs of cigarettes without recovering any additional cost from distributors - applicant would, however, be paying GST and Compensation Cess on Rs.5000/- at applicable rate - they seek to know from the Authority as to whether the extra packs of cigarettes would again be leviable to GST; if yes, the taxable value which can be attributed to such extra packs of cigarettes; whether extra packs would be considered as exempt supplies or free samples and attract provisions of s.17(2) of the Act r/w rule 42 of the Rules or clause (h) of S.17(5) of the Act.
Held: In view of the CBIC Circular 92/11/2019-GST dated 07.03.2019, the extra packs of cigarettes would not be again leviable to GST; extra packs will not be considered as exempt supplies or free supplies and hence the provisions of s.17(2) r/w rule 42 or clause (h) of s.17(5) will not be applicable: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2019-TIOL-191-AAR-GST
Bilcare Ltd
GST - Though the location of the recipient is outside India, the services supplied are in respect of goods which are made physically available by the recipient of services to the supplier of the services for the services to be performed - provisions of s.s (3)(a) of s.13 of the IGST Act is squarely applicable for the supply in question - since the 'place of supply' is in a taxable territory, it is clear that the provisions of s.2(6) of IGST Act are not fulfilled and supply cannot, therefore, be considered as Export of services - since place of supply and service provider are in the same State, CGST and SGST are payable: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2019-TIOL-190-AAR-GST
Bauli India Bakes And Sweets Pvt Ltd
GST- Applicant seeks an advance ruling on the following questions viz. whether the ITC availed in respect of capital goods received prior to 01 July 2017 is admissible; whether while determining liability to pay tax on outward supplies the applicant can adjust the ITC in respect of capital goods procured by it prior to 1 st July 2017.
Held: Since the applicant has raise questions on the admissibility of the credit of the CENVAT paid under the pre-GST regime, on capital goods, it is held that the Authority does not have jurisdiction to pass any ruling on such matters - Questions posed are not the questions in respect of which an advance ruling can be sought under the GST Act - Application dismissed as non-maintainable: AAR
- Application dismissed: AAR
2019-TIOL-189-AAR-GST
A Raymond Fasteners India Pvt Ltd
GST - Import of 'services' alone are considered as a 'supply' and not import of 'goods' - Since the subject proposed transaction is itself not a 'supply' under the GST Act in view of the provisions of s.95 r/w s.97 of the Act, the issue is not within the purview of this Authority - Authority is not allowed to answer the question on classification of imported goods since the same is out of the purview of s.95 of the CGST Act, 2017 - For queries with respect of classification of imported goods, there are separate regulations viz. Authority for Advance Rulings (Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax) Procedure Regulations, 2005 and as per the said Regulations, the AAR of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax is the appropriate authority to answer questions related to classification of imported goods - applicant has not supported their contention that the same products are also supplied locally, out of manufacturing, by them, with any material evidence on record - Application is rejected as not maintainable: AAR
- Application dismissed: AAR
HIGH COURT CASES
2019-TIOL-1354-HC-KAR-GST
Banyan Projects India Pvt Ltd Vs GST OFFICER
GST - Petitioner's registration under the Karnataka GST Act has been cancelled, therefore, they have filed the present Writ Petition on the ground that no adequate opportunity was provided to put forth their explanation in not furnishing the returns well in time from October 2018 to April 2019.
Held: Petitioner's grievance could be redressed by the respondent-authority as provided under Section 30 of the Act - To meet the ends of justice this, Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to submit the returns relating to the tax periods for October 2018 to April 2019 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, before the respondent-authority, and on such submission of the returns by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the respondent-authority in accordance with law and the cancellation of registration can be revoked in terms of Section 30 of the Act - respondent authority to assist the petitioner regarding glitches in filing the reutrns for the tax period October 2018 to April 2019 as well as for subsequent tax periods - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 5, 6]
- Petition disposed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1353-HC-AHM-GST
Red Coin Paper Product Vs DCST
GST - Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to respondent authority to pass order in form GST-PMT-3 re-crediting the rejected amount of refund in the electronic credit ledger for period of May 2018 to July 2018 - Petitioner submits that they had affected zero rated sales as per the provisions of section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act without payment of tax and, therefore, are entitled to claim full refund of the utilized input tax credit under the provisions of section 54 of the CGST Act; that although several representations were made, inaction on the part of the respondent authority in not passing an order in accordance with Rule 86(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 has led to filing the present writ application.
Held: Writ application is disposed of with a direction to both, the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Range-15, Surat as well as to the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Range-1, Surat to look into the matter and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of writ of this order - Writ application disposed of: HC [para 5]
- Application disposed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-1351-HC-CHHATTISGARH-GST
Pankaj Agrawal Vs UoI
GST - Applicant is the Director/Proprietor of the firms M/s Mangal Commercial Private Limited, Raipur and M/s S.K.T. and Sons, Bilaspur - Allegation is that M/s Hind Infra Buildcon (HIB) is a bogus entity created for the purpose of originating irregular and inadmissible ITC to pass on to its beneficiaries - recipients of M/s HIB were created as an additional layer to create a web of such transactions to misguide the authorities and to shift the burden and responsibility to some pseudo-characters fabricated by master minds of such rackets - firms which are major beneficiaries of aforesaid transactions are being created, owned, operated, controlled and managed by the present Applicant - allegation is that total quantum of circular/semicircular transactions made through the aforesaid bogus entities is to the tune of more than Rs.500 Crores which deprived the Government Exchequer of more than Rs.100 Crores of GST by way of creating and utilising irregular and inadmissible ITC by the Applicant - Applicant has been arrested by the competent authority and he is in jail since 7.5.2019 - Bail application is filed u/s 439 of the CrPC by the applicant in the matter of his arrest for offence punishable u/s 132 and s.16 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Held: Allegations made against the Applicant, the evidence collected by the prosecution, the submissions put-forth on behalf of the parties and further considering the seriousness of the offence and involvement of the money in the offence, Bench is not inclined to release the Applicant on bail - Bail application rejected: High Court [para 6, 7]
- Application rejected: CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
