Journal ITPJ

Show

** Full report can only be viewed from Issues published within your subscription period.
Digest Section 8—Assessment—Interpretation of proviso to section 8(a)—Assessee was only subject to tax under the provision and not at any other rate
Cheerans Structurals Engineers & Contractors v. CTO (Works Contract) (2022) 105 ITPJ (SG) 718 (Ker-HC) : 2022 TaxPub(VAT) 11 (Ker-HC)
Advance Rulings QUESTION : The Applicant has been appointed as a Mine Operator for planning, engineering, financing, construction, development, operation and maintenance of Suliyari coal mine and subsequent delivery of coal to the Owner., sought ruling as to- 1. Whether the services of construction of the R&R Colony supplied by the Applicant would be taxed as a part of the composite supply of mining service or the same would be taxed separately as a supply of works contract service. (ii) Whether the Applicant will be eligible to avail Input Tax Credit of tax paid to the sub-contractor on works contract services for construction of R&R colony, or the same would be disallowed in terms of section 17(5)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. RULING : 1. Authority hereby is of the opinion that the services of construction of the R&R Colony supplied by the Applicant would be taxed under the Works Contract Service. 2 Applicant will be eligible to avail Input Tax Credit of tax paid to the sub-contractor on works contract services for construction of R&R colony and utilize same for providing/ supply of Works Contract service only. Further in terms of section 17(5)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, the said credit should not be utilized towards the payment of GST liability with regards to any other service including Mining Service.
Adani Enterprises Ltd., In re (2022) 105 ITPJ (SG) 722 (AAR)
Digest Section 25—Assessment—Assessee was deprived of sufficient opportunity to contest the case—Violation of principles of natural justice
Atlas Jewellery (P) Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner (2022) 105 ITPJ (SG) 719 (Ker-HC) : 2022 TaxPub(VAT) 127 (Ker-HC)
Advance Rulings QUESTION : Applicant supplies EPABX system along with its installation and commissioning. Installation of a complete EPABX system inter alia requires other equipments along with lying of cables through the wall/duct/conduit/ceiling at the premises of the customers on the basis of their requirement, sought ruling as to- Whether the Entry no. 3(v) of the Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 (the Notification), as amended from time to time, is applicable to supplies by Intellecon under the Contract I and Contract II and resultantly, whether such supplies are subjected to 12% rate of Goods and Services Tax ('GST'). RULING : The subject supplies of EPABX system for Railways is covered at entry No. 3 (v) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017, as amended, and liable to 12% GST.
Intellecon (P) Ltd., In re (2022) 105 ITPJ (SG) 709 (AAR)
Advance Rulings QUESTION : Whether GST, at the hands of the applicant, is leviable on the amount representing the employees portion of canteen charges, which is collected by the applicant from employees and paid to the Canteen Service Provider. RULING : GST, at the hands of the Intas, is not leviable on the amount representing the employees portion of canteen charges, which is collected by Intas and paid to the Canteen service provider.
Intas Pharmaceutical Ltd., In re (2022) 105 ITPJ (SG) 708 (AAR)
Advance Rulings QUESTION : Applicant is engaged in manufacturing of Computer Forms, Cut Sheets and Printed Forms with trading in Printers, Cartridges, Laptops, Barcode Stickers, OMR Sheets and Education Booklets since 1-7-2017 to till date, sought ruling as to- A. Whether from the facts and circumstances of the case, supplies made by the applicant to the Examination Boards and Educational Institution are entitled for exemption from payment of Good and Service Tax under Sr. No. 66, Heading No. 9992 (education Services) of the exemption Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017, read with Notification No. 14/2018-Central Tax (Rate), dated 26-7-2018. B. If yes, whether the applicant is entitled for refund of the taxes collected and paid into Govt. treasury so far. RULING : The subject supplies being undertaken to State Educational Board is exempt from GST vide entry 66(b)(iv) of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 as amended. Question 2 is withdrawn by the applicant. Refund is not covered under the gamut of questions to be raised vide section 97(2) CGST Act. This Question 2 is not maintainable under section 97(2) CGST Act.
Data Processing Forms (P) Ltd., In re (2022) 105 ITPJ (SG) 707 (AAR)
Advance Rulings QUESTION : The applicant initially intend to supply apple juice based drinks in the name of 'Apple Cola Fizzy' and 'Malt Cola Fizzy '. Both the drinks will be apple juice based drinks having same ingredients and manufacturing process, the second one having an added flavour of malt, sought ruling as to- What should be the classification and applicable tax rate on the supply of Ready to Serve Fruit Beverage named as 'Apple Cola Fizzy' and 'Malt Cola Fizzy' made by the applicant under Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 as amended up to date? RULING : 1. Apple Cola Fizzy and Malt Cola Fizzy are Carbonated Beverages with fruit juice, classifiable at HSN 22021090. 2. GST is leviable at 28% on said goods. 3. GST Compensation Cess leviable at 12% on said Goods.
Mohammed Hasabhai Karbalai, In re (2022) 105 ITPJ (SG) 709 (AAR)
Advance Rulings QUESTION : Applicant provides canteen facility for its workers and staff. Astral submitted that it has more than 250 workers/employees and required to maintain the Canteen as per Factories Act, 1948 and in order to run the canteen, Astral has given the canteen service to a Canteen Service Provider and agreed to pay fix sum, per plate amount as per agreement, sought ruling as to 1. Whether GST is applicable on amount representing the employees' portion of canteen charges, which is collected by the applicant and paid to the Canteen service provider by company at Factory. 2. Whether GST is applicable on the amount representing the employee's portion of canteen charges, which is collected by the applicant and paid to the Canteen service provider by company at HO. RULING : GST, at the hands of Astral, is not leviable on the amount representing the employees portion of canteen charges, which is collected by Astral and paid to the Canteen service provider.
Astral Ltd., In re (2022) 105 ITPJ (SG) 706 (AAR)
Advance Rulings QUESTION : Applicant enters into contract with the employees at the time of appointing any employee at their factory, by issuing 'Appointment Letter' and One of the conditions mentioned in the 'Appointment Letter' is--"Your services can be terminated by giving three months' notice or notice pay in lieu of notice period from either side."., sought ruling as to- Whether the applicant is liable to pay GST on recovery of Notice Pay from the employees who are leaving the company without completing the notice period as specified in the Appointment Letter issued as per the contract entered between Employer and the Employee. RULING : The appellant is not liable to pay Goods and Services Tax on recovery of notice pay from employees who leave the company without completing the notice period as specified in the Appointment Letter issued as per the contract entered between employer and employees.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., In re (2022) 105 ITPJ (SG) 706 (AAR)
Advance Rulings Question : Applicant has carried out job work of fabrication services on the goods supplied by its GST registered customer for the period financial year 2017-18 and financial year 2018-19 and it did not charge GST and cleared the goods on job work invoice, sought ruling as to– 1. For the Job work done during financial year 2018-19, whether the invoice raised by the applicant considered to be a valid tax invoice as per provisions of GST law? 2. Whether the taxpayer is rightful to recover the tax from principal supplier of goods upon issuing a 'tax invoice' as per provision of the law subsequently? 3. In continuation of question 2, whether the recipient can claim ITC? RULING : As per section 95(a), CGST Act, 'Advance Ruling' means a decision provided by the Authority to an applicant on matters/questions specified in section 97(2), in relation to the supply of goods/services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. In view of the statutory provisions of section 97(2) CGST Act, the Questions raised by Acme does not fall under the gamut of said section 97(2).
ACME Holding, In re(2022) 105 ITPJ (SG) 705 (AAR)