CONTENTS :
- GST Circulars
- Case Laws
- Advance Rulings
- Customs Updates
GST Circulars:-
- Circular 157/13/2021 dated 20.07.2021
The Government has issued notifications u/w 168A of CGST Act, 2017, wherein the time limit for completion of various actions, by any authority or by any person, under the CGST Act, which falls during the specified period, has been extended up to a specific date, subject to some exceptions as specified in the said notifications. In this context, various representations have been received seeking clarification regarding the cognizance for extension of limitation in terms of the Supreme Court Order dated 27.04.2021 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No. 3/2020 under the GST law.
The issues have been examined and the following have been clarified:
- The extension granted by the SC order applies only to quasi-judicial and judicial matters relating to petitions/ applications/
suits/ appeals/ all other proceedings. All other proceedings should be understood in the nature of the earlier used expressions but can be quasi-judicial proceedings. SC has stepped in to grant extensions only with reference to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings in the nature of appeals/ suits/ petitions etc. and has not extended it to every action or proceeding under the CGST Act.
- For the purpose of counting the period(s) of limitation for filing of appeals before any appellate authority under the GST Law, the limitation stands extended till further orders as ordered by the SC in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) 3 of 2020 vide order dated 27th April Thus, as on date, the Orders of the SC apply to appeals, reviews, revisions, etc., and not to original adjudication.
- Various Orders and extensions passed by the SC would apply only to acts and actions that are in nature judicial, including the quasi-judicial exercise of power Even under this category, the SC, applies only to a list that needs to be pursued within a time frame fixed by the respective statutes.
- Wherever proceedings are pending, judicial or quasi-judicial which requires to be heard and disposed of, cannot come to a standstill by virtue of this extension Those cases need to be adjudicated or disposed of either physically or through the virtual mode based on the prevailing policies and practices besides instructions if any.
- The following actions such as scrutiny of returns, issuance of summons, search, inquiry or investigations, and even consequential arrest in accordance with GST law would not be covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
- The following actions such as scrutiny of returns, issuance of summons, search, inquiry or investigations, and even consequential arrest in accordance with GST law would not be covered by the judgment of the
In other words, the extension of timelines granted by Supreme Court vide its Order dated 27.04.2021 is applicable in respect of any appeal which is required to be filed before Joint/ Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Tribunal and various courts against any quasi-judicial order or where proceeding for revision or rectification of any order is required to be undertaken, and is not applicable to any other proceedings under GST Laws.
Case Laws
- Union of India & Vs M/s Merchem India Pvt. Ltd. [WA NO. 570 OF 2021] The Kerala High Court recently upheld that technical glitches at the transition stage to GST should not affect the statutory rights of dealers. Justice S.V. Bhatti and Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas while dismissing the appeal, held that discrimination in terms of the time limit to allow the availing of Input Tax Credit (ITC) with respect to
the purchase of goods and services made in the pre-GST and post-GST regimes is arbitrary and unreasonable.
- Union of India & Vs M/s Merchem India Pvt. Ltd. [WA NO. 570 OF 2021] The Kerala High Court recently upheld that technical glitches at the transition stage to GST should not affect the statutory rights of dealers. Justice S.V. Bhatti and Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas while dismissing the appeal, held that discrimination in terms of the time limit to allow the availing of Input Tax Credit (ITC) with respect to the purchase of goods and services made in the pre-GST and post-GST regime is arbitrary and unreasonable.
2. Nagri Eye Research Foundation Vs Union of India (Gujrat High Court) 7822 of 2021
The court held that the medical though operated by a charitable institution and selling medicines at a lower rate, would still have to be registered under GST. The petitioner contended that since the objective of organization is non-business, it would not come within the meaning of supply but the court didn’t concur with that view.
- Greenwood owner’s Association Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) The court held that in the case of housing societies amounts up to 7500 shall be This means that in case the amount paid by a member exceeds 7500, the amount exceeding 7500 shall be liable to GST and not the whole amount.
4. Avon Udhyog Vs State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court)
The court held that the proceedings of cancellation of registration cannot be kept hanging fire on any pretext, including that the assessee failed to file a reply within the time allowed. The authority issuing the notice is statutorily bound to pass an order in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 of the Rules.
5. In R. J. Trading Co. Vs Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North & Ors. (Delhi High Court),
it was held that the officers concerned should bear in mind that the search and seizure power conferred upon them, is an intrusive power, which needs to be wielded with utmost care and caution. The legislature has, therefore, consciously ring-fenced this power by inserting the controlling provision, i.e., “reasons to believe”.
6. In Joseph Tea Company Ltd. Vs. State Tax Officer, The Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that the recipients shall not be denied ITC only on the ground that the transaction is not reflected in GSTR 2A. It will be open for the GST functionaries to verify the genuineness of the tax remitted and credit taken.
Advance Rulings
- In re Aadhya Gold Private limited, Karnataka AAR held that in case of second-hand goods bought from an unregistered person, GST shall be charged on the amount of difference between the Selling price and purchase price since ITC would not be available.
- In re M/S Airbus Group India, Karnataka AAR held that services given by Airbus group to its holding company would be liable to 18% GST and not considered as export of Airbus Group India sought a ruling on whether the services rendered by it to its holding company Airbus Invest SAS, France, would qualify as ‘export of service’ under Goods and Services Tax (GST) law and hence construed as a ‘zero-rated supply. The authority observed that this would be considered as an intermediary and thus would be liable to GST.
- In re Ramohalli Krishnrao Karthik, GST AAR Karnataka held that only the person making the supply can seek an advance ruling.
- In re Arco Electro Technologies Ltd. (GST AAR Maharashtra), it was held that the products Brush Holder Assembly and parts, Lead Wires, and Insulating Rods are to be classified under heading 86.07 only when they are manufactured as per the drawings and specifications given to the applicant by the Indian Railways and only when the said goods are used in traction motors meant for Railway locomotives.
- In re Narayanappa Ramesh (GST AAR Karnataka), it was held that the landscaping and gardening work provided is exempted under entry 3A of the Notification 12/2017 -Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by Notification No.2/2018 -Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018 provided that the value of goods supplied is not more than 25% of the total contract value and the recipients of services arc Central or State Government Departments or a local authority or a Government Entity or Authority as per the definitions provided in the concerned notifications.
- In re Vajra Infracorp India Private Limited, GST AAR Telangana held that As per Notification 4/2018 Dt:25.01.2018 the date of transfer of possession of the building or the right in it to the person supplying development rights will be the time of supply and the liability to pay tax on the said services shall arise on that day. The time of supply shall not be at any other time.
- In In re Jeevaka Industries Private Limited (GST AAR Telangana) , it was held that both unburnt or half-burnt coal and dust fall under entry 28 of Schedule III of Notification No.01/2017 Dated: 06.2017 and attracts 18% tax under IGST and 9% under CGST/SGST Acts
- In re G Shirke Constructions Technology Private Limited (GST AAR Karnataka), it was held that the construction of Airport Authority of India residential colony for self-use or their staff/ employees at Devenhalli, near Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru by the applicant for Airport Authority of India attracts tax at the rate of 12% as per Notification No.11/2017- Central Tax dated 28.06.2017 (6% CGST + 6% KGST) as amended by Notification No.24/2017-CT(R) dated 21.09.2017.
- In re Emerald Court Co-operative Housing Society Limited (GST AAR Maharashtra), it was held that Co-operative Housing Society is liable to pay GST on maintenance charges (by whatever name called) collected from its members if the monthly subscription or contribution charged from the members is more than Rs. 7,500/- per month.