• 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐫 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 in terms of definition given at para 2(y) of the exemption Not. No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 i.e., 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐒𝐓 𝐥𝐚𝐰 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝟎𝟏.𝟎𝟕.𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟕.
• 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟑(𝐢𝐯) 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 in said exemption notification 𝐨𝐧 𝟐𝟔.𝟎𝟕.𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟖 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝟎𝟏.𝟎𝟕.𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟕.
• 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 provided by these Boards as a part of curriculum to its students shall be 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐒.𝐍𝐨. 𝟔𝟔(𝐚) 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝟎𝟏.𝟎𝟕.𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟕.
• Even though services of 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 are exempted from 25.01.2018 under S.No. 66(aa), if the same are provided 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐮𝐦, then benefit of 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐒.𝐍𝐨. 𝟔𝟔(𝐚).

• Petitioner’s KYC details were used by members from syndicate of fraudsters engaged in generation of fake GST without his knowledge.
• Said syndicate generated and passed on hefty amount of GST.
• Despite arrest of members of syndicate, department issued show cause notice on petitioner proposing demands towards GST by personating him as a taxable person and proposing demand for penalty u/s 122(1A), Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

• The assessing authority confirmed the demand for reversal of input tax credit under Rule 42 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
• AO is of the view that entire ITC is common i.e., ITC used for trading of RMC and ITC used for construction activity.
• On being represented before appellate authority and placing on records that the (a) separate accounts are prepared for each type of supply, and (b) in respect of construction services, once a block is completed, construction of another block starts. Therefore, ITC till date of issuance of occupancy certificate in respect of completed block shall only be considered as “common ITC”, the demand confirmed by AO was reduced in terms of submissions made above.

• The assessing authority confirmed the demand for reversal of input tax credit under Rule 42 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
• AO is of the view that entire ITC availed for FY 2018-19 (i.e., ITC used for trading of RMC and ITC used for construction activity) is common in respect of units supplied in FY 2018-19 for which completion certificate was issued in 2017-18.
• It was represented before appellate authority and placing on records that the (a) separate accounts are prepared for each type of supply, and (b) in respect of construction services, once a block is completed, construction of another block starts. Therefore, entire ITC availed during FY 2018-19 cannot be considered as “common ITC”.
• The demand confirmed by AO was dropped in entirety as alleged common ITC is not a common ITC.

• The assessing authority confirmed the demand for reversal of input tax credit under Rule 42 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
• Additionally, the amount of ITC was considered as ineligible as per NN 03/2019-CT (Rate).
• AO is of the view that entire ITC (i.e., ITC used for trading of RMC and ITC used for construction activity) availed for FY 2019-20 is common in respect of units supplied in FY 2019-20 for which completion certificate was issued in 2017-18.
• On being represented before appellate authority and placing on records that the (a) separate accounts are prepared for each type of supply, and (b) in respect of construction services, once a block is completed, construction of another block starts. Therefore, entire ITC availed during FY 2019-20 cannot be considered as “common ITC”.
• Further, an intimation was duly submitted before administrative jurisdictional office on 10.05.2019. Therefore, entire ITC is not at all ineligible.
• The demand confirmed by AO was dropped in entirety as alleged common ITC is not a common ITC.

• Appreciating the facts of case, Hon’ble Bombay
  High Court vide its judgment dated 06.02.2024, ordered that detained goods be
  released.
• Hon’ble court observed that the case involves
  dispute over classification of diary based coffee drinks and in past, similar goods were
  imported as also cleared by the respondents on the strength of bank guarantee for an
  amount equivalent to differential duty of 16%/ 28%.
• The consignment under dispute is having
  assessable value for Rs. 25,00,000/- and respondents sought bank guarantee for Rs. 25
  lacs to release the goods.
• Hon’ble court appreciated that in past,
  consignments have been released by taking bank guarantee for 16%/28% only and that
  detention charge of Rs. 6 lacs has already been suffered by the petitioner on detained
  goods. Hence, Court ordered to release the goods by accepting BG for Rs. 2 lacs
  only.
• Further, in respect of BGs submitted for
  provisional assessments done in past from July 2022 to August 2023, appreciating the
  submission that further action in the case has become barred by time, Hon’ble court
  directed the petitioner to submit a representation for return of all BGs in accordance
  with law.

• Services Tax collected on
  behalf of Principals and remitted to them
• Agency Commission for being
  agents of shipping lines

• CESTAT held that the practice
  of collecting services tax on behalf of principals and remitting the same to them is
  against the method specified u/s 73A and thus, confirmed the demand against the
  appellant.
• On the issue of Agency
  Commission, appreciating the submissions of appellant that there was a profit in
  ‘trading in cargo space’, CESTAT remanded back the matter for
  re-adjudication.

To read in detail about this case, click here:

• Services
  Tax collected on behalf of Principals and remitted to them 

• Hon’ble Telangana High Court
  sets aside the demand confirmed by CESTAT, Hyderabad on the issue where services tax
  collected on behalf of principals was remitted directly to the Principals. Hon’ble court
  observed that demand in said facts cannot be confirmed u/s 73A of the Act.

To read in detail about this case, click here:

The provisions for re-opening of ex-parte assessment order hales its chequered history from Order 9
Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The basic objective of adopting both remedies is to
set aside the assessment order. However, the doctrine of merger has an important role to
play.

Meaning thereby, if the order is passed by appellate authority, the application
to set aside the assessment order becomes infructuous because the assessment order merges into
appeal order. On the other hand, if the application to set aside the assessment order is allowed,
then appeal becomes infructuous as the order against which appeal was filed is no longer in
existance.

Recently, in one of cases dealt by us, we contested the matters based on
above understanding of law and hence, the recovery proceedings initiated against the assessee came
to an end.

Want to
know more? Please have a reading about the case