COURT RULINGS
Challenge to validity of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules
Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, to the extent it gives power to block credit at no fault of the recipient, has been challenged. Further, the same has been challenged to be ultra-vires Section 16 of the CGST Act.
M/s Kalpsutra Gujarat v. The Union of India (Gujarat HC)
CESTAT RULINGS
Refund of service tax, paid in respect of advance received, on account of non-provision of services
As the recipient and provider of service merged together, there cannot be treated a provision of service by one to itself. Further, in case of services, there must be two parties in the contract.
Where service tax is paid on advance and services could not be provided, such amount paid loses its character as ‘tax’ and hence, provisions of Section 11B are not attracted. Where the amount loses its character as tax, it could only be treated as deposit which becomes an item for adjustment in terms of Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules. Hence, rejection of refund of such amount is not justified.
M/s Lancor Holdings Limited v. The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai (CESTAT Chennai)
Refund to be granted only if conditions laid down under Section 11B are satisfied
Refund is allowable only if conditions as provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act have been satisfied and the primary condition is the principle of unjust enrichment. Where the burden of duty has been passed on to the customers, there cannot be allowed a refund of such duty (unless the same is refunded to the customer from whom such amount was recovered) due to the applicability of principle of unjust enrichment.
M/s The Madras Club v. The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai (Chennai CESTAT)
ADVANCE AUTHORITY RULINGS
Deduction allowable from transaction value in case of purchase of land for further development
In terms of notification 11/2017-CT (Rate) dated June 28, 2017 as amended by notification 01/2018-CT (Rate) dated January 25, 2018, the value of land or undivided share of land required to be deducted from the total value charged for the subject supply has been clearly provided as 1/3rd of the total amount.
Contention of the applicant that where the actual value of land is available, the deduction of the same should be allowed, is not legal. Hence, the applicant is required to deduct only 1/3rd of the value as deduction on account of value of land to arrive at the taxable value.
M/s Karma Buildcon (Gujarat AAR)
Eligibility of ITC in respect of GST paid on hiring of motor vehicle for transportation of employees to and from workplace
Effective from February 01, 2019, ITC has been allowed on leasing, renting or hiring of motor vehicles for transportation of persons, having approved seating capacity of more than 13 persons. Services are received by the applicant in the course or furtherance of business and ITC in respect of such services is admissible.
Amounts recovered from employees for these services is not a supply as the company is not engaged in providing transportation services, hence no question of exemption from GST for amounts recovered from employees.
Also, ITC shall be restricted to the cost borne by the company and ITC attributable to cost borne by the employees shall not be allowed.
M/s Tata Motors Limited (Maharashtra AAR)
Disclaimer
Information contained herein are only for reference purposes and are based on the information publicly available as on the date of this publication. The author takes no responsibility for its reliability and accuracy. It is advised to take appropriate legal/professional advice before undertaking any business activity or otherwise based on the above.
बहुत अच्छी जानकारी है ।
nice and thanks for updating