CESTAT RULINGS
CENVAT credit in respect of service tax paid on rental of office outside the Company premises is allowed
Restrictions that credit on material can be availed subject to them being brought in the factory is applicable in respect of inputs only and not in respect of input services. Where the input services are availed in relation to manufacture of final product, it is immaterial whether such services are availed within the factory or outside the factory. Since, it is not disputed that the premise is used as office for manufacturing factory, disallowance of CENVAT credit in respect of such premise is unjustified.
M/s India Yamaha Motors Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
Availability of input tax credit of service tax paid in respect of general insurance of cash vans used for transportation of currency notes on behalf of banks
Where the assessee claims that cash vans are its capital goods, it has to prove that such vehicles are registered in its name and the same were registered in his name during the period of dispute. Mere filing of copy of registration certificate would not be enough and in the absence of registration of vehicle in assessee name, input tax credit shall not be admissible.
M/s Radiant Cash Management Services Private Limited v. the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
ADVANCE AUTHORITY RULINGS
Interpretation of the term ‘per unit’ as specified under chapter, section or heading 9963 under Entry no. 7 of Notification 11/2017-Central Tax dated June 28, 2017
As the rent, in the present case, is being charged for the entire Villa, not as per room basis and at a given point of time, only one customer will be entitled to take villa on lease, there is no question of individual rooms of villa being treated as separate units. Pattern of renting in relation to usage of the property provides the context or perspective in determination of unit of accommodation.
Isprava Hospitality Private Limited (Maharashtra AAR)
COURT RULINGS
Provisions along with relevant notifications and rules relating to applicability of service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism (‘RCM’) on ocean freight held as ultra vires Finance Act, 1994
Provisions creating a charge of service tax on third parties, though the Act of the Parliament provides for levy and collection of tax either from the person providing service or from the person receiving service, are beyond the charging provision, and also beyond the Rule making power of Section 94 of the Finance Act. The Notifications 15/2017-ST and 16/2017-ST making Rule 2(1)(d) (EEC) and Rule 6(7CA) of the Service Tax Rules and inserting Explanation-V to reverse charge Notification No.30/2012-ST is struck down as ultra vires Sections 64, 66B, 67 and 94 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Sal Steel Limited v. Union of India (Gujarat HC)
Presence of Assessee’s advocate during the search and seizure proceedings not allowed
There is no statutory provision or any such legal right available to the taxpayer which allows presence of advocate during the search and seizure proceedings. Further, in terms of Section 67(10) of the CGST Act, presence of two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of locality is necessary as witness to the search, which is yet to take place. Hence, submission of the petitioner to carry out search in the presence of its advocate cannot be accepted.
Subhash Joshi & Another v. Director General of Intelligence (DGGI) & Ors. (Madhya Pradesh HC)
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.
