|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 13886 Records
-
2024 (10) TMI 1489
Taxability of Vouchers themselves, or the act of supplying them - GST rate of tax and the value of supply at which this would be taxable - Appellant is not the issuer of the voucher, but is the third party who buys and sells the vouchers.
What is a Voucher? - HELD THAT:- Section 2 (118) of GST Act defines: "voucher" means an instrument where there is an obligation to accept it as consideration or part consideration for a supply of goods or services or both and where the goods or services or both to be supplied or the identities of their potential suppliers are either indicated on the instrument itself or in related documentation, including the terms and conditions of use of such instrument.
Thus, as per GST laws, a voucher is an instrument that entitles the holder to receive goods or services or a discount on goods or services upon redemption. Vouchers are instruments representing value to facilitate a supply. Vouchers include gift cards, discount coupons, prepaid instruments, and similar items.
Is Voucher goods or service? - In the instant case the Appellant purchases the vouchers by paying a consideration to the issuer. The vouchers are also sold to the clients of the Appellant for a consideration. The vouchers have both a value and an ownership, which is transferred by the issuer of these vouchers to the appellant, and then to the ultimate beneficiary who redeems the voucher. The vouchers qualify to be considered as movable property and the "goods".
Whether the vouchers are in the nature of actionable claims? - Actionable claim qualifies as 'goods'. Actionable claim is defined to have the same meaning as assigned to it in section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Thus, actionable claim is a claim to an unsecured debt or a claim to any beneficial interest in movable property that is not in the possession of the claimant. Transactions/activities in actionable claims are kept outside the ambit of GST, except for the following claims: betting, casinos, gambling, horse racing, lottery and online money gaming.
Actionable claims are considered "goods" under the CGST Act but have some special rules. They are only taxed when transferred, sold, or given away for a price. This means that GST is not charged on the debt itself but only on the supply of the right to recover the debt. This is because actionable claims are neither a supply of goods nor services as per Schedule III of the CGST Act. GST liability arises when the claim is assigned, sold, or disposed of for consideration. In case of Vouchers, it has already been observed that Voucher by itself is a movable property, and hence constitutes goods. Since the Voucher is in the possession of the claimant at the time of claim, hence it cannot be considered as actionable claim.
Here the appellant is involved in trading of vouchers for a consideration in the course of furtherance of business. Though profit motive is not a requisite for the term supply, yet it is a fact that the Appellant is selling these vouchers at a profit. Thus, the impugned transaction amounts to supply of goods in terms of Section 7(1) (a) of the CGST Act 2017.
Appellant bought a gift card worth Rs. 1000/- from XYZ Company at a discount of 3% - If the coupons/vouchers represent a right to receive goods or services at a future date, and the trading activity involves the transfer of these rights without any physical goods being exchanged, it has to be considered a service since as per the GST law, the activity of providing or transferring a right to use goods or services is service. Since coupons/vouchers are essentially instruments granting such a right, trading in them falls under the service category.
For an intermediary who arranges the distribution or sale of discount vouchers and earns a commission (in the form of discount in the instant case), the GST liability is determined based on the nature of the service provided-facilitating the distribution of vouchers and earning a commission fee/discount.
In the instant case the appellant is engaged in trading of Vouchers/coupons and getting commission in the form of discount, on such services which are taxable. Thus, trading in Vouchers/coupons, being a service, is the taxable event where the time of supply is when the Vouchers/coupons are traded or sold. The value of service shall be the margin between the buying and selling price of the coupons.
Order:
(i) We set aside the impugned ruling given vide UP ADRG - 43/2024 dated 20.02.2024 passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling against the Appellant.
(ii) The Supply of Gift cards/ Vouchers/ pre-paid Vouchers are taxable as supply of goods and the time of supply shall be decided as per Section 12 (4) of the CGST Act, 2017.
(iii) We hold that GST is applicable on the commission/discount earned in the trading of Vouchers/Coupons by the appellant and the time of supply will be the time when the Vouchers/Coupons are traded or sold. The value of service shall be the margin between the buying and selling price of the Vouchers/Coupons.
The Ruling given hereinabove applies to the unique facts and circumstances of the appellants' matter in appeal and is based upon the submissions and evidences made available in this regard.
This ruling is valid only within the jurisdiction of Authority for Advance Ruling, Uttar Pradesh in terms of the provisions of The Central Goods and Services Tax act, 2017 and Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1454
Dismissal of appeal on the ground that the authorised signatory of the Petitioner did not sign the same - HELD THAT:- Proper material has been produced to show that the signatory on the appeal memo was indeed authorised to sign the same. In any event, we do not approve of the appellate authorities adopting such shortcuts and dismissing the appeals, even without allowing the appellants to either establish that the signatory was authorised to sign the appeal memo or to place on record resolutions authorising such signatory with the necessary powers. Denial of such opportunity violates the principles of natural justice and fair play, not to mention avoidable harassment and pressure on the Court’s docket.
The impugned order dated 31 July 2024 is set aside - the Petitioner’s appeal restored to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on its merits and per law - appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1453
Levy of penalty u/s 130 of GST Act - violation of principle of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The order impugned though indicates the communication seeking date for personal hearing beyond 10.02.2024, however, no determination/reaction to the said prayer was indicated even in the order impugned, which clearly indicates that the prayer was not even adverted to and therefore, apparently the order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice.
Once a prayer was made seeking a date beyond the date fixed, it was incumbent upon the authority to either grant the same or decline and communicate the same to the petitioner.
The order impugned dated 18.06.2024, Annexure-1, is quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1452
Input tax credit - petitioner in a commercial suit wanted to examine an official from the GST office to prove no input tax credit was received - HELD THAT:- It does become obvious that despite making best efforts, the defendant could not examine the competent official of GST and, therefore, in such a peculiar situation, the learned Trial Court should have rather given one opportunity to call the concerned official from the GST Office situation in Noida, where such record is stated to be available.
Undoubtedly, the petitioner should have been vigilant in the first instance and should have summoned the official from appropriate Branch but keeping in mind the specific stand taken by him and also in view of the question put by him to the plaintiff in cross-examination, the present petition is allowed and petitioner is granted one opportunity to take requisite steps for purposes of summoning the concerned Official.
Both the sides shall appear before the learned Trial Court on 04.11.2024 and learned Trial Court, keeping in mind its board position, would fix up a date for examination of said witness and may, accordingly, issue process to such witness through all permissible modes - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1451
Validity of order - determination of amount of tax has been made without service of order passed under Section 74 of U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2016 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the said order would reveal that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on coming to the conclusion that since the order dated 20.10.2021, which is now impugned in the present writ petition, was not served on the petitioner earlier, it was directed that the petitioner may avail its remedy of appeal within limitation beginning the date of the order i.e. 5.4.2024. A specific relief/remedy was provided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court against the order dated 20.10.2021.
Once a co-ordinate Bench by its order dated 5.4.2024, specifically allowed the petitioner to avail its remedy of appeal and even extended the period of limitation from the date of passing of the order dated 5.4.2024, non filing of the appeal within the limitation provided under the Act and after expiry of the period of limitation, rather long thereafter, filing of the present petition, on the ground sought to be raised cannot be countenanced.
Once in the petition filed by the petitioner on the previous occasion a specific relief has been granted which the petitioner chose not to avail, the present writ petition cannot be entertained and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1450
Initiation of proceedings u/s 130 of the GST Act or u/s 73/74 of the GST Act - excess stock found at the time of survey - stock at the time of survey was noted by the authority by eye estimation without any physical verification and no video recording of the alleged stock was made - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that survey was conducted at the business premises of the petitioner on 30.11.2018. It is also not in dispute that excess stock was found, which triggered the initiation of the present proceedings against the petitioner. On various occasions, this Court has held that if excess stock is found, then proceedings under sections 73/74 of the GST Act should be pressed in service and not proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act, read with rule 120 of the Rules framed under the Act.
This Court in S/s Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar [2024 (8) TMI 71 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has held that 'This Court on various occasions has held that if the excess stock was found then the proceedings under Sections 73 & 74 of the UPGST Act will come into play and not proceedings under Section 130 read with Rule 122 of the Act.'.
The law is clear on the subject that the proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act cannot be put to service if excess stock is found at the time of survey.
The impugned order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the respondent no. 5 under section 130 read with section 122 of the UPGST Act as well as the impugned order dated 19.08.2023 passed by the first appellate authority, the respondent no. 4 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby quashed - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1449
Challenge to order passed u/s 74(9) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - denial of opportunity for a personal hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The factual matrix is such that the matter is squarely covered by a coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in MAHAVEER TRADING COMPANY VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STATE TAX AND ANOTHER [2024 (3) TMI 334 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It has been passed in gross violation of fundamental principles of natural justice. The self imposed bar of alternative remedy cannot be applied in such facts. If applied, it would be of no real use. In fact, it would be counter productive to the interest of justice. Here, it may be noted, the appeal authority does not have the authority to remand the proceedings.'
Upon a perusal of record, it appears that the factual matrix is very similar to one in Mahaveer Trading Company's case. There are no reason to take a different stand.
The impugned order dated June 8, 2023 is quashed and set-aside with a direction given to the officer concerned to grant the petitioner another opportunity of filing a fresh reply and thereafter fix a date of hearing and pass a reasoned order - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1448
Creation of demand against the petitioner - petitioner being unaware of issuance of the said reminder as well as passing of the orders, could neither appear before the authority nor question the validity of the impugned orders within the period of limitation - HELD THAT:- In the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd [2024 (7) TMI 1543 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] a co-oridiante Bench of this Court inter alia observed and it was held that 'it does appear that the petitioner is entitled to a benefit of doubt. No material exist to reject the contention being advanced that the impugned order was not reflecting under the tab "view notices and orders". On merits, as noted in the earlier orders an other dispute exists whether all replies and annexures to the replies as filed by the assessee were displayed to the assessing officer and whether those have been considered. We find, no useful purpose may be served for keeping this petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit or even relegating the petitioner to the available statutory remedy.'
In view of the submissions made and the judgement in the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order impugned dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-16, Kanpur Nagar (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is quashed and set aside.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1447
Classification of goods - rate of tax - Sodium Bicarbonate (Soda Ash) and Magnesium Sulphate (Epsom Salt) - HELD THAT:- This G.O. directs a levy of sale tax @8% on all chemicals which are not covered under Entry-9 which is headed as dyes and chemicals. A perusal of Entry-9 would show that the goods mentioned above are not enumerated in Entry-9. In a similar situation, a Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad while dealing with the product Sodium Hydro Sulphite had, in the Judgment in W.P.No.87 of 2007, held that any chemical which is not enumerated in Entry-9 of VI Schedule would fall within the ambit of G.O.Ms.No.189, dated 07.02.2005 and would be taxable @8% only.
In view of the above Judgment, it would have to be held that all the goods in question would have to be taxed only @8% as they are chemicals and the usage of these chemicals as raw materials would not detract from the categorisation of these goods as chemicals.
The Revision Orders of the Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.P, Hyderabad dated 22.08.2008 set aside - petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1446
Time Limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Perusal of amendment notified on 26.12.2022 would reveal that it is clarificatory in nature which came in to force w.e.f. 26.12.2022. Since amendment is clarificatory in nature, it would have a retrospective effect. The retrospective effect of Rule 108(3) of the Rules, 2017 has also been considered by the Gujrat High Court in Otsuka Pharmaceuticals India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2024 (4) TMI 282 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and also by the Karnataka High Court in the matter of M/s Hitachi Energy India Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others [2024 (7) TMI 53 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT].
Since on the date of passing of the order dated 11.03.2024, the notification already came into force from 26.12.2022 and it is found that it is clarificatory in nature with retrospective effect on the provisions of Rule 108(3) of the Rules, 2017, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay was not justified.
The impugned order dated 11.03.2024 is accordingly quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to pass a afresh order on merits after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1445
Maintainability of appeal to High Court - Imposition of taxability - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi vs. M/s Evalueserve.com Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (12) TMI 902 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] has held that 'Keeping in view the above and the question of law itself raised, we hold that the appeal is not maintainable and dismiss the same. However, liberty is granted to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.'
Taking into consideration the law as settled by the Division Bench, it is found that in terms of Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, appeal would not lie to the High Court and the appeal would only lie to the Supreme Court.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1444
Levy of GST on seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts paid by the petitioner to the Government - HELD THAT:- Division Bench Judgment in a batch of cases where the lead case is TVL. A. VENKATACHALAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that 'In the cases, where the challenge is made to the show cause notices, the writ petitioners shall submit their objections / representations within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'
In view of the said judgment, these petitions are liable to be disposed of on the same terms. Consequently, in these cases, the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1443
Challenge to assessment order - discrepancies between the GSTR 3B return of the petitioner - petitioner submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned assessment order, it is evident that the confirmed tax demand has arisen entirely on the basis of discrepancies between the GSTR 3B return of the petitioner and the auto- populated GSTR 2A return. It is also evident that the petitioner was not heard before the tax demand was confirmed. The assessment order was preceded by a show cause notice and intimation. Therefore, the explanation of the petitioner that he was unable to respond to the above on account of being unaware of the same is not entirely convincing. At the same time, in order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the tax demand on merits, it is inclined to interfere with the impugned order by putting the petitioner on terms.
The impugned assessment order is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice dated 03.09.2022 within the aforesaid period of two weeks - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1442
GST liability under applicable GST laws in respect of seigniorage fee paid by the petitioner to the Government - Relevancy of decision made by a Nine Judge Constitution Bench on royalty - HELD THAT:- As decided in TVL. A. VENKATACHALAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where the challenge is made to the show cause notices, the writ petitioners shall submit their objections / representations within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Upon receipt of the objections / representations from the writ petitioners, the authority concerned shall proceed with the adjudication, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. However, the orders of adjudication shall be kept in abeyance until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench decides the issue as to the nature of royalty. It is made clear that there shall be no recovery of GST on royalty until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench takes a decision.
Needless to state that on the matters being decided, the writ petitioners if still aggrieved, shall redress their grievance(s), if any, before the appropriate forum, including by filing appeal(s). Insofar as the challenge to the notification as well as the circular, it is open to the writ petitioners to act upon, after the outcome of the case pending before the Nine Judge Constitution Bench.
In view of the said judgment, this petition is liable to be disposed of on the same terms. Consequently, the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation with in a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1441
Challenge to assessment order - discrepancy between the GSTR-3B return and GSTR-1 return - HELD THAT:- On examining the show cause notice, it is evident that two tables are set out therein. In the first table, the CGST and SGST amounts in GSTR-3B are shown as Rs. 3,33,787/-, whereas in the second table dealing with the difference between the GSTR-3B return and the auto populated GSTR-2A return, the GSTR-3B amounts are specified as Rs. 5,19,362/- both for CGST and SGST. The sum of Rs. 5,19,362/- tallies with the ITC availed of by the petitioner. Thus, the show cause notice is contradictory. In addition, it appears that the reply of the petitioner was not considered in the assessment order.
The assessing officer did not take into account the reply dated 29.09.2023 and record reasons as to why such reply is not satisfactory. Therefore, the impugned assessment order calls for interference - the show cause notice is contradictory. Hence, the impugned assessment order is quashed by leaving it open to the respondent to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing a fresh show cause notice.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1440
Levy of GST on seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts paid by the petitioner to the Government - HELD THAT:- Division Bench Judgment in a batch of cases where the lead case is TVL. A. VENKATACHALAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that 'In the cases, where the challenge is made to the show cause notices, the writ petitioners shall submit their objections / representations within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'
In view of the said judgment, this petition is liable to be disposed of on the same terms insofar as it relates to either the issue of seigniorage fee or mining lease. Consequently, the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1439
Exemption from entry tax on implementation of Bihar Policy for Promotion of New and Renewable Energy Sources, 2011 - exemption claim was denied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was no notification absolving the levy of entry tax during the period in which the construction was carried out - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioner’s activity occurred during the period 2016-17. In fact, the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act, 2019 by Section 22, amended Section 174 and extended the validity of notification S.O. 391 dated 10.11.2011 till 30.06.2017. The Assessing Officer obviously has not considered the said notification.
The order of assessment is set aside and the Assessing Officer directed to look at the matter afresh, especially reckoning the notification pointed out by us and the extension of time provided therefrom.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1438
Seeking to quash the assessment order - Amnesty scheme - petitioner contended that, since the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs) has issued an amnesty scheme vide Notification No.53/2023-Central Tax [S.O.4767(E)], dated 2nd November 2023, this writ petition may be disposed of permitting the petitioner to pursue its grievance in terms of the said notification, to which Department raised no objection. - HELD THAT:- This writ petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to pursue its remedy in terms of the aforesaid amnesty scheme before the appropriate authority.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1437
Seeking quashing of adjudication order - prayer to declare that the show cause proceeding initiated under already repealed act after omission of the Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that since similar matter has already been decided by the Delhi High Court in the case of MEGA CABS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2016 (6) TMI 163 - DELHI HIGH COURT], this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the said judgment, which is under adjudication before the apex Court.
This writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1436
Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was unaware of proceedings culminating in the impugned order until he received a communication from the second respondent herein with regard to the bank account of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- In view of the sum of Rs. 9,17,238/- having been appropriated, revenue interest is fully secured. The documents on record clearly indicate that the petitioner was not heard before the impugned order was issued. Therefore, the impugned order calls for interference.
The impugned order dated 08.08.2023 is quashed. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice dated 05.06.2023 with in a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
