|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1398 Records
-
2020 (10) TMI 1318
Striking off the name of company from Register of Companies - non-filing of annual returns and Balance Sheet - section 248 (5) of the Companies Act 2013 - HELD THAT:- It is submitted that an amount of 5 crores has been paid to respondent no. 6 and the land which is in possession of the company is to be developed and the flats are to be delivered to the home buyers. In the circumstances, we are inclined to allow the application.
The RoC concerned is directed to restore the name of the company in the Register of Companies subject to filling of all the pending annual returns and balance sheets. The company is directed to make the compliance with the provisions of the companies Act by filing the pending annual returns and balance sheets for the period w.e.f 2014 onwards with the RoC within 4 weeks from the date of this order and the RoC shall restore the name of the company to the Register of Companies - A fine of ₹ 20,000/- is imposed on the company, which shall be reimbursed to the Office of the RoC for incurring the expenses for the restoration of the name of the company to the Register of Companies.
Appeal allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1317
Seeking extension of different kinds of protections of the order dated 05.05.2020, which have been extended from time to time, till 31.08.2020 - HELD THAT:- The protection granted by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2020 passed in this case in sub-paras (i) to (xii) of para-7 is extended up to 25th November, 2020 except to the extends with the modification specifically made - Put up this matter on 25th November, 2020.
Prayer to allow the auction the vehicles, which were seized prior to imposition of the lock-down during COVID-19 pandemic situation - HELD THAT:- This Court is inclined to relax/modify the clause-x of condition stipulated in the order passed by this Court earlier to the extent that the intervenor-petitioner shall issue fresh presale notice to the loanees about the auction of the vehicles from whom the vehicles were seized referred to in Annexure-1 (series) and in the event of their inability to take back the vehicles by repaying the loan dues, the intervenor-applicant shall proceed to put them to auction as per the law - application is disposed of.
Prayer to allow to auction the vehicles, which were seized prior to imposition of the lock-down during COVID- 19 pandemic situation - HELD THAT:- This Court is inclined to relax/modify the clause-x of condition stipulated in the order passed by this Court earlier to the extent that the intervenor-petitioner shall issue fresh pre-sale notice to the loanees about the auction of the vehicles from whom the vehicles were seized referred to in as I.A. No.11924 of 2020 and in the event of their inability to take back the vehicles by repaying the loan dues, the intervenorapplicant shall proceed to put them to auction as per the law - Application disposed off.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1316
Insinuation of some other network parallel to the network of the applicant - Disaster Management Act - HELD THAT:- Since the Respondents though opportunity was given to them, for not having come forward to say what is the material available with them to show that this Applicant company has not provided proper services (technical incapability) to them, we are constrained to restrain these two Respondents not to proceed to have services from other networks at least until the next date of hearing - For having the Respondents cited DM's letter as a cause to avail parallel services, the Applicant is directed to add the respective authority as third Respondent by next date of hearing.
The Applicant counsel submits that it is not that other service providers are not able to use the service of this network, any service provider can use the fibre network laid by the Applicant company, if the applicant network is incompatible to the services other service providers intend to provide, then the Respondents have to ascertain incompatibility of the network of the applicant and then ask the applicant to set it right, if not, then only to proceed for parallel services. Bypassing this aspect will be not only the violation of terms and conditions of the agreements but also deprivation of the business of the Applicant Company.
List this application on 20.11.2020.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1315
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - condonation of delay in filing such appeal for an extended period of 30 days - Section 51 of TNVAT Act - HELD THAT:- The Petitioner was entitled to prefer appeal against that order under Section 51 of TNVAT Act, within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt before the Appellate Authority, who has been empowered to condone delay in filing such appeal for an extended period of 30 days, if sufficient cause for not preferring appeal within that period is made out. However, the Petitioner did not prefer any such appeal before the Appellate Authority, but has instead filed this Writ Petition on 10.07.2018 challenging the order passed by the Respondent beyond the maximum limitation period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of that order.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU, KAKINADA & ORS. VERSUS M/S. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED [2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT] has emphatically laid down that the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to entertain Writ Petition assailing the order passed by a Statutory Authority which was not appealed against within the maximum period of limitation before the concerned Appellate Authority.
Having regard to that legal position, it is not possible for this Court to express any view on the correctness or otherwise on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter - petition dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1314
Addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - CIT-A deleted the addition - as per revenue CIT(A) ignored the fact that the assessee had incurred huge interest expenses in relation to investments in the instruments income which is exempt - HELD THAT:- The assessment order itself reveals that in so far as the direct expenses u/r. 8D(2)(i) are concerned, the AO accepted that no direct expense was incurred by the assessee for earning the exempt income. There is no denial of the fact from the Revenue that as on 31.03.2014, the share capital of the assessee was ₹ 103.40 crores which is more than enough to cover the investments of ₹ 86.208 crores and therefore, the presumption is that the assessee invested the amounts from out of their own funds and therefore, the question of disallowing the interest component u/r. 8D(2)(ii) does not arise.
In so far as consideration of investment which did not yield any dividend income for the purpose of calculating the disallowance u/r. 8D(2)(iii), it is the settled principle of law that only such investments which yielded exempt income during the year have to be considered for computing the average value of investment, and the investments which did not yield any exempt income shall not be considered. Admittedly, the assessee disallowed by following this calculation. Ld. CIT(A) rightly followed the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] which is binding precedent on this aspect. - Appeal of revenue dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1313
Input Tax Credit - GST paid on goods and services used for laying of cross-country pipeline nearby river till the boundary wall of the Factory - Operation and Maintenance Services (O & M Services) obtained by the Appellant for the maintenance of the facility - outward supply or not - HELD THAT:- “Works contract” has been defined under section 2(119) of the CGST Act, 2017 as a contract for building, construction, fabrication, completion, erection, installation, fitting out, improvement, modification, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration or commissioning of any immovable property wherein transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) is involved in the execution of such contract - the explanation to section 17 (5) of CGST Act, 2017 categorically excludes pipelines laid outside the factory premises from the scope of plant and machinery, besides restricting credit of works contract services for works to be performed on immovable property and also restrict the credit of construction related activity of immovable property even when construction activity do not fall into the scope of works contract. However, works contract and construction activity is eligible for Input Tax Credit if done in respect of plant and machinery.
The essential character of “immovable property”, relevant to the present context is that it is attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth, or forming part of the land and not agreed to be severed before supply or under a contract of supply. The project of laying pipe lines covers a large area, tailored specifically to fit the dimensions and orientation of the needs of the project. Dismantling and shifting the said pipeline project appears neither to be prudent nor a viable option. Thus, besides pipelines being laid outside the factory premises outside the scope of “plant and machinery” it also fulfills the conditions of being an immovable property.
Input tax credit on taxes paid on annual operation and maintenance services for the pipeline laid outside the factory premises - HELD THAT:- The appellant have also furnished a copy of certificate of licence to run a factory issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh to bring home their point of contention that these pipe lines (laid outside the factory) are 'factory' in itself. Perusal of the said certificate reveals that this licence has been granted by the Deputy chief Inspector of Factories, Government of Chhattisgarh for the very specific purpose of water treatment and pumping of water to the consumers by employing workers not more than nineteen on any one day during the year. This certificate in no way comes to their rescue for the claimed Input Tax Credit under the provisions of section 16 (1) of CGST Act 2017, in as much as the said certificate is for treatment of water and its pumping from the said source of water whereas Section 16(1) of CGST Act read with Section 17 (5) of CGST Act, 2017 specifically provides for restriction of input tax credit and the explanation appended under Section 17 excludes pipelines laid outside the factory premises from the definition of 'plant and machinery' thereby denying the input tax credit on the same.
Under GST, Section 17(5) of CGST Act, 2017 provides for restriction of input tax credit and the explanation appended under Section 17 excludes telecommunication towers and pipelines laid outside the factory premises from the definition of 'plant and machinery' thereby denying the input tax credit - In terms of Section 2 (83) of CGST Act, 2017 “outward supply” in relation to a taxable person, means supply of goods or services or both, whether by sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal or any other mode, made or agreed to be made by such person in the course or furtherance of business. No nexus whatsoever could be made of the “outward supply”, with the pipe lines laid outside the factory premises of Appellant for water supply on which ITC is being claimed.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1312
Seeking direction to IRP to admit the claim of the applicant company towards the interest component - the principal amount was admitted but the interest amount was rejected by IRP - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The interest amount has been refused on the ground that it is not reflected in the books of account of the CD. Even if it is presumed that the loan agreement on a plain paper is a valid agreement then we noticed that the amount, which was paid by the petitioner to the CD and by the CD to the petitioner both are on demand.
So far the date of default under Section 7 of IBC is concerned, it is the date when the first demand was made. Here in the case in hand the demand was made for the first time as it appears from the documents enclosed by the petitioner on 21.12.2010, therefore, the date of default occurred on 21.12.2010, whereas the CIRP was initiated on 29.09.2020 and thereafter, the principal amount was admitted by the IRP and the petitioner filed this application for the interest, which was rejected by the IRP. In view of the settled principal of law, the petitioner is entitled to get it within three years from the date when the first default occurs. Since for the first time on demand, payment was made by the CD on 21.12.2010, therefore, the claim of the petitioner is liable to be accepted only as per article 137 of the Limitation Act, within three years, when right to apply accrues and here in the case in hand, the default was occurred for the first time on 21.12.2010, therefore, the petitioner was required to submit its claim within three years from 21.12.2010 i.e. on or before 20/12/2013 and in view of the decisions referred above in our considered view limitation cannot be extended on the basis of last payment made by the CD to the petitioner ,i.e from 22/03/2019 in view of Section 19 of the Limitation Act.
The claim of interest of the petitioner is barred by limitation and it is liable to be rejected - there are no option but to reject the prayer of the petitioner to direct the RP to admit the claim of the applicant company to the tune of ₹ 5,63,67,620/- towards the interest component alongwith the principal component - application dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1311
Seeking grant of Regular bail - previous bail application was withdrawn after filing of chargesheet and this bail application is also filed after filing of chargesheet - It is contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the victim was drunk and fell down in the well, but the complainant had got-up the story of throttle and thrown - offences under Sections 302, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT:- It would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of KALYAN CHANDRA SARKAR VERSUS RAJESH RANJAN @ PAPPU YADAV & ANR. [2005 (1) TMI 704 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it is held that “this Court also observed that though the accused has a right to make successive application for grant of bail, the Court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has duty to consider the reaosns and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected and in such cases, the Court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuaded it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application.”
In the case on hand, the previous bail application was withdrawn after filing of chargesheet and this bail application is also filed after filing of chargesheet. The learned advocate for the petitioner has not been able to piont out any change in the circumstances - Under the circumstances, in absence of any change in circumstances, no ground is made out by the petitioner as observed by the Apex Court.
Application dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1310
Exclusion of lockdown period on the ground that 90 days period of extension was still in hand - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the imposition of lockdown on account of outbreak of COVID-19 declared as pandemic from 23rd March, 2020 to 29th May, 2020 (Nationwide) and the fact that the State of Maharashtra where the Corporate Office of the Corporate Debtor is stated to be located has been worst hit with most of the areas declared Red Zone culminating in extension of lockdown till 31st August, 2020, the hardship was required to be mitigated by allowing the exclusion as prayed for.
This appeal is allowed by directing that the period of lockdown w.e.f. 25th March, 2020 till 31st August, 2020 shall be excluded while computing the period of CIRP. To avoid any confusion/ambiguity, it is made clear that this direction will not in any case be construed as interference with the extension of 90 days’ time granted by the Adjudicating Authority, which shall begin only after expiry of the period of CIRP period of 180 days after excluding the period from 25th March, 2020 upto 31st August, 2020 - appeal disposed off.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1309
Appointment of Independent Valuer for determination of fair value of shares - division of shares of group/family members with the Respondent No. 2 to 5 - Section 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013/Section 397 & 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- Both the parties have agreed to part amicably as such for the betterment of the company. The parties are allowed to buyback their share/asset and release the company in favour of the party who is giving the higher offer. Since the Respondent is not satisfied with the valuation report and the Petitioner is ready to purchase the share of the company at mean value of 2 Independent Valuers of real estate appointed by both the parties which comes to ₹ 1247.27/- per equity share of Respondent 1 company and has further confirmed that he is ready to sell at the mean value and is ready to purchase at 5% above the mean value which comes to ₹ 1309.63 per share.
It is found expedient to direct both the parties to quote their offer price independently in a sealed cover before this Tribunal so as the higher offeror be allowed to purchase the share and part with the company amicably - both sides are given 15 days time to submit their offer before this Tribunal and accordingly, the matter is listed on 13.11.2020 for compliance of the direction so passed - application disposed off.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1308
Correct head of income - business income or house property - whether ITAT erred in holding that the Revenue had assessed income from letting out unsold shops in Coramandel Plaza as ‘business income’ and therefore not adjudication the grounds of appeal of the Revenue whereas the Revenue had assessed the said income as ‘house property income’ ? - Revenue contended that this was illegal and factually incorrect as the Assessing Officer did not assess the income from Coromandel Plaza as business income - HELD THAT:- Tribunal, after hearing both the Revenue as well as the assessee, by order dated 08.10.2018, allowed the said miscellaneous petition and recalled that portion of the order passed by it. Thus, the basis for filing these appeals and raising the second substantial question of law, as of now, does not survive because the finding has already been recalled by the Tribunal and the Tribunal will hear the matter afresh. Therefore, we hold that there is no necessity to answer the second substantial question of law.
Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the only course available to the Revenue is the revision of its order under Section 263 ? - We find that the observation made by the Tribunal regarding exercise of power by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act is a power to be advisorial and no substantial question of law arises from such observation. Hence, this substantial question of law is rejected.
Rental receipts of the assessee with regard to letting out of the property - whether it needs to be treated as business income? - As today we set aside the common order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. Accordingly, the first substantial question of law framed is left open and both the assessee as well as the Revenue can raise all the issues before the Tribunal.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1307
Income from house property - ALV determination - Whether the provisions of Section 23(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 01.4.2018 could be treated as retrospective in operation for the purpose of computing notional rent for taxation under the head ‘income from house property’? - Whether Tribunal erred in sustaining the computation of annual letting value of the unsold stock of residential flats in Victoria Towers for the purpose of computing notional rent under the ‘income from house property’ in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification? - HELD THAT:- We have carefully gone through the impugned proceedings and we find that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal are not clear and cogent.
Though they were not raised in the same form before the Tribunal, we find that there was an argument to that effect, which has not been dealt with by the Tribunal. Therefore, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned order and remand the matters to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. That apart, the Revenue was also aggrieved by one portion of the order passed by the Tribunal, which, according to the Revenue, was factually and legally incorrect and therefore, they moved a miscellaneous petition before the Tribunal and it was allowed by order dated 08.10.2018.
The Tribunal is to hear the Revenue afresh on that issue. Hence, interest of justice would be met and interest of the Revenue also would be protected if the entire matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. For the above reasons, the above tax case appeals are allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1306
Liquidation of corporate Debtor - allegation is that sole creditor constitutes the Committee of Creditors and the decision taken to liquidate the Corporate Debtor is vindictive and malafide - HELD THAT:- Keeping the fact that the Corporate Debtor intends to settle with the Creditors, the instant appeal is dismissed with observation that the dismissal this appeal shall not preclude the Corporate Debtor from advancing proposal or floating a scheme/ settlement in terms of aforesaid provision.
The appeal is dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1305
Approval of Resolution Plan - Sections 31 (1), 60 (5), of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, R/w Regulation 39 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (CIRP) Regulations, 2016 - HELD THAT:- All necessary compliances are made - Resolution Applicant has submitted an Affidavit stating that he is not disqualified under the provisions of Section 29A.
The Resolution Plan provides payment of the CIRP Cost, in priority to the payment of other creditors (secured or unsecured), operational creditors, and workmen for employees on approval of the Plan by CoC. The CIRP Cost shall be included in the price offered for the other stakeholders. The payment of CIRP cost shall be made to the Resolution Professional within 30 days from the date of approval of the Resolution Plan by this Authority - The Resolution Plan provides for the payment of ₹ 50 Lakhs to the Operational Creditor - there is no dissenting Financial Creditor. The Resolution Plan provides for reconstitution of the board of the Corporate Debtor for managing its affairs.
The Resolution Plan provides that the implementation of the plan shall be jointly supervised by the Monitoring Committee - The Resolution Plan fulfils all the condition prescribed under Regulation 38(3) - the Resolution Applicant has paid 5% of the Resolution Plan amount through Demand Draft - As per the CoC, not required.
The "Resolution Plan" is hereby approved which shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, guarantors, statutory authorities and other stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan including the Resolution Applicant - While approving the Resolution Plan, as mentioned above, it is clarified that the Resolution Applicant shall pursuant to the Resolution Plan approved under Section 31(1) of the IBC, 2016, obtain all the necessary approval as may be required under any law for the time being in force within a period of one year from the date of approval of the Resolution Plan by this authority or within such period as provided for under such law - the order of moratorium passed by this Adjudicating Authority under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016 shall cease to have effect from the date of passing of this Order.
Application allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1304
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - HELD THAT:- There are no observations in regard to the conduct of Appellant – Resolution Professional which can be said to be casting any stigma on his conduct as Resolution Professional warranting consideration for expunction of such remarks. At this stage, learned counsel for the Appellant offered to withdraw the appeal.
Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1303
Claim of refund from Income Tax Department - HELD THAT:- It is not within the jurisdiction to direct Income Tax Department to give refund. We direct the liquidator to approach proper authority.
Application is not maintainable and stands disposed-off.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1302
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - default of payment of amount on the basis of Settlement Agreement - whether the amount, which the petitioner claimed as a defaulted amount comes under the definition of Financial Debt or not? - HELD THAT:- Mere plain reading of the provisions shows that the debt means a liability or obligation in respect of a claim, which is due from any person and includes a financial debt and operational debt and when we shall read the definition of debt and financial debt together then we may say that of course, the debt includes the Financial Debt and Operational Debt but all the debts are not Financial Debt or Operational Debt, only debt defined under Section 5(8) of the IBC, comes under the definition of Financial Debt and debt defined under Section 5(21) of the IBC comes under the definition of Operational Debt.
The case of the Petitioner is based upon the Settlement Agreement and, the Petitioner herself admits this fact that the Petitioner is no longer a unit buyer as the unit stands withdrawn by issuance of the refund cheques, therefore, in the light of that fact, which the Petitioner has mentioned in her application, when we shall consider the definition of Financial Debt as defined under Section 5 (8) of the IBC, 2016 then it can be said that any amount raised from the Allottee under a Real Estate Project shall be deemed to be an amount having the commercial affect of a borrowing. Since the Applicant herself admits this fact that she is no longer Allottee, therefore, the amount, which the Applicant has invested does not come under the definition of Section 5 (8)(f) of the IBC, 2016, and if the amount invested by the Petitioner does not come under the definition of Financial Debt then the Petitioner cannot be treated as a Financial Creditor under Section 5 (7) of IBC, 2016.
Whether the applicant claims herself a Financial Creditor under Section 5(8) on the basis of a Settlement Agreement or not? - HELD THAT:- It is the settled principle of law that the NCLT is not a recovery court rather when a default of financial debt or operational debt occurred, in that case, the financial creditor or the operational creditor may file an application for initiating the CIRP under Section 7 or Section 9 of the IBC respectively and in the light of the facts, the case in hand is considered, it is concluded that the settlement agreement on the basis of which, the present application is filed by the applicant does not comes under the definition of Financial Debt.
The Applicant is not the Financial Creditor under Section 5 (7) of the IBC, 2016 and the amount, which the applicant has invested is not a Financial Debt under Section 5(8) of the IBC, 2016 and so far the default of payment of amount on the basis of Settlement Agreement is concerned, the default also does not come under the definition of Financial Debt.
Application dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1301
Classification of services - rate of GST - selling of Space for advertisement in print media - Advertising services and provision of advertising space or time - Advertising Services - Purchase or sale of advertising space or time, on commission - Sale of advertising space in print media (except on commission) - Sale of television and radio advertising time - Sale of internet advertising space - Sale of other advertising space or time (except on commission) - Value of supply in case trade discount/additional discount/agency commission is deducted in the invoices or not - designing/fabrication/production shall formed part of Composite supply or not - HELD THAT:- In case the designing/fabrication/production is bundled with the services mentioned, then the same falls under 'composite supply' in as much as services of 'selling of space for advertisement' constitutes the predominant element and therefore becomes the "principal supply" and the designing/fabrication/production shall form the part of that composite supply as ancillary in as much as 'selling of space for advertisement' cannot be effectively accomplished without designing/fabrication/production. Thus such ancillary activities having a direct and proximal nexus with 'selling of space for advertisement'.
Value of supply in case trade discount/additional discount/agency commission is deducted in the invoices raised in the name of the advertising agency by the TV / Radio/ Outdoor Company/ company - HELD THAT:- In view of the legal provisions, the commission shall form the part of taxable value and discount of any kind is excluded from the taxable value subject to the fulfillment of the conditions laid down in the said legal provisions. Hence in-bills discounts and discount established vide agreement before the time of supply subject to the reversal of ITC by the recipient is allowable deduction from the value of the supply.
Taxability on value/volume based discounts in form of credit notes after the date of invoice - HELD THAT:- The registered person who had issued a credit note, can adjust his tax liability by following the procedure, subject to the condition that incidence of tax on such supply, has not been passed on to any other person, Thus, it is observed that when a supplier requires to decrease the taxable value of a supply, he has to issue a credit note to the recipient and accordingly can reduce his tax liability for the concerned period provided that he has neither charged or collected tax on such supply.
Benefit of Notification No, 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended from time to time) in respect of the supply made by the advertising agency - HELD THAT:- Technical Officer (TRU) vide letter F.NO. 254/90/2018-TRU dated 03.05.2018 addressed to Joint Commissioner, CCO, Delhi Zone, New Delhi has clarified that the services provided by the DAVP approved agencies on campaign for creating awareness for prevention of diseases to the Health Department is covered under the said notification in as much as 'Public Health' is a function entrusted to local authority under Article 243W read with the Twelfth Schedule S.No. 6 - the advertising agency providing services to the Central Government, State Government, Union territory or Local Authority or a Government Authority in relation to any function entrusted to a panchayat under article 243G of the Constitution or in relation any function entrusted to a Municipality under article 243 W of the Constitute are exempted from payment of GST subject to the fulfilment of the conditions.
Supply made by the Radio/TV/outdoor/Internet/Telecom/any other advertiser to the advertising agency - HELD THAT:- The supply is also exempt from GST in terms of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28-06-2017(as amended from time to time) - such exemption is also extended to Radio/TV/outdoor/Internet/Telecom/any other advertise, if such specified services has been provided in terms of S.No. 3A under Chapter-99 issued vide notification No. 2/2018 Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1300
Classification of services - services provided by LLP under PPP contract to UK Government Nodal Agency - applicability of serial no. 3, 73 & 74 of Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28.06.2017 (as amended) on LLP - HELD THAT:- The society had permitted the applicant to operate and maintain the healthcare facilities in the districts and to provide the healthcare services to the people of Uttarakhand. On perusal of Schedule-B of the contract, the applicant has to provide minimum healthcare services ( clinical & curative services, Diagnostic & other para clinical services, Ancillary services including ambulance services, laundry services, security services etc), commission, operate & maintain website for healthcare facilities, infrastructure, personnel & equipments requirement to meet the goal of the Govt i.e. to resolve & enhance health infrastructure facilities to the remote population in the state of Uttarakhand.
Whether other ancillary services viz laundry services, security services, commission, operate & maintain of website for healthcare facilities etc & infrastructure provided along with minimum healthcare services are taxable or otherwise? - HELD THAT:- In the instant case other said ancillary services rendered along with infrastructure during the course of 'healthcare service' is covered under composite service in as much as the 'healthcare services' constitutes the predominant element and therefore becomes the "principal supply" and other ancillary services & infrastructure shall form the part Of that composite supply as ancillary in as much as 'healthcare services' cannot be effectively accomplished without rendering other ancillary services & infrastructures - the services provided in relation to 'healthcare services' are exempted from the liability to GST in as much as all such ancillary activities having a proximal nexus with 'healthcare services' and thus, shall covered under 'healthcare services'.
All the healthcare services by a clinical establishment or authorized medical practitioner or para medics by way of diagnosis or treatment or care for illness, injury, deformity, abnormality or pregnancy and services by way of transportation of the patient to and from a clinical establishment are exempt from GST. However, hair transplant or cosmetic or plastic surgery does not get exemption and is taxed. Thus, all treatments excluding cosmetic treatments have been covered by this definition - the applicant is engaged in providing 'healthcare services' to the people of Uttarakhand and the same is classified under service code 9993. It is also found that the said services are exempted from payment of GST as provided vide entry no, 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated (as amended from time to time).
Whether serial no. 3, 73 & 74 of Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28.06.2017 (as amended) are applicable on LLP? - HELD THAT:- The intra-state supply of services mentioned therein, are exempted from payment of GST subject to the relevant conditions as mentioned against the corresponding services. Thus, the said notification deals with exemption to the category of service rendered and not to the category of person engaged in supply of services. Accordingly it is observed that the supply of services, irrespective of person involved therein, mentioned in the said notification, are in exempted category.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1299
Filing of Form GST TRAN-1 - time limit for filing of the form - Petitioner has challenged the Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as ultra-vires Sections 140(1), 140(2), 140(3) and 140(5) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 to the extent that it prescribes a time limit for filing of TRAN-1 Form - HELD THAT:- Issue notice.
........
|
9911796707
