9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Applicant was liable for payment of Service Tax under the then applicable provisions of Finance Act, 1994 - However in respect of the two invoices dated 27-07-2017 as the installation of the second lift had been completed after coming in to force of the CGST Act, 2017, he was liable to be charged GST at the rate which was prevalent on 27-07-2017. There is no substance in the claim made by the Applicant and therefore, this Authority accepts the report dated 16-04-2017 filed by the DGSG under Rule 129 (6) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and hereby orders dropping of the present proceedings as no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 has been established. - 4/2018 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2018 - Sh. B.N. Sharma, Chairman, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... force. He had further found that three invoices were issued by the Respondent in respect of the second lift. The DGSG had also observed that some payment for the second lift was paid by the Applicant in advance, hence an invoice dated 28.06.2017 was issued by the Respondent levying Service Tax at the then applicable rate. He had further observed that after installation of the second lift in the GST regime, two more invoices were issued on 27.07.2017 wherein the prevalent rate of GST was charged. The DGSG had also stated that as per the Finance Act, 1994, the supply and installation of lift amounted to Works Contract and as per Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, value of the service portion of the works contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and hence, he was not in a position to pass such benefit to the Applicant. 4. The Applicant vide his letter dated 28.03.2018 to the DGSG had also intimated that his application dated 20.09.2017 was submitted when the CGST Act, 2017 had been freshly introduced and there were several provisions in it which were not clear to him. He had also intimated that a number of clarifications had come on the various issues pertaining to the above Act, due to which he had properly understood the implication of the invoices raised by the Respondent and found them correct as per the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. He had therefore, requested the DGSG to treat his application as withdrawn. Based upon the above facts the DGSG had recommended closure of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord that the Applicant had paid advance for purchase of this lift and he was charged the Service Tax which was leviable at the time of issue of the invoice on 28-06-2017, which he has not disputed and which is also correct as the Applicant was liable for payment of Service Tax under the then applicable provisions of Finance Act, 1994. However in respect of the two invoices dated 27-07-2017 as the installation of the second lift had been completed after coming in to force of the CGST Act, 2017, he was liable to be charged GST at the rate which was prevalent on 27-07-2017. 7. It is also apparent from the record that the Applicant vide his letter dated 28-03-2018 sent to the DGSG and vide his letter dated 14-05- 2018 sent to this Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
