Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments
Print   |    |  Comment

Part 1 GST update on the case of M/s JSW Energy Ltd. dated 02.07.2018

Part 1 GST update on the case of M/s JSW Energy Ltd. dated 02.07.2018

The latest decision pronounced by the Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of M/s JSW Energy Ltd. vide Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/01/2018-19 dated 02.07.2018 has been topic for discussion, particularly for the assessees availing the services of job worker. The brief facts of the case along with the reasoning are summarized as follows:

(Refer Chart Attached)

M/s JSL is sending coal to M/s JEL for generation of electricity. M/s JEL uses its own goods such as air, water for generation of electricity and sends the electricity to Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL). The electricity is thereafter supplied by MSEDCL to M/s JEL.

In nutshell, the issue under consideration is that whether the arrangement wherein JSL supplies coal to JEL for generation of electricity which is being received by JSL through MSEDCL amounts to job-work under section 143 of the CGST Act, 2017?
Reasoning adopted by Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) is summarized as follows:-
1. The AAAR rejected the reasoning adopted by the authority for advance ruling that since the conversion of coal into electricity amounts to manufacture as a new and distinct product emerges, the said activity cannot be considered as job-work under GST regime. The AAAR concluded that job work covers all types of processing whether or not the process amounts to manufacture.

2. It was held that the arrangement is not a job work as it does not satisfies the conditions required for treating an activity as job work under section 143 of the CGST Act, 2017. It was held that for considering an activity as job-work, it is essential that JSL sends goods to the job worker (JEL) which are either inputs or capital goods for JSL. In the present case, it was concluded that JSL procures coking coal and steam coal but it is a known fact that only coking coal is used by JSL for manufacturing steel and steam coal is exclusively used for generation of electricity through JEL. Consequently, it was held that steam coal cannot be considered as input for JSL. Moreover, it was further held that even if it is assumed that the steam coal is being used for generation of electricity which is being used by JSL for manufacturing steel, then too, the inputs being coal sent by JSL was not returned after job work by JEL to JSL. The electricity generated was sent to MSEDCL which in turn was supplied to JSL. Therefore, it was held that since third party was involved rather than two parties in a job work- one being principal and other being job-worker, the condition of section 143 was not satisfied. Therefore, it was held that the arrangement cannot be considered as job-work.

3. The AAAR also placed reliance on the Apex Court decision given in the case of M/s Prestige Engineering (India) Vs Collector of C.Ex., Meerut [1994 (73) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.)] to deny the present arrangement as job-work on the grounds that job-work envisages minimum addition in the form of material and if substantial material is being added during the course of processing by the job-worker, then the activity cannot be construed as job-work. For example, a tailor stitching a shirt from the cloth provided to him by customer will be covered by the term job-work as he is only adding thread, buttons to the shirt which are not substantial addition of goods during the process of stitching. This portion of reasoning given by AAAR has far reaching impact as it seeks to change the very perception of job-work in the GST regime. According to this reasoning, if substantial goods are used by job-worker during the course of processing, then the activity cannot be construed as job-work.

The moot question arises is that whether the decision of the Apex Court in the Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. rendered in the context of job-work with respect to erstwhile Central Excise Law can be made applicable in the GST regime? We will discuss this aspect and certain other aspects related to job-work in the context of provisions contained in GST regime in our next update.

You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com

 
, at our facebook page onhttps://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/ as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21

Opinion

The latest decision pronounced by the Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of M/s JSW Energy Ltd. vide Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/01/2018-19 dated 02.07.2018 has been topic for discussion, particularly for the assessees availing the services of job worker. The brief facts of the case along with the reasoning are summarized as follows:

(Refer Chart Attached)

M/s JSL is sending coal to M/s JEL for generation of electricity. M/s JEL uses its own goods such as air, water for generation of electricity and sends the electricity to Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL). The electricity is thereafter supplied by MSEDCL to M/s JEL.

In nutshell, the issue under consideration is that whether the arrangement wherein JSL supplies coal to JEL for generation of electricity which is being received by JSL through MSEDCL amounts to job-work under section 143 of the CGST Act, 2017?
Reasoning adopted by Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) is summarized as follows:-
1. The AAAR rejected the reasoning adopted by the authority for advance ruling that since the conversion of coal into electricity amounts to manufacture as a new and distinct product emerges, the said activity cannot be considered as job-work under GST regime. The AAAR concluded that job work covers all types of processing whether or not the process amounts to manufacture.

2. It was held that the arrangement is not a job work as it does not satisfies the conditions required for treating an activity as job work under section 143 of the CGST Act, 2017. It was held that for considering an activity as job-work, it is essential that JSL sends goods to the job worker (JEL) which are either inputs or capital goods for JSL. In the present case, it was concluded that JSL procures coking coal and steam coal but it is a known fact that only coking coal is used by JSL for manufacturing steel and steam coal is exclusively used for generation of electricity through JEL. Consequently, it was held that steam coal cannot be considered as input for JSL. Moreover, it was further held that even if it is assumed that the steam coal is being used for generation of electricity which is being used by JSL for manufacturing steel, then too, the inputs being coal sent by JSL was not returned after job work by JEL to JSL. The electricity generated was sent to MSEDCL which in turn was supplied to JSL. Therefore, it was held that since third party was involved rather than two parties in a job work- one being principal and other being job-worker, the condition of section 143 was not satisfied. Therefore, it was held that the arrangement cannot be considered as job-work.

3. The AAAR also placed reliance on the Apex Court decision given in the case of M/s Prestige Engineering (India) Vs Collector of C.Ex., Meerut [1994 (73) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.)] to deny the present arrangement as job-work on the grounds that job-work envisages minimum addition in the form of material and if substantial material is being added during the course of processing by the job-worker, then the activity cannot be construed as job-work. For example, a tailor stitching a shirt from the cloth provided to him by customer will be covered by the term job-work as he is only adding thread, buttons to the shirt which are not substantial addition of goods during the process of stitching. This portion of reasoning given by AAAR has far reaching impact as it seeks to change the very perception of job-work in the GST regime. According to this reasoning, if substantial goods are used by job-worker during the course of processing, then the activity cannot be construed as job-work.

The moot question arises is that whether the decision of the Apex Court in the Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. rendered in the context of job-work with respect to erstwhile Central Excise Law can be made applicable in the GST regime? We will discuss this aspect and certain other aspects related to job-work in the context of provisions contained in GST regime in our next update.

You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com

 
, at our facebook page onhttps://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/ as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21

Post a Comment
Department News


Query
 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com