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

PJ/Case Law/2016-2017/3462

What would be the applicable GST rate and classification on the works contract service of maintenance of railway tracks?
Case: SREEPATI RANJAN GOPE & SONS
Citation: 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 392 (A.A.R. - GST)
Issue:What would be the applicable GST rate and classification on the works contract service of maintenance of railway tracks?
Brief facts: - The Applicant, stated to be an enlisted contractor engaged by the Railways for maintenance work of railway tracks, wants a ruling on the Classification and Rate of Tax when maintenance of railways tracks is done by them by providing contractor’s labour only in cases where the Railways supply materials free of cost and when maintenance of railways tracks is done by them by providing, both, contractor’s material and labour.
AdvanceRuling is admissible on this question under Section 97(1)(a) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the GST Act”).
Appellant’s contention: . During the course of Personal Hearing, on 21-3-2018, the Applicant submitted a photocopy of Letter of Acceptance, for the period 1-10-2017 to 30-9-2018, (hereinafter referred to as “LOA”) No. : T/Misc.P.Way (Zonal)/PWI-West/SRC/2017(e-30), dated 4-1-2018 issued from the Office of the DRM (Engg.), Kharagpur, along with the Schedules annexed thereto.
 
Judgement: The Adjudicating Authority contended that the Application, in Annexure C refers to a hyperlink: www.export-genius.in/gst-tax-rates/railway-track-maintenance-work which leads to information on the GST on HSN Code 8604 00 00 - Railway or Tramway Maintenance or Service Vehicles Whether or Not Self-propelled (for Example Workshops Cranes, Ballast Tampers, Track-liners, Testing Coaches and Track Inspection Vehicles. Since the Applicant is neither manufacturing nor supplying any such vehicle, the information available on the hyperlink is not relevant to the Applicant.
The Applicant is a supplier of services as per work order issued for execution by the Railways. From examination of the LOA and the annexed Schedules it is clear that the work to be executed involves repair, maintenance and fitting out of immovable property, namely, Railway Tracks, and also transfer of property in goods in course thereof. It is, therefore, a “Composite Supply” of labour and goods in the nature of Works Contract, as defined under Section 2(119) of the GST Act, and is, therefore, classifiable under (ii) of column 3 [Description of Service] of Heading 9954 (Construction Services) of Column 2 under Serial No. 3 of Column 1 of the Table in Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 under the CGST Act, 2017 (1135-F.T., dated 28-6-2017 under the WBGST Act, 2017) - hereinafter collectively called Rate Notification. The Annexure: Scheme of Classification of Services appended with the said Notification No. further classifies Heading 9954 under Section 5 “Construction Services”. Group 9954 21 under Heading 9954 classifies “General Construction of civil engineering works” and Sub-group 9954 21 classifies “General Construction services of highways, streets, roads, railways and airfield runways, bridges and tunnels”. Sub-Group 9954 29 classifies “Services involving repair, alterations, additions, replacements, renovations, maintenance or remodelling of the constructions covered above”.
After a thorough perusal of the LOA it is seen that the Services rendered by the Applicant are to be classified under SAC (Service Code Tariff) Heading 9954, Group 9954 21, Sub-group 9954 29.
 The Rate Notification, along with its amendments on various dates, deals with the Tariff rate of tax as well as the effective rate of tax at reduced rates subject to specific laid down conditions. None of the amendments, whereby the effective rate of tax is at a rate lower than the Tariff rate under specifically laid down conditions are applicable in this case.
During Personal Hearing the Applicant has submitted a screenshot of GST rate of 5% for construction services for composite supply of works contracts involving predominantly earth work (that is, constituting more than 75% of the value of services provided, inter alia, to Central Government.
It appears that the Applicant is referring to amendment dated 13-10-2017 of the above mentioned Rate Notification. The LOA provides a detailed schedule of the nature of the work involved. It involves cleaning, surface preparation and painting of the rails, welding of joints, fabrication and fixing of guard rails, dressing and boxing of ballast, piling of Bullah, and other maintenance related work, only a minor fraction of which can be described as earth work. Hence, this amendment for effective rate of GST at reduced rates is not applicable in the instant case.
 During Personal Hearing the Applicant has referred to an exemption granted under Notification No. 12/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 under the CGST Act, 2017 (1136-F.T., dated 28-6-2017 under the WBGST Act, 2017) (hereinafter referred to as “the Exemption Notification”), and as amended on 25-1-2018. This argument is not present in the original application of Advance Ruling submitted on 7-2-2018. However, it is seen that the condition for being exempted from GST under this amendment requires the composite supply (wherein the value of the goods supplied is not more than 25% of the total value of the supply) to be provided, inter alia, to Central Government by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under article 243G of the Constitution or in relation to any function entrusted to a Municipality under article 243W of the Constitution. Once again, the conditions laid down are not applicable to the instant case.
The works contract service of maintaining railway track as per the above LOA is, therefore, taxable @ 18% under the Serial No. 3(ii) of the Rate Notification.
Decision:The Applicant supplies works contract service, as defined under Section 2(119) of the GST Act, of maintaining existing railway tracks, which is taxable @ 18% under Serial No. 3(ii) of Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 under the CGST Act, 2017 (1135-F.T., dated 28-6-2017 under the WBGST Act, 2017). The appropriate SAC (Service Code Tariff) is as follows: Heading 9954, Group 9954 21, Sub-group 9954 29.
2. This ruling is valid subject to the provisions under Section 103(2) until and unless declared void under Section 104(1) of the GST Act.
Comment: The gist of the case is Applicant supplies works contract service, of maintaining existing railway tracks, which is taxable @ 18% and the Notification dated 31.10.2017 attracting 5% shall not be applicable as it is subject to satisfaction of certain conditions. The appropriate SAC (Service Code Tariff) is as follows: Heading 9954, Group 9954 21, Sub-group 9954 29.

Prepared by:Himanshu Bhimani
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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