Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2018-2019/3484

Whether Bunkhouses can be considered as the supply of tangible goods or not ?
Case: HOTEL KAILASH INTERNATIONAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAIPUR-II
Citation: 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 81 (Tri. - Del.)

 Issue: Whether Bunkhouses can be considered as the supply of tangible goods or not ?
Brief facts:The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 29-9-2011 of Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur-II. The dispute in the present appeal is with reference to the liability to Service Tax for provision of bunkhouses by assessee  for M/s. Cairns Energy India Pvt. Ltd., Barmer. The Revenue proceeded to demand Service Tax against the appellant considering the amount received under the category of supply of tangible goods service. It was held that the bunkhouses are goods which are supplied by the appellant for a consideration. Accordingly, Service Tax demand of Rs. 4,91,861/- was confirmed along with penalties. The Ld. Counsel submitted that in terms of service order received from the client, M/s. Cairns Energy India Pvt. Ltd. they have provided bunk-houses with all the required facilities at the site ear-marked by the client. Drawing our attention to the photographs of such bunkhouse facilities, it is submitted that first there is a concrete platform built by the appellant on which a row of bunkhouses were erected by assembly and integration for use by the client for accommodation of executives and employees. The service order clearly mentions that the bunkhouses which are semi-super deluxe for facility, are provided by the appellant along with incidental service of housekeeping, breakfast, dinner, etc.
Appellant’s contention: Applicant submits that the whole facility of bunkhouse is created at site and there is no ready built bunkhouse supplied by them.
 
Respondent’s Contention: The Ld. AR submitted that these are movable property easily moved from place to place depending on the requirement. These are supplied not in full assembled condition will not take away the liability from service tax for supply of tangible goods
Reasoning of Judgement: The nature of bunkhouses can be seen from the sample photographs submitted by the appellant. It is seen that in a concrete pavement, a row of accommodation facilities have been created at site. Admittedly, concrete and paver block flooring are to be made in the designated premises. Thereafter, the accommodation in the form of bunkhouse is assembled/ erected as per the requirement of the client. Additional facilities like washbasin, plumping, etc., are provided in the said facilities. It would appear that the whole bunk-house system integrated in row of accommodation with all connected facilities for the human habitation is created at site in the premises designated by the client. The service order identifies the payment as hiring of bunkhouse in Barmer. The crucial difference is that the appellant is claiming these accommodations created at site. The Revenue is claiming that these are tangible goods supplied by the client. Looking into the nature of construction and accommodation under the terms of service order, we are of the considered view that these bunkhouses are in fact created on concrete platform at site with various components and accessories and as such, there is no “supply of bunkhouse” to be called supply of tangible goods in the present arrangement. The bunkhouse accommodation is created at site based some on permanent concrete base with some dismantable components. In such situation, we note that there is no identified supply of bunkhouses as considered by the lower authorities. In fact, the exact nature of tangible goods supplied was not discussed by the lower authorities, except holding the whole consideration received for provision of bunkhouses will be considered as supply of tangible goods. As already reported, we are not in agreement with such finding. In view of the above discussion; we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
Decision: The Advance Authority of Ruling allowed the application submitted by the applicant.
Comment: The analogy of the case, it is concluded thataccommodation of Bunkhouses is created at sites and concrete and paver block flooring are made in the designated premisesas per client’s requirement.However exact nature of supply of tangible goods is not explained by the department. As such there is no pre identified supply of bunkhouses because any changes can be made by the supplier. Thus, bunkhouses cannot be considered as Supply of tangible assets.
Prepared by:  Pushpa Choudhary
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
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