Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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