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/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