Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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