Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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