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/2018-2019/3504

Whether supply of non-alcoholic beverages to SEZ units is in the nature of zero rated supply?

Case: M/s Coffee Day Global Limited (GST AAR Karnataka)
Citation: Advance Ruling No. KAR ADRG 13/2018 Dated 26.07.2018
Issue: Whether supply of non-alcoholic beverages to SEZ units is in the nature of zero rated supply?
Brief Facts: M/s Coffee Day Global Limited has filed an application for seeking advance ruling on the supply of non-alcoholic beverages to SEZ units using coffee vending machines. The applicant installs beverage vending machine inside SEZ premises, prepare the beverages using these machines and charge the SEZ units based on number of cups of beverages supplied. Employees will not be any consideration for the usage of vending machine by the SEZ units.
Applicant’s Contention: The Applicant contends that all supplies to SEZ, without any distinction, have been declared to be zero-rated supplies by Section 16 of the IGST Act’ 2017. Rule 89 of CGST Rules 2017 dealing with refund of input tax credits relating to SEZ supplies speak of inputs being used for authorized operations. The applicants’ contention is that any supply of goods or services to SEZ units is zero-rated and interprets that the phrase ‘any supply’ would cover everything, including beverages and ingredients for beverages.
Respondent’s Contention and reasoning of Judgment: The applicant has used the term ‘any supply’ in his contention. The authority is of the view that this term is not used anywhere in the statute. The word ‘any’ has been used only once in Section 16(1) of IGST Act, 2017. It reads `(1) “zero-rated supply” means any of the following supplies of goods or services or both, namely:- …’. The word any  has not been placed at the beginning of the sentence in (b) to read ‘any supply of goods or services or both to a Special Economic Zone developer or a Special Economic Zone Unit’.
Therefore the interpretation of the applicant is not correct.
In this regard we consider it relevant to dwell in the provisions of Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The proviso of the Rule 89 prescribes that refund in respect of supplies to a Special Economic Zone unit or a Special Economic Zone developer shall be admitted in full in case the SEZ is engaged in authorized operations.
The operations to be carried out in the Special Economic Zone and also in the Units located therein have to be in accordance with the authorization to be given by the Central Government, in terms of Section 4(2) of the SEZ Act, 2005. Further Section 15(9) of the said Act further requires that the SEZ Unit shall carry out only the authorized operations in the Unit. It thus flows that any special benefit accruing to the Units located in the SEZ shall be strictly in respect of the authorized operations only. The activity undertaken by them is certified as authorized operations by the proper officer of the SEZ.
Decision: The supply of non-alcoholic beverages / ingredients to such beverages, to SEZ units using coffee vending machines by the applicant, do not qualify as zero rated supply, as defined under Section 16 of the IGST Act’2017.
Comment: Circular No. 48/22/2018-GST Dated 14th June 2018 provides that if event management services, hotel and accommodation services, consumables etc are received by a SEZ unit for authorized operations, as endorsed by the specified officer of the Zone, the benefit of zero rated supply shall be available in such cases to the supplier. Therefore, this ruling defeats the clarification given by the above circular.
Prepared by- Mohammed Kasif
 
 

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