Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2020-2021/3552

Whether supply of purified water to public in empty unsealed cans is exempt under GST law
Water Health India Private Limited (GST AAR Karnataka) Advance Ruling No. KAR ADRG 12/2020 dated 18.03.2020
Facts-The applicant has entered into an agreement with local panchayats /municipalities to supply purified water to urban under-served people across various metro cities by installing Community Water System, which is a water treatment plant at economical price. In the process of water treatment, applicant pump the raw water from water sources like well/pond/bore well/others and collected in the raw water This raw water is then pumped to CWS for removal of suspended solids, organic matter, chlorine, obnoxious taste and smell. The purified water is further sent to Reverse Osmosis membranes to remove total dissolved solids, bacteria and pathogens and then the same is sent to purified water storage tank. This purified water is supplied to general public in unsealed containers which are brought by the public themselves. Applicant charges Rs.8/ – or such amount as is reasonable for supply of purified water in 20 litres cans.
Issue-“Whether supply of purified water to public in empty unsealed cans is exempt under GST law”
Applicant Contentions- The applicant relied upon the entry No. 99 of Notification No. 2/2017 of Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017, by virtue of which the supply of water falling under HSN code 2201 attracts nil rate GST. The relevant extract of the said entry reproduced as under:
“Water [other than aerated, mineral, purified, distilled, medicinal, ionic, battery, de-mineralized and water sold in sealed container] is exempt from GST”.
Moreover, the applicant has referred to Circular no. 52/26/2018 dated 09th August 2018 wherein, it is clarified that supply of water, other than those excluded from Sl. No. 99 of notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, would attract GST at “NIL” rate.Therefore, it is clarified that supply of drinking water for public purposes, if it is not supplied in a sealed container, is exempt from GST.”
The applicant submitted that the term ‘sold in sealed container’ runs along with the remaining terms of the notification. Further, the term ‘and’ prior to the term ‘water’ should be read in a manner that is conjunctive and in such a way that the phrase ‘in a sealed container’ is applicable for all the types of water enumerated in the entry. In this regard, the applicant relied on the following:
As per the law lexicon dictionary, the word “and” expresses the “relation of connection or addition”
In the case of Sukhnandan V. Suraj Bali, it was held that the word “and” should be understood in its natural grammatical sense to indicate a conjunctive sense and not a disjunctive sense and cannot be read as “or”.
In light of the above applicant submitted that the word “water sold in sealed container’ should be read in conjunction with word “purified, mineral, distilled etc” and it should not be read as a separate sentence/ clause.
AAR Reasoning- AAR opined that in the above said circular it is clearly mentioned that other than those excluded from the Si. No. 99 of notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, would attract GST at “NIL” rate. The following type of waters is excluded from the said notification and exigible to GST which are:
i. Aerated water
ii. Mineral water
iii. Purified water
iv. Distilled water
v. Medicinal water
vi. Ionic water
vii. Battery water
viii. De-mineralized water and
ix. Water sold in sealed container
 
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of S.G.Glassworks Private Limited vs Collector of Central Ex., Nagpur held that the word ‘and’ by itself may have been susceptible of giving rise to the argument that it was another condition to be satisfied in the first mould itself. But it having been used before the word ‘where’ it is disjunctive and lays down another requirement for a glassware to be produced by the  used of semi-automatic process to be entitled for exemption.
Moreover, AAR applied  the principle of Author Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, p. 244 (Edn. 9) referred by the Honourable Allahabad High Court in the case of Sukhnandan Suraj Bali to the instant case that the word ‘and’ used before the ‘water sold in sealed container’ in the No. 99 of notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 is disjunctive nature and lays down that ‘water sold in a sealed container’ is the another type of water excluded from the said entry along with the aerated water, mineral water, purified water, distilled water, medicinal water, ionic water, battery water, de-mineralized water.
Decision-Therefore, supply of purified water whether in sealed container or unsealed container not entitled for GST exemption as the purified water excluded from the Sl. No. 99 of notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. Thus supplying of purified drinking water to the general public in an unsealed container is not entitled for exempt from GST.
Prepared By CA Preksha Jain
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