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/2018-2019/3512

Whether the services provided in relation to solid waste management, garbage collection, disposal, water supply, cleaning of colony” are exempt supply under gst?
Case:Shri Dhananjay Kumar Singh
Citation: 2019-TIOL-23-AAR-GST
Issue: Whether the services provided in relation to solid waste management, garbage collection, disposal, water supply, cleaning of colony” are exempt supply under gst?
Brief Facts: The applicant M/s Dhananjay Kumar Singh HN 13, Sanyasi para, Khamtarai, Raipur, Chhattisgarh GSTIN, files the issue involved in appeal22AVZPSSG4SERZZ u/s 97 of the Chhattisgarh Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. He is a service provider who is engaged in the business of executing service contracts and had been awarded a contract by the Chhattisgarh Housing Board (herein to referred as CGHB) for providing services in relation to Solid waste management, water supply operations, Garbage Collection door to door and disposal, Cleaning of colony i.e. garden, street, and open area, drainage system, sewerage cleaning of water tank (all UG Sump & Over head tank), cleaning of common area of residential area developed by Chhattisgarh Housing Board and not handed over to the local authority for its maintenance and seeks advance ruling on whether the said services  are exempt under as per notification no. 12/2017 dated 28th June, 2017 as updated and amended time to time or not.
 
APPELLANT’S CONTENTION:The applicant's contention is that residential area developed by Chhattisgarh Houslng Board and not handed over to the local authority by Chhattisgarh Housing Board (CGHB) is exempt under as per notification no. 12/2017 dated 28th June 2017 as updated and amended time to time. CHGB is a Government entity as it is constituted in terms of Chhattisgarh Housing Board Act and engaged in the various work performed by municipality under article 243W of Constitution. Even the commissioner (Appeal) has held them as “Government authority” for service tax exemption. Hence, the work allotted by CGHB will be exempt from payment of GST. The applicant also contended that Karnataka Advance ruling authority has held that maintenance of parks provided by society to State Government, Central Government or a local authority is also exempt under entry no.3 of notification 12/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.6.2017.
Judgment:-the exemption under the above entry applies only in case when it is pure service. The invoice issued and agreement clearly shows that there is no supply of goods involved. The CHGB is constituted under Chhattisgarh Housing Board Act, 1972 and seeing its constitution as well as definition of “Government authority’, it was held that CHGB falls under this definition.
After seeing the Article 243W of Constitution and Twelfth Schedule(Article 243W of the Constitution (Seventy-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 as well as the work undertaken by applicant, it was held that services provided by applicant by their very nature fall in the list of services enumerated under serial number 5,6,8,10,12 and 17 of 12th Schedule of Article 243W of Indian Constitution.
Decision:They came to the conclusion that the said services provided by the applicant to Chhattisgarh Housing Board qualifies falls under the category of services as stipulated under Notification No. 1212017-State Tax (Rate) and hence is exempt.
Comment: This is very detailed and good decision. The Advance Ruling has indepth analysed each aspect like pure services, definition of Governmental authority and services listed in Article 243W and then came to conclusion that the exemption is available to the assessee. There has been great deliberation about the definition of Governmental authority as well as functions of Municipality  listed in Article 243W. A clear view has been provided on the same in this decision.
Prepared By: Kanika Mehta
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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