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/2020-2021/3647

Whether the supply of pipes and measurement equipment (SKID equipment), charged under the head of ?gas connection charges? being charged by the assessee from consumers, amounts to supply of tangible goods for their use and thus liable to Service Tax?
M/s Adani Gas Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad Civil Appeal No. 2633 of 2020 (Supreme Court) dated 28th August 2020
Brief Facts: - The taxpayer is in the business of distributing natural gas - Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Piped Natural Gas (PNG) to industrial, commercial, and domestic consumers. In order to facilitate the distribution of PNG to industrial, commercial and domestic consumers through pipes, the assessee installs equipment known as ‘SKID’ at customers’ sites. In this regard, assessee enters into a Gas Sales Agreement with consumers to whom gas is supplied by it. The SKID equipment comprises of electronic meters that are useful for determining the quantity of gas supplied to the purchaser at the Delivery Point and isolation valves, filters and regulators that are crucial for regulating the pressure of gas and ensuring safe operation of the buyer's facilities.
Issue: Whether the supply of pipes and measurement equipment (SKID equipment), charged under the head of ‘gas connection charges’ being charged by the assessee from consumers, amounts to supply of tangible goods for their use and thus liable to Service Tax?
Reasoning of the judgement: -The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that ownership of the measurement equipment continues to vest with the supplier as per the agreement entered with the customer. The buyer is required to provide land and a power connection, free of cost at its premises. The buyer has to pay for a gas pipeline connection from the distribution mains up to the measurement equipment.
As per the provisions of the Finance Act 1994, taxability of supply of tangible goods for use, without transferring right of possession and effective control over such goods, is a ‘taxable service’. The crucial ingredient of the definition is that the supply of tangible goods is for the use of another, without transferring the right of possession and effective control ‘of such machinery, equipment and appliances.
It was argued by the assessee that the equipment is of no use for the consumer. The equipment is used by the supplier for measuring the quantity consumed by the consumer and based on that billing is done to the customer. The Supreme Court observed that the measurement equipment is not only for the benefit of the seller in measuring the quantity of the gas supplied. As per the agreement, both the seller and buyer have a vital interest in ensuring the correct recording of the quantity of gas supplied. Additionally, delivery of gas in a safe and regulated manner, enabled by the SKID equipment, is an essential component of the agreement. The obligation to supply, install and maintain the equipment is cast upon the seller as an incident of control and possession lies with the seller.
It was also argued that Gas connection charges are mainly in the nature of interest free refundable security deposit which is returned to the customers in the event of connection being discontinued or terminated.
Held: -Hon’ble Apex Court held that the supply of the SKID equipment by the assessee, was of ‘use’ to the customers and is liable to service tax.The Apex Court held that since the supplier has not able to substantiate that it has returned the amount to the customers, therefore the amount received by it would be taxable. The provisions of the Finance Act 1994 discussed above applies precisely in a situation where the use of the goods by a person is not accompanied by control and possession. ‘Use’ in the context of SKID equipment signifies the utilization of the equipment for the purpose measuring the quantity consumed, safely regulating the supply of gas etc.
 Prepared By : CA Kartik Singhvi
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