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/2018-2019/3508

Will the Security Services supplied as in the nature of Pure Services to a Municipal Corporation be granted Exemption from GST under Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax Rate?

Case:  NATIONAL SECURITY SERVICES

Citation: 2019 (20) G.S.T.L. 457 (A.A.R. - GST)

Issue: Will the Security Services supplied as in the nature of Pure Services to a Municipal Corporation be granted Exemption from GST under Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax Rate?

Brief Facts: The applicant has entered into an agreement with Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC) to provide Security services to them. The Security Services are provided in form of providing Security guards; to Water Pump Houses, Purification Plants run by PCMC from where water supply is made to the city; to Hospitals and Dispensaries run by PCMC; for Solid Waste Management, Slum Improvement undertaken by PCMC; in relation to Urban Planning including Town Planning, which is for Public Safety at large.

Appellant Contention: The Appellant is of the view that all the Services that they provide to PCMC are covered in Article 243W of the Constitution, as functions entrusted to Municipality. The applicant has stated that the security guards provided by them are working under the overall supervision of the Security Guards, who are on the establishment of the PCMC and they are carrying out the entire function of the security. They have also cited the duties which are performed by their personnel when on duty under the PCMC. Moreover, the security guards provided by them are not mere assistants/helpers because they are fully responsible for the security of the entire premises and are also supposed to handle the emergency situation like fire, theft, etc., and are to coordinate with important organization like police, fire brigade, hospitals, etc.

 According to the Appellant, the term “Madatnis” i.e. assistant/helper used in the agreement is only a convenience term used by PCMC. It is to indicate that the Security Guards provided by them should work under the direction and supervision by PCMC. The Appellant has submitted a clarification from the Assistant Commissioner (Security) PCMC, Pune-411018 stating that even though the persons provided by the applicant are working under the supervision and directions of the security guards who are on the establishment of PCMC, such persons are doing the security work in relation to urban planning and public safety at large.

Respondent’s Contention and Reasoning of Judgment: The Respondent stated that before making any conclusion, it is necessary to study and then analyze the relevant Exemption Notification. Following is the extract of the same.

Pure services (excluding works contract service or other composite supplies involving supply of any goods) provided to the Central Government, State Government or Union territory or local authority or a Governmental authority by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under article 243G of the Constitution or in relation to any function entrusted to a Municipality under article 243W of the Constitution would be exempted.

It is thus clear that the applicant is providing pure services. The Respondent agreed that the said services are in relation to any functions entrusted to a Municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution. The agreement between the applicant and PCMC very clearly states that the applicant shall provide assistants to the Security Guards of PCMC. The invoice raised by the applicant mentions services rendered as, “Being round the clock helper to security service”. Providing assistance to the Security Guards of PCMC is an activity in relation to various functions as enumerated above which have been entrusted to a Municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution. Thereby the appellant is entitled the benefit of Exemption Notification.

Decision: Exemption allowed.

Comment: The Gist of the case is that the Security Services supplied as in the nature of Pure Services by the appellant to PCMC (a Municipal Corporation) will be granted Exemption from GST under Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax Rate. Recently Notification No. 29/2018-Central Tax (Rate), dated 31-12-2018 was issued wherein it has been stated that Security Service (services provided by way of supply of security personnel) provided by any person other than a body corporate to a registered person, located in the taxable territory would attract tax liability under Reverse Charge Mechanism. However, Since PCMC is municipality (a government structure); the said notification would not be applicable to it.

In a similar case of supplying security services i.e. in case of Ex-Servicemen Resettlement Society, [2019] 101 taxmann.com 477 (AAR-WEST BENGAL) was supplying Security Guards along with sweeping services to Medical colleges and Hospitals of West Bengal and Central Govt. Cancer Institute. In view of the foregoing Benefit of exemption from the payment of GST is not available to the Applicant under Notification No 12/2017-CT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and WB Govt Gazette Notification-1136-FT dated 28.06.2017, as amended, for the supply of Security Services and the bundle of service that he describes as ‘Scavenging Services’.

Prepared by:  Adit Gupta

 

                                                                                              

  

 

 

 

 

 

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