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/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