Notification No.13/2018-C.T./GST dated June 6, 2018
The Government of West Bengal vide the above Notification has enhanced the threshold limit to Rs. 1 lakh for generation of e-Way Bill w.e.f. June 6, 2018 for intra state movement of goods, without passing through any other State. E-way bill now shall be required where consignment value exceeds Rs. 1 lakh.
Circular No. 46/20/2018-GST dated June 6, 2018
Vide the aforesaid Circular it has been clarified that Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), Priority Sector Lending Certificates (PSLCs) and other similar documents are classifiable under heading 4907 and will attract 12% GST. The duty credit scrips however will attract NIL GST in terms of Notification No.2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
Circular No.15/2018-Customs dated June 6, 2018
- CBIC extends the alternative mechanism of officer interface to resolve mismatches between invoice details in GST Returns and those in Shipping Bills filed upto April 30, 2018 i.e. SB005 errors; (earlier vide Circular No. 5/2018-Customs and 08/2018-Customs, alternative mechanism was provided for the shipping bills filed till 28.02.2018)
- Advises exporters to align their export invoices submitted to Customs and GST authorities for smooth processing of IGST refund claims;
- CBIC also provides a correction facility in case of mismatches between GSTIN entity mentioned in Shipping Bill and the one filing GSTR-1 / GSTR-3B, viz. SB003 errors (albeit same PAN); However, in all such cases, entity claiming refund (one which has filed Shipping Bill) will give an undertaking to the Customs Officer at port of export, to the effect that its other office (one who has paid IGST) shall not claim any refund or any benefit of the amount of IGST so paid; Pointed out that DG Systems has developed the utility to facilitate processing of IGST refund claims stuck due to SB003 errors in manner similar to SB005 error.
Advance AUTHORITY Ruling
M/s Giriraj Renewables Pvt Ltd [2018-TIOL-43-AAR-GST]
Key issue: Whether supply of turnkey Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contract for construction of Solar Power plant wherein both goods and services are supplied can be construed as Composite Supply. It was held that the envisaged supply does not amount to a composite supply on the basis of the following:
- PV Module constituting 60%-70% of the total contract value is sold to the owner on High Sea Sale basis, indicating that the owner has imported and supplied the same to the contractor (applicant) on free of cost. Therefore, the contractor cannot claim that they will supply the PV Module and thereby there is no principal supply involved in the instant case.
- For a supply to constitute as a composite supply, the goods and/or services should be naturally bundled. It was held that the concept of natural bundling does not apply to the envisaged supply as the owner can procure the major equipment’s involved on their own and the contractor may carry out the supply of services portion.
- Supply made by subcontractor needs to be viewed as an individual supply, thereby appropriate GST rate needs to be applied depending on the nature of supply.
- In the case of Sales Tax Bar Association (Regd) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (C) 9575/2017], the petitioner challenged the issuance of Show Cause Notices to large number of assessees for discrepancy between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B and effectiveness of IT Grievance Redressal Mechanism set up in terms of Circular No. 39/13/2018-GST. Allowing the writ petition, Delhi HC directs Revenue to file status report on the notices and grievance mechanism and directs the petitioner to respond to the Revenue’s emails to furnish information and details.
- The National Anti-Profiteering Authority in the matter of M/s Abel Space Solutions LLP vs. M/s Schindler India Pvt. Ltd. [2018-TIOL-03-NAPA-GST] dismissed the application filed the applicant wherein it was held that advance paid for purchase of lift was correctly charged to Service Tax which was leviable at the time of issue of invoice on 28.06.2017 and since the installation of lift was completed after coming into force of CGST Act, 2017, GST was correctly charged for invoices dated 27.07.2017, thereby there was no element of profiteering.
In the case of M/s Bhumika Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and Ors [TS-216-2018(ALL)-NT], the Allahabad HC quashed seizure order under Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 where e-way bill was generated before seizure order & invoice reflected charge of GST. HC explains that tax invoice was raised in consignee’s favour and same was available with the seizing authority, accordingly, said authority should have made effort to make inquiry from the consignee whose TIN was mentioned in tax invoice; Consequently, directs release of goods and permit’s assessee the same to be delivered to consignee