Notification No. 28/2018 – Central Tax dated June 19, 2018
Central Government notifies Central Goods and Services Tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2018, which provides as under:
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs concluded 2nd Special Refund Fortnight on June 16, 2018 wherein INR 6,087 crore of IGST refund has been sanctioned.
M/s TP Ajmer Distribution Ltd [2018-TIOL-77-AAR-GST]
Exemption – Applicant, an electricity transmission or distribution utility, sought ruling on whether non-tariff charges recovered from customers (such as application fee, rental charges, testing fee, etc) would qualify for GST exemption under Notification No 12/2017-Central Tax (Rates) dated June 28, 2017.
The AAR, relying on Circular No 34/ 8/ 2018-GST dated March 1, 2018, held that GST exemption is available only to ‘service by way of transmission and distribution of electricity’; other non-tariff charges such as application fee, rental charges, testing fee, labour charges for shifting meters, charges for duplicate fees, etc, are subject to GST. Further, while refundable security deposit would not attract GST, other charges such as cheque dishonor fee and delayed payment charges would be liable to GST.
IT Development Agency (ITDA), Govt of Uttarakhand, Dehradun [2018-TIOL-78-AAR-GST]
Exemption – The applicant seeks ruling on applicability of GST on supply of goods and services by IIT, Bombay. Applicant qualifies as a local authority in terms of Section 2(69) of the CGST Act, 2017. AAR, on analyzing the organizational set-up and composition of the IIT Council, held that IIT, Bombay falls within the definition of Government in terms of Section 2(53) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Relying on Notification No 12/ 2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017 that inter alia exempts services supplied by Government or local authority to another Government or local authority, AAR ruled that services supplied by IIT, Bombay (which qualifies as Government) to the applicant (being local authority) would qualify for GST exemption. However, such exemption would not be available to goods supplied by IIT, Bombay to the applicant.
PKL Ltd vs Union of India [WP No: 15082 of 2018]
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court has admitted writ petition filed by petitioner, challenging the constitutional validity of time limit prescribed for filing Form GST TRAN-1. The petitioner contends that time limit prescribed under Rule 117(1) of CGST Rules, 2017 is ultra vires Sections 140, Section 164 and Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner further contends that such time limit is also violative of Article 14, Article 19(1)(g) and Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
SC Rules: When a dispute resolution clause provides that...
In this week’s alert we update our readers on what has...
In this week’s update, we analyse a recent judgment of...
This week, we have analyzed the Bombay High Court’s...