Indirect Taxes: - “A Fortnightly review” by Sinewave Computer Services Private Limited
(16th Nov 2019 - 30th Nov 2019)

Content :

From the Legal Desk

(Compiled by CA Aumkar S Gadgil and Shri Surendra G Gadgil)

1. System constraint as well as absence of provision to pay supplementary refunds manually cannot be ground to hold any refund otherwise due to the Exporter.

2019-TIOL-2633-HC-MAD-GST

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AT MADURAI WP (MD) No.6209 of 2019

VEDANTA LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (DRAWBACK) CUSTOMS HOUSE, TUTICORIN, TAMIL NADU and Others

Vedanta Ltd (Exporter), The petitioner company exported goods on payment of IGST amounting to Rs 94.42 Cr as per Section 16(3) of the IGST Act – Meanwhile after exports on account of variation of rates at the London Metal Exchange, the prices were increased. The Exporter paid differential tax of Rs 2.03 Cr on the increased value. Thus, the Exporter was entitled to refund of Rs 96.45 Cr. and claimed refund including the additional tax paid on account of the variation in rates –

While the Revenue authorities concerned refunded Rs 94.42 Cr basis the shipping bills filed at the time of Exports, they were unable to refund the differential tax paid amounting to Rs 2.03 Crores as there was no provision in the system to pay such incremental amount and also there being no provision to process such refunds manually –

Hence the petitioner approached the Hon High Court seeking to issue writ of mandamus to direct the Revenue to transmit data w.r.t. IGST paid on export of goods pertaining to debit notes to the Customs ICEGAT portal either through the relevant port code or through any method , and facilitate refund of IGST paid in view of clarifications made in Circular No 40/2018 within time frame prescribed by the court.

ORDER - The Hon Madras HC ordered that when the process of sanctioning refund is completely system managed, the Revenue authorities concerned are supposed to visualise the complications and provide solutions to do away with the anomalies - Considering the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in M/s Amit Cotton Industries Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs and Others - - 2019-TIOL -1443-HC-AHM-GST, as well as the Circular No 40/2018, direction is issued to the respondent authorities to refund the additional IGST paid by the petitioner within four weeks from date of receipt of this order: HC.

2. Ref :-2019-TIOL-76-AAAR-GST.

In a composite contract of supply of Goods and Service, whether the classification would be governed based on the dominance of value of a particular item /service ?------NO-----. Intention of contract is drawn from the underlying work order.

AAAR relies on the obligations as sated in work orders and not on value dominance.

WEST BENGAL APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING. Appeal Case No. 10/WBAAAR/APPEAL/2019

Appellant :- SRI ASHIS GHOSH

Respondent, Asst Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kalyani Division, Kolkata, -

A. Facts in brief: -

Mackintosh Burn Ltd (MBL) is engaged in construction.State govt holds 51.01% of shares of MBL. MBL is the contractor appointed by a government authority viz. West Bengal Police housing and infrastructure Development Corporation. Sri Ashish Ghosh (Appellant) was granted 2 work orders. First one was for filling the foundation or plinth by silver sand in layers and consolidate the same by saturation with water ramming. The second work order was for earthwork for filling in the compound, tank, lowland ditches etc with good earth spread in layers, including breaking clods and consolidate the same by ramming and dressing.

As per the Appellant, value of silver sand in the total contract value was 90% where as the value of other obligations was 10% only. Thus, as per the Appellant, it was a composite supply in which supply of sand was the principal supply and hence it would be classified as supply of sand under HSN 2505 attracting 12% GST.

The WBAAR concluded that the contract is not composite supply of goods, but works contract involving supply of sand , as well as loading, unloading, filling the site with silver sand and earth, spreading, compacting water ramming to make land fit / site preparation for subsequent construction work and hence classifiable as site preparation service (SAC 99543) and taxable @ 18% under sr no 3 (xii) of Not 11/2017-CT (Rate) DT.28-6-2017.

B. Grounds of Appeal before the AAAR

Aggrieved by the order of AAR, Appeal was filed before the AAAR on among others following grounds: -

  • I. The AAR erred in classifying the supply as works contract service instead of supply of goods.
  • II. The Appellant was not entitled to perform any job work like site preparation, designing, engineering works, measurement etc which can fall under site preparation service.
  • III. The supply is composite supply in which supply of sand is the principal supply as the value of sand is 90% of the contract value, and service portion like filling the designated area with sand , compacting , levelling is only ancillary to principal supply.
  • IV. The AAR was satisfied that the value of sand is the major portion and no objection on the same.
  • V. The Appellant referred to order No JHR/AAR/2018-19/01 DT. 3-11-2018 of the Jharkhand AAR in which it was observed that the work order being supply of services with material and as more than 75% of the value constituted earth work the supply would be taxable underserial no 3 (vii) of Not 39/2017-IGST DT 13-10-2017.

C. Order by AAAR :-

The AAAR relied on the obligations stated in the in the work order and ordered that as per the work order the Appellant is required to fill the foundation or plinth by silver sand in layers and consolidate the same. The work order also involves filling the compound, tank, and other low-lying areas with sand and good earth and consolidate the same by ramming and dressing. It held that the activities undertaken amount to improvement and modification of land for future construction. It upheld the order of AAR that circumstances coming up from the work contents does not support that the contract is composite supply where principal supply is of sand as argued by the appellant , but is a case of transfer of property in goods in course of site preparation for construction which would attract 18% GST and not 12%.

Note :- It is important that the ultimate obligation of any agreement or contract needs to be carefully looked into to ascertain the classification particularly when the supply is a composite supply of goods or service or both. One cannot rely on dominance of value alone to ascertain if supply is for goods or service. one has to be careful when the competing rates are attracted in such cases.

3. 2019-TIOL-454-AAR-GST

AR.NO KAR ADRG 119/2019 DT 30-9-2019

APPLICANT: - Maarq Spaces Pvt Ltd sought advance ruling on following questions

i. Whether the activity of a developer for the development of land into residential plots under a joint development agreement with land owner, for which the consideration for the developer is on revenue sharing basis in the value of developed plot sold, liable to be taxed, particularly when entry 5 of Schedule III considers sale of land as neither supply of goods or services ?.---
YES—AAR Karnataka

ii. Whether the above activity is a composite supply in which supply of land is principal supply and development of land service is ancillary supply naturally bundled and hence not liable to Tax in terms of entry 5 to Schedule III? -------- NO-----

The actual activities to be performed by the applicant under the JDA is that of developer. Though the agreement provides that the applicant can enter into sale agreement, it is only incidental to the main agreement of development as the applicant has invested huge sums in development. In consideration what the applicant gets is not right or title in the plots, but share in money value of plots sold. The money received on sale of plots is credited to escrow account and then divided into 25% and 75%.

iii. If the answer to the question no.1 is yes, whether provision of rule 31 can be made applicable in ascertaining the value of land and supply of service?-YES- The value of supply is equal to total amount received as consideration as per the joint development agreement .

Maarq Spaces Pvt Ltd

Maarq Spaces Pvt Ltd (Applicant) is engaged in the business of property development.Applicant has entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with landowners for development of land into residential layout along with specification and amenities. Consideration for the development of land and its sale was agreed on revenue sharing basis in the ratio of 75% for landowner and 25% for applicant based on the value realised on sell of developed residential plots.

Under the JDA It is land owners (Owners) responsibility to obtain all the required licences, sanctions, consent NOC for obtaining the sanctioned plans. Subsequent to the sanction, all other initial cost of development like constructing internal roads, laying sanitary pipes and drains and preparing necessary plans/drawings/was to be borne by the applicant as per the JDA. As per the JDA applicant will ensure the sale of developed plots within specified period. Para 8 of the agreement provides that the applicant is entitled to a revenue share equal to 25% of the sale value of each plot. Para 19 provides that nothing in the agreement shall deem the relationship of the parties to be construed as a partnership, agency or otherwise and/or an agreement to sell but shall be construed strictly in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

Applicant seeks to know as to whether the activity of development and sale of land attract tax under GST and if the answer is in the affirmative, then for the purpose of taxable value, whether the provision of rule 31 of Rules can be made applicable in ascertaining the value of land and supply of service.

Argument by the Applicant: -

iv. The main thrust of the applicant is that they are primarily engaged in the sale of land and the said activity is not liable to be taxed in terms of the provisions contained in serial number 5 of Schedule III of the CGST Act, 2OL7.

v. The applicant further contends that the activity of development work carried out in respect of the land is an activity incidental to the sale of land. It is naturally bundled with the sale of land, constituting a composite supply. And the predominant supply, being sale of land, is not liable to be taxed and consequently they are not liable to pay any tax on the entire activity

Findings and Discussions by the AAR.

The core contention of the applicant is that they are engaged in the sale of land. The sine qua non for any sale of land is the ownership of the land sold. Applicant has no right in the title of the land and, therefore, they cannot be considered as the sellers of the plots – The AAR relied on various clauses in the JDA which state that:

the applicant are only developers of the barren land;

that the applicant represented to the landowners that they are the persons having experience and expertise as land developer;

that nothing contained in the agreement shall be construed as delivery of possession in part performance of any agreement of sale.The applicant, therefore, under no circumstances acquires any right over the property which would qualify them to be considered as sellers of the property in the capacity of an owner, as envisaged in entry at serial number 5 of schedule III.

In such a scenario the claim of the applicant that they get consideration for land development by way of sale of land is hollow and devoid of merit. At best the applicant assists the landowners in the sale of plots which all belong to the landowners

Thus, the contention of the applicant that there should not be any tax on the consideration received by them is not accepted by the AAR.

Value of Service

Applicants are only service providers in the whole process, be it development of the raw land into residential plots or their sale after the development, therefore, entire amount received by them is liable to be taxed under GST - Rule 31 of the Rules applies in the instant case and the value of the supply is equal to the total amount received by the applicant, which is equal to 25% of the open market value of each plot: AAR

4. Ref :- 2019-TIOL-454-GST

Randox Laboratories Lnaia Pvt Ltd

1) Business model in brief:-

The applicant-company is engaged in trading of medical diagnostic re-agents and diagnostic equipment (Equipment). Re-agent in lay man’s language is a consumable used in chemical analysis for pathological tests by the analyser in a diagnostic equipment / system supplied by the applicant.

The applicant's main objective is to sell the reagents (GST Rate 12%) which are profitable to the applicant. The reagents can be used only & only with the applicant’s analyser equipment which the applicant provides in customer’s premises without transfer of property in the equipment. The applicants Equipment and the reagents are usable only when the equipment and the reagent are supplied by the applicant.

The Supply model: -

  • 1) Outright Sale of equipment. No question is asked for the AR.
  • 2) In other cases, to promote sale of reagent, the equipment is supplied on a rental basis in conjunction with supply of reagents. The consideration against supply of equipment is the customer agreement to procure reagents of minimum quantities during a predefined period (for e.g. say 5 years). In case of failure to purchase the agreed quantity of reagents a penalty is imposed

Under the rental supply of equipment 2 different types of options are provided to the customer:-

a. The Reagent Rental placement Contracts (,RRC) wherein the contract is for supply of equipment, reagents, controls and services, in conjunction. The equipment is supplied on returnable basis, i.e. the title in such equipment shall remain in the hands of applicant at all times, and the equipment forms part of applicant’s balance sheet, unless agreed to be sold to the customer at the end of the contract period.

In consideration for the supplies of machines without any rentals, the customer agrees to procure reagents at minimum levels stated in the agreement for predefined period (for eg. 5 years). If the minimum level as stated in the contract is not met, the applicant can recover penal charges from the end customers.

Though, the RRC agreements are entered into with end customers, for sake of trade convenience, the reagents are sold by the applicant to distributors in different states who shall in turn sell the goods to the end-customers.

b. The other model is the Part Reagent Rental placement Contract (PRC) wherein the contract is worded akin to the contract in the RRC model except for the fact that an additional upfront non-refundable deposit is obtained from the end customer.

2) Tax Rates and Classifications under GST for Equipment , Reagent and Renting service:

  • 1. The machines / equipment provided by the applicant falls under the HSN Code 90278090. The relevant entry as per the tariff is as under entry 417 of Not 1/2017-CGST (rate) DT. 28-6-2017 and tax Rate is 18% GST
  • 2. Supply of equipment on rental basis is a service classifiable under SAC 997319. The applicable GST rate as per the Central Tax rate notification number 1 1/2017-CGST (rate) dated 28th June, 2OI7 is "same rate of central tax as on the supply of like goods involving transfer of title in goods” and hence it is 18% GST.
  • 3. Reagent fall under HSN 38220090 and covered under entry no 80 of Not No 1/2017-CGST (rate) DT. 28-6-2017 having Tax rate 12% GST.

3) QUESTIONS FOR AR

Sr Question Ruling Reason by the AAR
1 Whether GST is attracted on Machines / Equipment given under RRC and PRC model Under RRC-“NO”
Under PRC- ‘Yes”
NIL rentals charged for equipment. Para 7.2.2
Non-refundable payment relates to equipment Para 8.1
2 Whether supply of reagents along with machine rental and service in RRC / PRC is a separate supply or mixed supply or composite supply Yes. Separate supply Supply is either by the applicant or his distributor out of their own stocks hence separate. Para 7.5.2
From the contract it is clear that the applicant has detached the supply of equipment from supply of reagents. Para 7.5.3
3 Rate of Tax for supply of rental service 9% CGST and 9% KGST As mentioned earlier
4 a. Value on which GST is to be paid in RRC Model and Time of Supply where the required quantity of reagents is purchased.
b. Value of equipment on rental basis where required quantities are purchased under RRC
c. Value of equipment and rate of tax where penal charges are paid under RRC.
d. Value of equipment in case of PRC Model.
e. Reagents
f. For the service in nature of act
a. Value= Transaction Value of reagents
b. NIL
c. Value of Penal charges for short quantity. Rate will be 18% GST under HSN 9997 as per entry no 35 of the table to Not 11/2017-CT (Rate) Dt 28-6-2017.
d. Value = Upfront non-refundable deposit. Rate 18% TOS is the ftime of supply of equipment.
e. Value = Transaction value of reagents.
f. Same as per C
a. TOS will be date of supply of reagent. In this case there
b. Though there is delivery of equipment, there is no consideration for the equipment. Hence value is NIL and TOS is not applicable. Para 7.2.2 and 7.2.3
c. Service is by way of tolerating an act. Refer para 8.4.3
d. As per entry 17 (iii) of Not 11/2017-CT (Rate) because the equipment falls under HSN 90278090 on which as per entry 417 of Sch . III to Not 1/2017-CT / ( R ) DT. 28-6-17

Knowledgebase

(Compiled by CA Aumkar S Gadgil)

‘Place of Supply’ under GST

The term ‘place of supply’ is very significant, as far as the Goods and Services Tax Laws are concerned. GST revolves around the concept of ‘Destination based consumption tax. Therefore, for every transaction of supply of goods or services or both, it is immensely important to determine as to at which location, the consumption of goods or services has taken place. For every transaction it is necessary to determine the “Place of Supply’ and the place of supply should be in accordance with the provisions of the law.

The definition of the word ‘Place of Supply’ has been given under Section 2 (86) of the CGST Act 2017. “place of supply” means the place of supply as referred to in Chapter V of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act. Taking a further reference to Section 10,11,12 and 13 respectively of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, the term Place of supply can be better understood. Given the fact that GST is a destination-based consumption tax and every state, holds a legislative power to collect tax in respect of state specific transaction, there was a need to lay down certain principles in determination of ‘Place of Supply’ which would be applicable across all the states. This would bring in uniformity. The provisions of IGST Act have not been given under the state GST Laws, but only in the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act 2017. It may be possible, in case of a specific transaction, there might be more than 1 states be involved. There may be a situation that each of the states would assume consumption of supply in its state and accordingly claim stake for the revenue.

Determination of Place of Supply of Goods (other than in case of Imports and Exports)

According to the provision of Section 10(1) of the IGST Act 2017, The place of supply of goods, other than supply of goods imported into, or exported from India, shall be as under,

(a) where the supply involves movement of goods, whether by the supplier or the recipient or by any other person, the place of supply of such goods shall be the location of the goods at the time at which the movement of goods terminates for delivery to the recipient;

Eg: Amrita Ltd (Mumbai) has entered into a contract to sell certain goods to Prerna Ltd (Surat) for an agreed price. As per the terms of contract the termination of delivery was to take place at the factory of Prerna Ltd. The goods were to be carried by transporter arranged by Prerna Ltd but cost was borne by Amrita Ltd.

In such case, the place of supply would be determined, considering which place would be considered as place of ‘termination of delivery’. In the given case, since the delivery would terminate in Surat, as per the terms of contract, therefore the ‘Place of supply’ would be Surat. As a reason of this the ‘Location of Supplier’ would be ‘Mumbai Maharashtra’ and the ‘Place of Supply’ would be Surat (Gujarat), thus IGST would be levied in the given case.

(b) where the goods are delivered by the supplier to a recipient or any other person on the direction of a third person, whether acting as an agent or otherwise, before or during movement of goods, either by way of transfer of documents of title to the goods or otherwise, it shall be deemed that the said third person has received the goods and the place of supply of such goods shall be the principal place of business of such person;

The transactions covered under clause (b) of Section 10(1) are often referred to as “Bill to Ship to” transactions. It often can be seen in case where a trader of goods, who only intends to buy and sell the goods as it is, without making any modifications. In such case the trader per-se does not take the delivery of goods, he only takes a constructive delivery but not physical delivery ie he only procures on paper but does not actually take the custody of goods. In such case consider the following example.

Eg: Mr Raviraj of Badlapur Maharashtra has entered a contract with Mr Shah of Nashik Maharashtra to purchase goods. However, Mr Raviraj has directed Mr Shah to send the goods directly to Mr Swamy of Bangalore. In this case considering the provisions of Section 10(1)(b), the goods are delivered by the Supplier Mr Shah to the recipient Mr Swamy at the direction of third person Mr Raviraj. In such case Mr Raviraj has only procured goods on the basis ie by way of constructive delivery but not by way of physical delivery. However, for the purpose of this section it would be deemed that Mr Raviraj has received the delivery of goods and the place of supply for the purpose of this transaction would be that of Mr Raviraj. Even when the goods would be delivered by Mr Shah of Nashik Maharashtra to Mr Swamy in Bangalore Karnataka, it would be deemed that the place of supply would be the registered premises of Mr Raviraj ie Badlapur Maharashtra. Therefore, for the transaction of Purchase of goods by Mr Raviraj from Mr Shah, the place of supply would be Badlapur Maharashtra. The Location of supplier also happens to be in Maharashtra, therefore the taxes to be levied would be CGST+SGST of Maharashtra. Also in addition to this the second transaction in this case would be where the goods are sold by Mr Raviraj to Mr Swamy. Although the goods were not dispatched by Mr Raviraj to Mr Swamy, for the purpose of this act it shall be deemed that the sale of goods to Mr Swamy has been made by Mr Raviraj. Thus Mr Raviraj would also be required to issue an invoice. For the purpose of this second transaction, the “Location of supplier” would be registered premises of Mr Raviraj Maharashtra and the “Place of supply” would be registered premises of Mr Swamy Bangalore ie Karnataka, thus Mr Raviraj would levy IGST in the given case.

Another case, if lets say in the above example, Mr Swamy was a job-worker of goods for Mr Raviraj, then there would have been only one single transaction of “Bill to Ship to” and in such case the supplier would be charging CGST+SGST as described in first case above. Also there would be no need of any second transaction taking place.

(c) where the supply does not involve movement of goods, whether by the supplier or the recipient, the place of supply shall be the location of such goods at the time of the delivery to the recipient;

Eg: Mr Pavan has rented furniture in his office from a furniture store Furneco Ltd. However Mr Pavan offers to buy the same instead of paying rent after using it for 5 months. In such case, Funeco Ltd agrees to sell the same to him. Here we can observe that at the time of “Supply by way of sale of furniture”, there would be no movement of goods involved. In such case the place of supply would be the location of goods at the time of delivery (ie registered premises of Mr Pavan). Thus the “Location of supplier would be the registered premises of Furneco Ltd and the place of supply would be registered premises of Mr Pavan. Accordingly the taxes (CGST+SGST / IGST) would be levied.

(d) where the goods are assembled or installed at site, the place of supply shall be the place of such installation or assembly;

Eg: MOTIS elevators, an entity holding its registered premises in Delhi has entered a contact with Airports Authority of India (Delhi), to install Elevators at 5 Airports across India. The installations would be done at Delhi, Agra (UP), Indore (MP), Bhopal (MP) and Pune (MH). In the given case the contract has been entered by MOTIS elevators with Delhi head office of Airports Authority of India. However, the installation of the elevators would be done at 5 respective places. Therefore, according to provisions of section 10(1)(d), it can be said that for all 5 installations the place of supply would be the 5 locations mentioned above. Although the contract has been entered with head office, for the purpose of GST the Invoicing would be required to be done considering 5 different Place of supplies. IGST would be levied in cases other than Delhi and CGST+SGST would be levied in case of Delhi.

(e) where the goods are supplied on board a conveyance, including a vessel, an aircraft, a train or a motor vehicle, the place of supply shall be the location at which such goods are taken on board.

Eg: Q Ltd of Mumbai is engaged in manufacture of napkins. It has supplied a consignment of Napkins to Indian Railways for the on-board journey of Rajdhani Express plying from Mumbai to Delhi and en-route GJ, MP, RJ states. As the napkins may be consumed in either of states by the passengers, the determination of place of supply was necessary. In the given case, factually the consumption of the goods onboard may take place in any state, however there cannot be a certain record keeping done on a real time basis and it would be cumbersome to determine taxability. Therefore, in such case the principle has been laid down clearly. In case of supplies on-board a conveyance, the place of supply would always be the place or the location at which the goods are taken on board. Therefore, in the given case the place of supply would be Mumbai and Q Ltd would be required to levy CGST+SGST.

(2) Where the place of supply of goods cannot be determined, the place of supply shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed.

Rules have been laid down in cases where under either of the above cases, the Place of supply cannot be determined.

Determination of Place of Supply of Goods (In case of Imports and Exports)

11. The place of supply of goods,

(a) imported into India shall be the location of the importer.

The provisions of Section 11(1)(a), makes it amply clear that in case of import of goods the place of supply would always be the “Location of Importer” ie the place where the importer holds his registered premises.

Thus, it may be possible that the goods have been unloaded at Mumbai Port Maharashtra, but the registered premises of importer is not in Maharashtra but is in Umergaon in Gujarat state, in such case the Place of Supply would be Umergaon in Gujarat and the IGST liability would be paid considering the “Place of Supply” to be Gujarat.

(b) exported from India shall be the location outside India.

Exports means, an activity of taking goods outside India from India. Thus, in such case the Place of supply in all cases of exports shall be outside India. Since the place of supply would be outside India, in such cases, GST would not be applicable.

In this part we have analyzed the provisions of place of supply of goods. In the next issue, we would be discussing practical cases of place of supply of services.

Statutory Updates under GST Law

(Compiled by CA Aumkar S Gadgil and Shri Abhinay Soman)

Notifications

Notification No. & Date of issue Particulars
Notification No.57/2019 – Central Tax dt 26-11-2019 Seeks to extend the due date for furnishing of return in FORM GSTR-1 for registered persons in Jammu and Kashmir having aggregate turnover more than 1.5 crore rupees for the months of July, 2019 to September, 2019 till 30th November, 2019
Notification No.58/2019 – Central Tax dt 26-11-2019 Seeks to extend the due date for furnishing of return in FORM GSTR-1 for registered persons in Jammu and Kashmir having aggregate turnover more than 1.5 crore rupees for the month of October, 2019 till 30th November, 2019
Notification No.59/2019 – Central Tax dt 26-11-2019 Seeks to extend the due date for furnishing of return in FORM GSTR-7 for registered persons in Jammu and Kashmir for the months of July, 2019 to October, 2019 till 30th November, 2019
Notification No.60/2019 – Central Tax dt 26-11-2019 Seeks to extend the due date for furnishing of return in FORM GSTR-3B for registered persons in Jammu and Kashmir for the months of July, 2019 to September, 2019 till 30th November, 2019
Notification No.61/2019 – Central Tax dt 26-11-2019 Seeks to extend the due date for furnishing of return in FORM GSTR-3B for registered persons in Jammu and Kashmir for the month of October, 2019 till 30th November, 2019
Notification No.62/2019 – Central Tax dt 26-11-2019 Seeks to notify the transition plan with respect to J&K reorganization w.e.f. 31.10.2019
Circular No.127/2019 - GST dt 04-12-2019 seeks to ab-initio withdraw the Circular No. 107/26/2019 dated 18.07.2019 wherein certain clarifications were given in relation to various doubts related to supply of Information Technology enabled Services (ITeS services) under GST.

Circulars:

Notification No. & Date of issue Particulars
Notification No. 81/2019-Cus (NT) dt 07-11-2019 Non-Tariff Determines the rate of exchange of conversion of each of the foreign currencies specified in column (2) of each of Schedule I and Schedule II mentioned in the attached notification into Indian currency or vice versa, shall, with effect from 08th November, 2019 be the rate mentioned against it in the corresponding entry in column (3)
Notification No. 82/2019-Cus (NT) dt 15-11-2019 Non-Tariff Amendment to All Industry Rates of duty drawback effective from 16.11.2019
Notification No. 83/2019-Cus (NT) dt 15-11-2019 Non-Tariff Exercise of powers of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Delhi in certain cases by Commissioner of Customs (Audit), Delhi
Notification No. 84/2019-Cus (NT) dt 15-11-2019 Non-Tariff Tariff Notification in respect of Fixation of Tariff Value of Edible Oils, Brass Scrap, Poppy Seeds, Areca Nut, Gold and Silver -Reg
Notification No. 85/2019-Cus (NT) dt 21-11-2019 Non-Tariff Determines the rate of exchange of conversion of each of the foreign currencies specified in column (2) of each of Schedule I and Schedule II mentioned in the attached notification into Indian currency or vice versa, shall, with effect from 22th November, 2019 be the rate mentioned against it in the corresponding entry in column (3)
Notification No. 86/2019-Cus (NT) dt 29-11-2019 Non-Tariff Tariff Notification in respect of Fixation of Tariff Value of Edible Oils, Brass Scrap, Poppy Seeds, Areca Nut, Gold and Silver- Reg.
Notification No. 87/2019-Cus (NT) dt 02-12-2019 Non-Tariff Notification of Vizinjham International Seaport and Muthalapozhi u/s 7(d) of the Customs Act for unloading and loading of boulders for breakwater construction.
Notification No. 88/2019-Cus (NT) dt 05-12-2019 Non-Tariff Determines the rate of exchange of conversion of each of the foreign currencies specified in column (2) of each of Schedule I and Schedule II mentioned in the attached notification into Indian currency or vice versa, shall, with effect from 06th December, 2019 be the rate mentioned against it in the corresponding entry in column (3)
Notification No. 43/2019-Cus (ADD) dt 11-11-2019 Anti Dumping Duty Seeks to rescind notification Nos. 24/2018- Customs (ADD) the dated 7th May, 2018, 41/2018- Customs (ADD) and 42/2018- Customs (ADD) dated 24th August, 2018 which had prescribed provisional assessment on export of jute products from Bangladesh by specified exporters.
Notification No. 44/2019-Cus (ADD) dt 11-11-2019 Anti Dumping Duty Seeks to amend notification No. 1/2017-Customs dated 5th January, 2017 to insert S. Nos. 48 to 52 in the duty table to finalize the assessment of exports of jute products by M/s. Roman Jute Mills Ltd. (Producer/Exporter) and M/s SMP International, LLC,USA (Exporter/ Trader), M/s Aziz Fibres Limited (Producer/Exporter), M/s Natore Jute Mills (producer), Bangladesh and M/s PNP Jute trading LLC (Exporter/Trader), USA.




Disclaimer: The views provided above are on the basis of our understanding of the GST Laws, Rules and Regulations. The adjudicating or Judicial Authorities may or may not agree with the views expressed above.


CA Aumkar Surendra Prachi Gadgil