I.
High Court
11. [2018-TIOL-162-HC-KERALA-GST] Saji S, Proprietor vs.
Commissioner State GST
department dated 12th November, 2018
Tax
amount wrongly paid under SGST instead of IGST order to be transferred to the
respective head.
Facts
Petitioner, a registered
dealer, purchased goods from Chennai. While transporting the goods to Kerala,
the same were detained while in transit by the Assistant State Tax Officer.
Based on the demand made, the consignor paid tax and penalty but the remittance
was made under the head ‘SGST’. Since the remittance should have been made
under the head IGST, the authorities refused to release the goods hence this
writ petition.
Held
The High Court noted
section 77 of the GST Act dealing with refund of tax paid mistakenly under one
head instead of another. However Rule 4 of the GST Refund Rules speaks of
adjustment. Where the amount of refund is completely adjusted against any
outstanding demand under the Act, an order giving details of the adjustment is
to be issued in Part A of FORM GST RFD-07. Under these circumstances, The High
Court ordered the respondent officials to allow the petitioner’s request and
get the amount transferred from the head ‘SGST’ to ‘IGST’. It was also stated
that it is inequitable for the authorities to let the petitioner suffer on the
count that such transfer may take some time. Further second respondent directed
to release the goods forthwith along with the vehicle and, then, ensure that
the tax and penalty which already stood remitted under the ‘SGST’ is
transferred to the head ‘IGST’.
II.
Authority for Advance Ruling
12. [2018-TIOL-243-AAR-GST]
Premier Vigilance & Security Pvt. Ltd. dated 2nd November, 2018
GST is
payable on the entire value including toll charges.
Facts
Applicant is a provider of
security services to Banks and also transports cash/coins/bullion in specially
built vehicles or customised cash vans – applicant seeks a ruling on the
chargeability of GST on the Toll taxes reimbursed by its clients or the ability
to claim it as a deduction under Rule 33 of the CGST Rules, 2017 from the value
of supply being expenditure incurred as a pure agent under the CGST Act, 2017.
Held
The Authority noted that
the Applicant owns vehicles. Toll is charged for providing service by way of
access to a road or bridge and applicant being the owner of vehicles is
recipient of the service provisioned on payment of Toll. Expenses so incurred
are cost of the service provided to the banks. Therefore, the same is not
incurred in the capacity of a “pure agent” of the Bank. Such charges are costs
incurred and therefore, are not liable to be excluded from the value of supply
under Rule 33 of the Rules, 2017. GST is therefore, payable at the applicable
rate on the entire value of the supply including Toll charges paid.
13. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 253 (AAR-Maharashtra) VServ Global (P.)
Ltd dated 7th July, 2018
Back
office administrative and accounting support services, pay-roll processing and
maintenance of employee records, rendered by applicant to overseas client, a
registered person incorporated in India, does not constitute an “export of
service”
Facts
The Applicant an Indian
Company provides back office support services to overseas companies engaged in
trading of chemicals in international trade. The Applicant comes into picture
after finalisation of purchase/sale order by the client. The activities
undertaken include, generating sales and purchase detail forms, creation of
purchase order and sales contract, liaise with the supplier for cargo
readiness, with inspection authorities etc. They also maintain records of their
employees and payroll processing.
The consideration for the
above services is fixed for a month with a variation of 10% or less depending
upon the man hours involved. The question before the authority is whether the
services provided qualify to be considered as a zero rated supply in terms of
section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Held
The Authority after
perusing the clauses of the Agreement and the activity undertaken held that
applicant arranges or facilitates supply of goods or services or both between
the overseas clients and customers of the overseas client and therefore falls
in the definition of intermediary as defined under the IGST Act.
The place of supply for
intermediary services is covered by section 13(8) of the IGST Act. As per the
said section, the place of supply is the location of the service provider i.e.
the location of the applicant which is Maharashtra. Thus the service does not qualify as export
of service. Further the authority also distinguished the decision in the case
of Godaddy India Web Services Private Ltd [2016] 46 STR 806 (AAR) by
stating that the facts in both the cases are different. 
