Article
Restaurant services at specified premises: Past continues to haunt
The applicable rate on restaurant services is ascertained based on the ‘declared tariff’ of the hotel. This GST rate is then applied to the transaction value to ascertain the GST liability. It is a classic case wherein GST rate on one service depends on what you declare to charge for some other service. The article in this issue of Indirect Tax Amicus discusses inconsistent in application of the concept of ‘declared tariff’ that have caused significant hardships for taxpayers in this sector. The authors (Shubham Vijay and Devang Kaimathiya) discuss the genesis of the concept of ‘declared tariff’, concept of ‘declared tariff’ under the GST law, and recent changes including way forward for the industry. They analyse the changes after the 55th GST Council Meeting but observe that disputes for past periods are likely to continue. According to them, the CBIC should issue a clarification for the past period to resolve the ambiguity between ‘declared tariff’ and ‘value of supply’.
Goods and Services Tax (GST)
Notifications and Circulars
- Amnesty scheme under Section 128A for interest and penalty – Rule 165 amended to relax payment of tax for period not covered under the scheme
- Restaurant services supplied at specified premises – CBIC issues FAQs in respect of new regime effective from 1 April 2025
Ratio decidendi
- Notice or order is authentic only if it is physically/digitally signed by Proper Officer – Telangana High Court
- ITC allowed when invoice wrongly mentioned Mumbai office GSTN instead of Delhi GSTN of assessee – Delhi High Court
- Delayed filing of annual returns – Amnesty scheme benefit is available even if belated return filed before 1 April 2023 – Kerala High Court
- Appeal to Appellate Authority – Date of uploading of order-in-original on GST portal is relevant – Madhya Pradesh High Court
- Returns filing – Limitation of 60 days in CGST Section 62(2), relating to date of best judgement assessment, is directory – Madras High Court
- Refund of additional IGST paid on exports is not deniable even if same paid after exports – Madras High Court
- Service of notice – HC suggests Revenue department to not only upload on common portal but also to send email to assessee – Patna High Court
- Refund of inverted duty pertaining to period prior to 13 July 2022 is not affected by Notification No. 9/2022-CT(R) of said date – Gujarat High Court
- SCN cannot be issued under Section 73 to deny refund granted after adjudication when no appeal was filed against refund sanction order – Gujarat High Court
- Seizure – Notice required to be given to affected person for extension of seizure period – Delhi High Court
- Seizure – Section 67 of the CGST Act and Section 110 of the Customs Act are pari materia – Delhi High Court
- Bona fide error in DRC-03 is not fatal – Proper Officer to rectify or reject such intimation, thus enabling taxpayer to correct – Kerala High Court
- Job work – Proceedings under Section 129 are correct when Rules 45 and 55 regarding issuance of proper challan are not complied – Allahabad High Court
- Principles of natural justice, even if not enshrined in the provisions, are required to be followed during adjudication – Kerala High Court
- Input Tax Credit – Rule 36(4) was constitutionally and legally valid even prior to 1 January 2022 – Non-enforcement of Section 43A is immaterial – Gauhati High Court
- Commercial Tax Officer, being an authorized officer under Section 6 of the KGST Act, is the proper officer under Section 4 of the IGST Act – Karnataka High Court
- Railways – Expression to be given expansive meaning; definition under Indian Railways Act, 1989 cannot be imported into GST notification – Madras High Court
- Fruit based drinks – Mere presence of carbon dioxide cannot classify the subject goods under water or carbonated water – Gauhati High Court
Customs
Notifications and Circulars
- FTA imports – CAROTA Rules amended to substitute ‘certificate’ for ‘proof’ of origin
- Camera modules of mobile phones – BCD rate clarified
- RoDTEP scheme extended for exports under AAs and by EOUs and SEZ units, till 5 February 2025
- RoDTEP – Date for filing Annual RoDTEP Return for FY 2023-24 extended till 30 June 2025
Ratio decidendi
- No IGST under Section 3(7) of Customs Tariff Act on reimports after repairs abroad – Repair and refurbishing is supply of ‘service’ and not ‘goods’ – Delhi High Court
- Drawback, MEIS and ROSL – Overvaluation of exports – Customs can only determine/revise the assessable value but not the FOB value – CESTAT New Delhi
- Crimp pumps used for dispersal of medicaments is classifiable under Customs Heading 8413 and not under Heading 9616 – CESTAT Mumbai
- Areca nut is ‘roasted’ if moisture content is less than 10%, ‘raw’ if moisture content is between 10% to 15% – Madras High Court
- Re-exports of goods found unfit – Requirement of examination, before changing the shipping bill from free to drawback, is merely a procedural formality – Madras High Court
- Valuation – Enhancement based only on voluntary payment of differential duty, without a speaking order, is not sustainable – CESTAT New Delhi
- Advance authorization – Customs tariff classification is not relevant for allowing exemption if imported material covered in AA – CESTAT New Delhi
- Shipping Bills and Bills of Entry cannot be clubbed and assessed together to determine differential duty, except in certain exceptions – CESTAT New Delhi
Central Excise, Service Tax & VAT
Ratio decidendi
- Cenvat credit – Provision for lapsing of credit under Rule 11(3) is applicable only for situation listed in clause (ii) of Rule 11(3) – Madras High Court
- Rate of interest on refund of amount deposited during investigation – Section 11BB and not Section 35FF when applicable – CESTAT New Delhi
- Printed thermal ATM rolls are classifiable under Chapter 49 and not Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act – CESTAT Chennai
- Classification of goods – Presence of more than certain quantity of other substances does not necessarily make the product lose its individuality – CESTAT Mumbai
