GST Rate to be reviewed by GST Council

The GST Council is scheduled to meet on 18th December to review GST rates.

This is necessitated by the consistent fall in both the GST and Compensation Cess collections.

Also the States, particularly opposition ruled States have been applying pressure on the Centre to release GST payments immediately as Rs 50,000 cr cess lies unutilised.

This GST review more specifically covers exempted items, items with inverted rates, compensation cess rate. This may lead to GST rates on certain items being raised. 


Central Excise & Service tax Amnesty Scheme

  1. 1. Chapter V of the FA 2019 (full text of SVLDR Scheme)
  2. 2. SVLDR Rules
  3. 3. SVLDR Notification No 4/2019
  4. 4. CBIC Circulars dated 28.08.2019 and 25.09.2019
  5. 5. FAQs on SVLDR
  6. 6. SVLDR Departmental presentation
GST Optimisation Part 2

This is the 2nd Part of the set of videos on “GST Optimisation”. It explains how indirect tax cascading still continues in India even after implementing GST. The video covers specific situations in which tax cascading happens. This video is meant for the general public and not exactly the tax experts. So the language is simpler devoid of sections, rules, technical expressions and tax jargon.

GST Optimisation Part 1

This is the first part of a three part video set on Tax Optimisation, more specifically GST Optimisation. Its created for those who are not too familiar with taxation and yet keen to understand and benefit by optimising on taxes. This can be useful for people handling indirect taxation too as the aim of these videos is to conceptually clarify the subject.

"The Indian GST Story" by Anthony Fernandes - Founder of Tax Quotient

1st June 2019




Recent Court / Tribunal Judgements

 CESTAT Decisions


18th October, 2018 : CESTAT Mum : UPS Jetair Express Private Limited   Vs Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai East 

Revenue denied CENVAT credit only on the ground invoices didn't mention the registration number of the service provider. No other allegations were made regarding receipt of input services, eligibility etc.

Held : This is merely a procedural lapse. It is settled that CENVAT credit can't be denied on mere technicalities or procedural lapses.

CENVAT credit allowed, extended period of limitation not applicable.

Ed's comment : Isnt it surprising that a Senior Officer like Prin. ADG, DGPM, WRU, still needs to catch up with decades old case law regarding Modvat and Cenvat? It's repeatedly held procedural lapses aren't reason enough to deny credit. How will the dept reduce litigation? Should Tribunal for fairness?

18th October, 2018 : CESTAT Ahd : M/s Auto Care Lubricant Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Vapi
The Tribunal relying on an earlier decision in Castrol India Ltd, held :
“The authorities under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act are the best judge to decide as to whether a product is required to be affixed with a MRP under the said Act or not. If said authority has clarified that 210 ltr. barrel are not required to be affixed with MRP, it was obligatory on the part of the Excise authority to accept such decision of Controller of Legal Metrology authority….., it was not open to the Excise authority to doubt the decision of the authority under Standards of Weights and Measures Act and to proceed independently ….”

18th October 2018 : CESTAT Ahd : M/s Javiya Finance Services, Javiya Marketing Vs C.C.E.& S.T.- Surat-I
The appellant were providing service of identifying customers for car loans and receiving commission from ICICI Bank. This was to be taxed under Business Auxiliary Services (BAS).  

The appellants admitted taxability but argued they were under bonafide belief the services are not taxable and so extended period of limitation should not be invoked.
Held : "The definition of Business  Auxiliary  Services  is  very  clear  and  there  is  no  scope  of interpretation. The definition specifically includes the service of promotion or marketing of any service of the client within its ambit." Appeals dismissed.


 12th Oct : CESTAT Mum : Tahnee Heights CHS Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai South : Held : "The appellant also do not provide any service to its members, who pay the amount towards their share of contribution, for occupation of the units ....the explanation furnished under clause 3(a) in Section 65B of the Act will not designate the appellant as an entity, separate from its members....the case of the appellant is not confirming to the requirement of 'service', as per the definition contained in Section 65B(44) of the Act."

10th Oct : CESTAT Ahd :  L & T Ltd. etc Vs C.C.E. Ahd Appellants argued the law and IS specifications had changed for their product "concrete mix" made at site. It was eligible for the exemption making the earlier Supreme Court judgement in their own case irrelevant.

Tribunal ruled that there is no change in the  C.Ex Tariff Heading description as far as ready mix concrete is concerned. There is no mention of any IS Specification anywhere in the SC judgement. So changes in IS Specifications cannot be used to distinguish the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court. Demand beyond the period of limitation set aside. Personal penalty quashed as this is a case of interretation.

11th Oct : CESTAT Chennai : M/s. Pepsico India HPL Vs Commr of GST & CE, Chennai Outer : The appellants had paid excess central excise duty for which they utilised the CENVAT credit. On realizing this they suo moto took re-credit of the excess amount debited from the Cenvat account.

Held:  Following the said decisions of the High Courts, The impugned order and demand was set aside.

High Court Judgements


2nd July, 2018  : Allahabad High Court : Hamdard (Wakf) Labs Vs Commr Of Commercial Taxes : The High Court upholds the Tribunal order and holds that "Sharbat "Rooh Afza" is not unclassifiable under Schedule-V of the Act and liable to tax @ 12.5%. It is neither fruit juice nor fruit drink nor processed fruit.

 2nd July, 2018 :  Delhi High Court : JOYCE KAROUNG Vs NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU : Relying on the SC judgment in Babua v. State of Orissa, (2001) 2 SCC 566 the High Court concluded the petitioner is not prima facie not guilty. Also, liberty of a citizen must be balanced with the interest of the society especially where narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are involved. It is alleged that this is not the first offence.

Click for earlier Judgements in 2018

Recent Articles

Affixing any price as MRP will not entitle assessment under section 4A.  Bajaj Food Products P Ltd., Arvind Maheshwari, AD Bajaj Vs CCE, Rohtak


Improper “Committee of Chief Commissioners of Central Excise” costs revenue its appeal. Read the Article and decision CCE Ahmedabad-II Vs M/s Ankit Textiles : 24th October, 2014


Excess cenvat credit availed, error not noticed by 1st Audit but observed by 2nd Audit. Credit reversed. Extended period inapplicable. No interest. Urja Engineers Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara - CESTAT Ahmedbabad 24th October, 2014..


Even though SCN an individual is not named in the SCN the adjudicating authority imposes penalty on him. Tribunal confirms the duty demand, interest and penalty on all. But sets aside penalty on individual who is not named in the notice.Even though the department alleges serious fraudulent transactions  diverting inputs meant for use by 100% EOU, the person preparing the documents has not been named. Can a fresh notice for penalty be issued now?

Tribunal reversed order passed by Commissioner Appeals Ahmedabad in 2007. The Commissioner had allowed inculpatory statements to be retracted at the appeal stage 4 years after the event! In this case, clandestine behaviour was noticed, transporters confirm movements and no plea was raised that statements were given under coercion!


Credit available even on documents which do not cover or accompany the consignment if the other conditions are fulfilled.


Can a Commissioner when deciding an appeal increase the penalty without notice? Commissioner (A) Delhi thinks he can! Flouts  cardinal principle of natural justice to issue a notice before enhancing the penalty.


In CIT New Delhi Vs Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. A five judge Supreme Court Constitutional Bench dismissed IT appeals answering the questions raised in reference in an income tax case and dismissed the revenue's appeals


What are the Tax Risks Which Affect Tax Authorities? How do they deal with them?


Not furnishing the documents puts revenue in a tight spot - Matter drags on for 7 years


When clandestine removal is proved. It's likely that the evasion is not limited to the assessee alone.Vendors and buyers too may be compromised. Also other taxes like income tax, VAT, CST, service tax may also have been evaded. Does the tax  administration have a specific strategy to deal with such clandestine cases?


Shouldn't Commissioner Appeals know the last date for filing appeals?: The Commissioner (Appeal-III), Kolkata dismissed the appeal as filed late. It was filed on Monday 10th January, 2011 instead of 8th January which was a Saturday. Under General Clauses Act, the next working day is considered within time. Appeal allowed. Kolkatta in Star Battery Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV 11th August 2014 The CESTAT.


When will the Department stop disputing everything?: The credit on common inputs was reversed. There was no dispute about the credit quantum reversed. The exemption was available and claimed on portable water pumps correctly. The Commissioner held in favour of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd (HSPPL) and dropped the demand notice following Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. Despite all this the Revenue prefers appeal to Tribunal and loses.


Why we still don't have a GST?

Tax Risk Management Part 1

An Introduction


Risk comes from not knowing what you’re doing. 
- Warren Buffet

Read the Article


Tax Risk Management Part 2

Tax Risks as Black Swan Events!

If you were asked "What 'tax risks' you perceive in your business?" What would be your answer?

Read the Article



Indirect Tax Risk Management

Indirect Risk Tax Management




Economic Survey of India 2017-18