TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 145
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the Bhopal district of the state of Madhya Pradesh (462024). The Applicant is having a GST registration with GSTIN 23AAAAB0221D1ZW. 2. The provisions of the CGST Act and MPGST Act are identical, except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a specific mention of the dissimilar provision is made, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provision under the MPGST Act. Further, henceforth, for the purposes of this Advance Ruling, a reference to such a similar provision under the CGST or MP GST Act would be mentioned as being under the GST Act. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE - 3.1. Bhopal Sahakari Dugdh Sangh (referred to as "BSDS" hereafter) is a co-operative society registered under MP Co-operative Societies Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m 01.01.2019. 6.3 BSDS is an organization with government setup and the top officials are generally appointed by the Govt on deputation. These top officials are not experts in taxation and accounting fields. To overcome this handicap, BSDS had appointed tax consultants and internal auditors for its operations. None of the appointed agencies conveyed the applicability of the amendment to BSDS management. 6.4The security service providers also did not convey the change regarding the applicability of Reverse Charge on services provided by them and kept on issuing tax invoice for the same instead of bill of Supply and displaying CGST and SGST on the invoice by contravening Section 31 of the CGST Act, 2017. We paid for the taxes amount charged....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of Lilason Breweries v. CCE[(2010) 24 STT 279 (CESTAT SMB)], service tax was paid by transporters themselves though the tax was required to be paid under RCM by the recipient. It was held that demand of tax again on the same service is not sustainable. A similar view was taken in CCE v. Om Tea Company (2012) 36 STT 91 (CESTAT) and Umasons Auto Compo Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE 2017 (47) S.T.R. 377 (Tri, - Mumbai). Similarly, in Sanjivani SSK Ltd. v. CCE [(2009) 241 ELT 431 (CESTAT)], excise duty on molasses was paid by the manufacturer (though it was payable by procurer). It was held that the duty cannot be demanded from the procurer as it would lead to double taxation on the same goods. Applying the rationale of the above decisions, a view may b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble taxation. 7. DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS -We went through the argument presented by the Applicant and department's view. The arguments and assertions made by the applicant along with supporting case laws and documents in support of such claims are examined and the following are noted: 1. As per Section 97 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the Madhya Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (SGST Act), hereinafter referred to as the GST Acts, an application for advance ruling can be made only if the question is in respect of any of the following: a. Classification of any goods or services or both b. Applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of this Act c. Determination of time and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iability to pay tax'. This category is not specifically defined, and neither is it clearly mentioned anywhere in the Act as to what constitutes a valid question within the meaning of this category. It is therefore pertinent to establish that if the question is to determine the liability to pay tax, it is appropriate to first judge if the question proposed before the Advance Ruling Authority is in fact falling under the said category in terms of common parlance. 5. From the principal assertions put forth by the applicant in their application, it appears that the levy of GST on reverse charge basis on security services is being challenged on the grounds that doing so would tantamount to double taxation. 6. While the question proposed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eady been paid whether by applicant or by a third party. However, it is an established lam, that the very essence of Advance Ruling is that the question should be in respect of future transactions and not in respect of transactions that have already taken place. 8. The applicant asserts that the liability should not be payable by the recipient because the same has already been paid by the supplier, even when the applicant himself admits that the principal liability in respect of the said transaction was solely with the applicant being the recipient. 9. Based on, the above discussion, this Authority is of the view that based within the meaning of Section 97 of the GST Acts, an application for Advance Ruling can only be made to determine ....