Page 195 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

689

SUBJECT INDEX
[CASE LAW : GST & SERVICE TAX]
Abatement from value admissible on providing Commercial or Industrial
Construction services to a non-turnkey project - See under VALUATION
SERVICE TAX ................................... 521
“Access cards” printing and supply given to pilgrims free of cost,
classification and rate of GST thereon - See under PRINTING AND
SUPPLY OF ACCESS CARD ........................... 351
Accumulated Cenvat credit on export of Information Technology and
Software Services, refund thereof - See under REFUND/REFUND
CLAIM ....................................... 213
Accumulated ITC on exports of goods, restrictions under C.B.I. & C.
Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST not sustainable - See under
REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ........................... 196
Adjudication beyond Show Cause Notice, order not sustainable - See under
REGISTRATION ................................... 78
— Cross-examination - Impugned order also not sustainable on account of
fact that procedure as prescribed in Sections 9D and 36B of Central Excise
Act, 1944 has not been followed in adjudication - Section 83A of Finance
Act, 1994 — Swift Institute of Engineering & Technology v. Commr. of C. Ex. & S.T.,
Chandigarh-II (Tri. - Chan.) ............................... 502
— under GST - Ex parte order - Hearing opportunity - Undisputedly
petitioner had made a request for extension of time for filing reply to
show cause notice and also grant of personal hearing - There being clear
violation of statutory requirements, impugned order not sustainable -
Matter remanded to adjudicating authority to pass order afresh in terms
of statutory provisions - Section 75 of Central Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017 - Article 226 of Constitution of India — Serajuddin and Co. v. Union of
India (Ori.) ........................................ 24
Adjudication order being vague on classification between two services not
sustainable - See under DEMAND ........................ 486
Adjudication proceedings - Power to initiate such proceedings retained as a
residue even after repeal of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 in view of
Section 174(2)(e) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 which
specifically provides that such repeal shall not affect any investigation,
inquiry, verification (including scrutiny and audit), assessment
proceedings, adjudication and any other legal proceedings, recovery of
arrears, remedy in respect of any such duty, tax, surcharge, penalty, fine,
interest, right, privilege, obligation, liability, forfeiture or punishment -
Proceedings initiated against petitioner legal — MFAR Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
v. Union of India (Kar.) .................................. 39
Adjustment of duty paid under protest against mandatory pre-deposit,
sustainability - See under PRE-DEPOSIT FOR FILING APPEAL ......... 93
— of excess payment of tax - Relief granted without specific reference to
statutory requirements to avail or extend benefit - Adjudication order
disallowing adjustment between excess and short-payment for non-
compliance with procedure prescribed in statute, set aside by Tribunal
with mere observation that failure to comply with certain procedural
conditions cannot be ground to deny substantial benefit - Since remedy
provided against order of Tribunal only under limited circumstances as
GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  291
( 689 )