Page 198 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

692 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 34
freight payable to airline companies by air cargo agent and retained with
him as commission for booking of cargo space, not taxable - Sections
65(4) and 65(105)(l) of Finance Act, 1994 — Pawan Cargo Forwards Pvt. Ltd. v.
Pr. Commr. of S.T., Chennai-I (Tri. - Chennai) ........................ 559
Amendment - Solar Power Generating System (SPGS), sustainability of
ruling on rate of GST after amendment in Notification - See under
WORKS CONTRACT ................................ 333
Amount payable under GST, scope of - See under RECOVERY ........... 148
Ancillary services supplied along with principal service of transmission and
distribution of electricity, taxability thereof as bundled services - See
under BUNDLED SERVICE ............................ 385
Animal feed - Processed Soya meal - Classification of - Tariff Item 2309 90 90
of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 made applicable to GST exclusively meant for
animal feed - No evidence provided to prove that said product “Bio
Processed Meal” meant for animal feed and fell under Tariff Item 2309 90
90 ibid - Words “The Protein content of the feed grade is less than 50%
and not fit for human consumption” in application changed by assessee
to “The Protein content is up to 52%” - Withdrawal of comment that “and
not fit for human consumption” further substantiate point - Product
“Preparation of a kind used in Animal Feeding-Bio Processed Meal” not
entitled claim nil rate of duty under as per Notification No. 2/2017-C.T.
(Rate) and corresponding notification issued under State legislation — In
Re : Vippy Industries Ltd. (A.A.R. - GST - M.P.) ....................... 664
Apartment - Contributions from members of association of owners of
apartments in complex, scope of exemption - See under MAINTENANCE
OF COMMON AREA IN RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX .............. 360
Appeal to Appellate Authority - Dismissal thereof for non-compliance of
pre-deposit order - Delay in filing second appeal leading to its dismissal -
Restoration on cost - Appellant-assessee pleading that he was under bona
fide belief that preliminary appeal filed before Tribunal against order of
Commissioner (Appeals) declining to grant unconditional stay would be
listed first which resulted in delay of 812 days in filing main appeal
before Tribunal - Notwithstanding controversy as to whether said
preliminary appeal was filed or not, since meanwhile entire due amount
of tax and penalty has been recovered from appellant, interest of justice
demands that case now be decided on merits - Accordingly, impugned
orders are quashed and appeal restored before Commissioner (Appeals)
for deciding it on merits subject to payment of cost of ` 50,000 within
three weeks by appellant - On failure to pay cost ibid, appeal shall not be
restored - Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994 — G. Mahesh Babu v. Commr. of Cus.,
C. Ex. & S.T. (Appeals II & VI) (S.C.) ........................... 577
— under GST - Limitation - Relevant date - Phrase “communicated to such
person” in Section 129 of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
to be construed to imply that order be necessarily brought to knowledge
of person likely to be aggrieved - Penalty order directed against owner of
goods served on driver of truck - Order not communicated to assessee -
Appeal filed by assessee within three months from date of knowledge -
Direction to Appellate Authority to condone delay and decide appeal
expeditiously — Jindal Pipes Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (All.) ............. 48
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Limitation - Condonation of delay when
such appeal filed against order of Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing
assessee’s appeal for failure to comply with pre-deposit order passed by
GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  294