Page 255 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 749
goods in India, refund of Service Tax paid on such commission cannot be
denied - Rule 5 of Export of Services Rules, 2005 — Carl Zeiss India Pvt. Ltd. v.
Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Bangalore-I (Tri. - Bang.)................... 452
Recipient of goods and services not eligible to seek advance ruling - See
under ADVANCE RULING APPLICATION ................... 658
— of service permitted to utilized credit of Service Tax paid under Reverse
Charge Mechanism prior to 1-7-2012 - See under CENVAT CREDIT ..... 548
Recipient’s application not maintainable before AAR - See under
ADVANCE RULING AUTHORITY........................ 371
Recipient’s eligibility of ITC is beyond jurisdiction of AAR - See under
ADVANCE RULING APPLICATION ...................... 619
Recovery of differential amount wrongly carried forward in electronic credit
ledger under GST through TRAN-1 statement, writ jurisdiction not
invocable at show cause notice stage - See under SHOW CAUSE NOTICE . . 129
— of Government dues - Dues of assessee company cannot be recovered
from personal property of its director in absence of provisions to that
effect in Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 — Veer Industries Ltd. v.
Commercial Tax Officer (Guj.) .............................. 162
— of sums due to Government - Amount payable under GST - Scope of -
Evidently amount payable, recovery of which is contemplated in Section
79 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 would mean an amount
determined in a manner known to law - In instant case, there has been no
such determination by Authorities - So-called confessional Statement of
petitioner admitting availing ITC without documents is not only
contradictory but also has been retracted at the earliest - In view of
above, communication to Bank to recover amount which has not yet
become due, not sustainable and set aside accordingly - Section 79 of
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226 of Constitution of
India — V.N. Mehta & Company v. Assistant Commissioner, Headquarters Preventive
Unit, Chennai (Mad.) .................................. 148
— of taxes - Land of Company A leased to assessee company - Both
companies having common directors - HELD : Assessee company and
directors were not lawful owner of leased property - Also, Company A
was not “other person” within meaning of Section 44 against whom
recovery could be effected for default of assessee company - Gujarat
Value Added Tax Act, 2003 — Veer Industries Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (Guj.) . . 162
Rectification of error in filing FORM GST TRAN-1 - See under
TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS .......................... 159
Rectification of Mistake - Advance Ruling - There is no error apparent on
record in Ruling given in 2019 (27) G.S.T.L. 431 (A.A.R. - GST) inasmuch
as matter was decided as per facts and contentions submitted on record
and during hearing to hold that applicant was not a Governmental
Authority - Accordingly present ROM application of applicant stating
that being deemed university, they are Government Authority, not
sustainable - Section 102 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 —
In Re : Security and Intelligence Services (India) Ltd. (A.A.R. - GST - Mah.) .......... 657
— Failure of the parties to bring into notice of the Bench a particular decision
on the issue cannot be termed as a mistake on the part of the Bench so as
to rectify the Final Order passed by Tribunal particularly when said
decision not applicable directly to the issue in dispute and its
applicability is required to be examined by arguments to be advanced by
both sides - Further, aforesaid failure can be said to be a mistake on
GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  351