Page 265 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 759
SEZ developer supplied goods without payment of duty, demand of 10%
for using common inputs/input services not sustainable - See under
CENVAT CREDIT ................................. 425
Show Cause Notice - Adjudication beyond Show Cause Notice, order not
sustainable - See under REGISTRATION ...................... 78
— being vague on classification between two services not sustainable - See
under DEMAND .................................. 486
— Bias - Pre-judging issue - Although communication sent by Department
has been nomenclatured as show cause notice, it is directing petitioner to
pay penalty along with GST within 7 days failing which he would be
removed from service - Clearly officer issuing said communication has
already pre-determined action to be taken without putting petitioner to
notice and considering his explanation - Accordingly, impugned SCN set
aside - However, Department at liberty to issue fresh SCN setting out
facts in detail and seek petitioner’s explanation/objection on it - Suitable
decision be taken thereafter by giving hearing opportunity to petitioner -
Section 73 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226 of
Constitution of India — K.C. Purushothaman v. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corpn.
Ltd. (Mad.) ....................................... 601
— Issuance of - For recovery of differential amount wrongly carried forward
in electronic credit ledger under GST through TRAN-1 statement -
HELD : Position projected by petitioner, namely, rampant issuance of
notices, one after another, without considering fact that earlier notices
issued to petitioner, replied, incorrect - Respondents followed statutory
scheme - Earlier notices only to make inquiries, and only impugned show
cause notice issued under Section 73 of Central Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017 to be Substantive Show Cause Notice - No jurisdictional error
in issuance of impugned show cause notice - Matter at stage of
examination of petitioner’s response to show cause notice, therefore, no
interference called for at this stage by Court - Section 73 of Central Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Matrix Cellular (International) Services Ltd. v. Union
of India (Del.) ...................................... 129
— stage, writ jurisdiction not to be exercised generally - See under WRIT
JURISDICTION .................................... 39
Signaling system erected for railways, exemption admissible - See under
WORKS CONTRACT SERVICE .......................... 527
Single service vis-à-vis Bundled service, scope of - See under BUNDELED
SERVICES ...................................... 385
Site Formation service - Selling of land/plots after development - Issue no
longer res integra in view of C.B.E. & C. Circular, dated 27-7-2005 and
decision in 2014 (33) S.T.R. 416 (Tribunal) - Said activity not taxable
under aforesaid head - Section 65(97a) of Finance Act, 1994 — Ess Gee Real
Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Jaipur (Tri. - Del.) .............. 486
— vis-à-vis Real Estate Agent Services - SCN and adjudication order not
sustainable being vague on classification under these two services - See
under DEMAND .................................. 486
Skill development training - Services provided under sub-contract to main
contractor, who in turn provides to Maharashtra State Skill Development
Society (MSSDS), in respect of training of building and other construction
workers (skill development training) - MSSDS which is neither National
Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) nor Sector Skill Council (SSC) -
No documentary evidence produced so as to arrive at whether the main
contractor qualifies to be training partner, approved by either NSDC or
GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  361