Page 22 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

xx GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
Plant or Machinery - Breakwater wall is not plant and machinery, ITC not
admissible - See under INPUT TAX CREDIT (ITC) ................ 499
— for availing ITC, scope of - See under INPUT TAX CREDIT ........... 438
Provisional release of goods detained under GST allowed by furnishing
Bank Guarantee only - See under DETENTION ................. 399
PSU - Mens rea cannot be assumed against PSU - See under DEMAND ...... 409
Pure Service - Exemption to pure services - Collection of amounts towards
LAD funds provided by applicant to the SPDs not a separate transaction
but linked to supply of rental/lease service - Exemption under Sl. No. 3
or 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-C.T. (Rate) not applicable in the
impugned activity, as it does not qualify to be a pure service provided to
any Central Government, State Government or Union territory or local
authority or a Government entity under Articles 243G or 243W of
Constitution of India — In Re : Karnataka Solar Power Development Corporation Ltd.
(A.A.R. - GST - Kar.) ................................... 478
Purified drinking water supplied to public in empty unsealed cans,
exemption from GST not admissible - See under WATER ............ 450
RAILWAYS ACT, 1989 :
— Section 2(31)(c) - See under WORKS CONTRACT ................ 493
Rate of GST on composite supply of LED street lights along with installation
and maintenance as supply of goods - See under STREET LIGHTING
ACTIVITY ...................................... 428
— on right to use minerals including its exploration and evaluation - See
under MINERAL .................................. 514
Records - Suppression or falsification of records not established, extended
period not invocable - See under DEMAND ................... 406
Recovery/Demand of Service Tax - Extended period, invocation of - Wilful
misstatement or suppression of fact, absence of - Assessee, investment
promotion and facilitation agency of Government of Karnataka - HELD :
Two views as to whether service provided to be ‘management’ or
‘business consultancy’ or not, cannot be ground on which Department
may invoke extended period of limitation - Ingredients indicated in
proviso at Clauses (a) to (e) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994, neither
invoked while issuing show cause notice nor Department contending
that non-payment of Service Tax by reason of any clause mentioned in
Clauses (a) to (e) to proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 73 ibid - Evasion
of payment of legitimate Service Tax due to Government, only allegation
for contending applicability of extended period of limitation - Also, show
cause notice not stating presence of mens rea on part of assessee -
Assessee neither perpetrated fraud nor there has been any collusion or
wilful misstatement of facts before revenue - In absence of any of said
ingredients present, invoking of extended period of limitation not to arise
- Also, in terms of negative list issued by appropriate Government in
exercise of vested power under Section 66D ibid, assessee not liable to
pay Service Tax at all - Tribunal, just and correct and question of
applying extended period of limitation not to arise - Demand raised for
restricted normal period as prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 73
ibid proper - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 — Commr. of Service Tax,
Bangalore-I v. Karnataka Udyog Mitra (Kar.) ........................ 382

GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  142