Page 190 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5

660 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
Delegatus non-potest delegare, scope of - See under INTERPRETATION OF
STATUTES ...................................... 145
DEMAND :
— Adjudication beyond show cause notice - Sustainability - Well settled in
catena of judgments that adjudication order cannot traverse beyond
allegations in show cause notice - Instant case, show cause notice was for
demand of Service Tax - Adjudication on violation of Rule 4(7) of Cenvat
Credit Rules, 2004 simply because appellant had submitted in their reply
to SCN that part of demand was already paid through Cenvat account,
not proper without verifying correctness of appellant’s claim - Impugned
order set aside and matter remitted to adjudicating authority to verify
arithmetical correctness of duty paid by appellant from Cenvat account -
Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 — Mackintosh Burn Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service
Tax, Kolkata (Tri. - Kolkata) ................................ 409
— and interest - Tax wrongfully collected and paid to Central Government -
Admittedly, the petitioner-Company discharged their tax liability under
IGST head, but inadvertently or otherwise, the petitioner deposited the
amount under CGST head - Petitioner-Company neither concealed the
transaction nor committed any fraud in discharging its tax liability - Bona
fides of the petitioner-Company not in doubt, there being some confusion
in initial stage of the CGST regime, and cash wrongly deposited in the
wrong electronic cash ledger - Petitioner entitled to refund of the amount
of tax, i.e., ` 41,98,642 deposited by them under the CGST head, under
Section 77(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with
Section 19(2) of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Petitioner-
Company directed to deposit the amount of ` 41,98,642, under the IGST
head within a period of 10 days and shall not be liable to pay any interest
on the said amount — Shree Nanak Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (Jhar.) ..... 393
— Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) - Deployment of officers in JV company
- Expenses towards deputation of employee recovered by assessee on
actual basis from JV company - Activity cannot be categorized under BAS
- Even otherwise deputation of employee in JV company cannot be held
to be service - Section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994 — Rajasthan State Mines &
Minerals Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex. & S.T., Jaipur (Tri. - Del.) ................. 561
— Business Auxiliary Service - Whether 51% equity stake granted to assessee
by Implementation Agreement, in JV company, to be treated as “Business
Auxiliary Service” - HELD : Category under which activity to be treated
as service, not given by Commissioner - Grant of 51% share in JV not
covered in any of sub-heading under “Business Auxiliary Service” as
defined in Section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994 - Also, 51% of equity
granted in year, 2008-09, while notice issued beyond limit of five years -
Therefore, show cause notice could not have been issued - Demand, not
sustainable - Section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994 — Rajasthan State Mines &
Minerals Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex. & S.T., Jaipur (Tri. - Del.) ................. 561
— Business Support Service provided to book-makers operating in club
premises - Leviability of Service Tax on amount received by assessee
from book-makers post negative list era - HELD : Value of all services
other than those services specified in negative list, provided or agreed to
GST LAW TIMES  30th April 2020  190