Page 26 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

xxiv GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
two sub-contractors who included tax in invoice raised on respondent or
had availed benefits is, too vague on allegation to be raised before
Tribunal - Tribunal not expected to either undertake an enquiry, or direct
any of lower authorities to proceed in that direction merely on the basis
of apprehensions entertained by Committee of Commissioners — Commr.
of CGST, Mumbai v. Bharat Mumbai Container Terminals P. Ltd. (Tri. - Mumbai) ........ 177
Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules,
2007 - See under WORKS CONTRACT SERVICE ................ 217
Works Contract service - Composition Scheme for payment of Service Tax
under Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax)
Rules, 2007 - Denial of benefit on the ground of failure to file option for
its availment - Since tax rate prescribed under the said Scheme
mentioned in ST-3 returns, same to be treated as an option for availment
of benefit of tax rate prescribed thereunder - Failure to file specific option
for which no specific format or application prescribed either under the
Finance Act, 1994 or any C.B.E. & C. Circular, to be considered merely a
procedural lapse - Further, availment of Cenvat credit on input services
cannot be a ground for denial of benefit of the said Scheme when such
Cenvat credit reversed - Sections 65(105)(zzzza) and 73 of Finance Act,
1994 — Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Nashik (Tri. - Mumbai) ... 217
— covering construction of residential complex, registration under
Construction of Residential Complex service not required - See under
REGISTRATION .................................. 230

_______

GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  26