Page 24 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

xxii GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
Clear from Budget Speech of Finance Minister that where notice or order
of determination has been issued to person in respect of any period on
any issue, no declaration shall be made of his tax dues on same issue for
any subsequent period - Some show cause notice in respect of assessee
already adjudicated and matter pending in Tribunal/Supreme Court and
others pending adjudication - Assessee cannot state that neither notice
nor an order of determination had been issued to it in respect of any
period on any issue prior to Scheme - Amendment in Finance Act, 2012
did not introduce Service Tax on “intermediary or insurance
intermediary” service for first time - It was liable to tax all along in terms
of Section 65(105)(zl) of Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 1-5-2006 prior to that
service - Assessee’s contention that it was exempt from payment of tax in
terms of Export of Services Rules, 2005 rejected by Tribunal - Mere
change in provisions in Act vide Finance Act, 2013 not to alter nature of
levy of Service Tax on services provided by assessee - Not open for
assessee to contend that it was entitled to avail benefit of the Scheme in
light of 2nd proviso to Section 106 ibid - Scheme not available to assessee
who filed returns under Section 70 ibid but had failed to pay tax - Denial
of scheme benefit in light of clarification in C.B.E. & C. Circular No.
169/4/2013-S.T., dated 13-5-2013 not relevant - Service Tax Voluntary
Compliance Scheme, 2013 not intended for person like assessee —
Suprasesh General Insurance Service & Brokers (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. Commr./Designated
Authority (VCES), Chennai (Mad.) ............................ 276
Show Cause Notice already adjudicated and matter pending in
Tribunal/Supreme Court, rejection of VCES declaration sustainable - See
under SERVICE TAX VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE
ENCOURAGEMENT SCHEME, 2013 ....................... 276
Strictures against GST officials - High Court expressed its serious
reservation on the approach of the concerned Officers of GST in
persisting with the demands raised from petitioner in gross ignorance of
the pertinent statement made by Finance Minister before Parliament and
the amendment brought around in Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 -
Authorities should have adopted a pragmatic approach and immediately
withdrawn the demands rather than indulging in a totally frivolous
litigation, thereby unnecessarily adding to the overflowing dockets of
cases in the Courts — Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. v. Union of India (Raj.) ..... 289
Support services of business not applicable on learning centers of university
for providing education services on behalf of university - See under
LEARNING CENTRES OF UNIVERSITY ..................... 334
Suppression being wilful, extended period invocable - See under DEMAND ... 338
— of facts not established, penalty not imposable - See under PENALTY ..... 360
TDS exempted on catering service provided to an educational institution -
See under CATERING SERVICES ......................... 385
Transit seizure under GST not sustainable on producing E-way Bill within
two hours of detention - See under SEIZURE/DETENTION .......... 288
Transitional provisions - Refund claim for unutilized Cenvat credit filed
after appointed day to be decided under earlier existing law and not
under GST law - See under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ............ 354
Two-wheelers for differently abled persons, classification of - See under
VEHICLES ...................................... 397
GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  24