584
July 13 To July 19, 2019 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 45 u 58 Treatmentofprocessingofrefund
applicationswhicharewrongly
mappedontheportalCIRCULAR NO. 104/23/2019-GST
The CBIC has issued a circular to clarify
the doubts raised in respect of processing of
refund applications submitted by taxpayers
in Form GST RFD-01A which have been
electronically transferred to the wrong tax
authority. Where reassignment of refund
applications to the correct jurisdictional tax
authority is not possible on the common portal,
the processing of refund claims should not be
held up, rather it should be processed by the
tax authorities to whom refund applications
have been electronically transferred by the
common portal.
After processing of refund application, the
refund processing authority may inform on the
common portal about the incorrect mapping
with a request to update it. This will ensure
that all the subsequent refund applications
are sent to correct jurisdictional tax authority. Determinationofplaceofsupplyin
special asescCIRCULAR NO. 103/22/2019-GST
The CBIC has issued a clarification regarding
the determination of place of supply in the
following cases:
(a) In case of services provided by the Ports: It
has been clarified that services ancillary
or relating to the cargo handling shall
not be deemed to be related to immov-
able property and place of supply for
such services shall be determined as per
Section 12(2) or Sec. 13(2).
(b) Services rendered on unpolished diamonds
temporarily imported in India: In case of
cutting or polishing services on unpol-
ished diamonds which are temporarily
imported in India and are not put to
use in India, the place of supply shallbe location of recipient of services.
Where location of recipient of services
is not available in the ordinary course
of business, the place of supply shall be
the location of the supplier of services.Case laws
Online antasyf sportsgameisa‘game
of , skill’ GSTat18%applicableGurdeep Singh Sachar v. Union of India
[2019] 106 taxmann.com 290 (Bom.)
The petitioner had filed Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) before High Court of Bombay
to initiate criminal prosecution against the
Company Dream 11 Fantasy Pvt. Ltd., for
conducting illegal operations of gambling/
betting/wagering activities in the name of
Online Fantasy Sports Gaming, which attracts
penal provisions of Public Gambling Act, 1867.
The High Court of Bombay observed that in
online fantasy sports game conducted by the
Company, participants created virtual teams
comprising of players similar to real life teams.
The participants competed within a time
limit against such virtual teams created by
other participants. The winners were decided
based on points scored, using statistical
data generated by the real-life performance
of the players. The participants did not bet
on the outcome of the match. The result of
the fantasy game contest did not depend on
winning or losing of any particular team in
any real world game on any given day.
Further, Punjab & Haryana High Court also
held that success in Dream 11 game arose out
of superior sports knowledge, judgment and
attention of the participants. Therefore, the
Online Fantasy Sports Gaming were ‘games
of skill’ and not any ‘games of chance’.
The High Court of Bombay held that the Online
Fantasy Sports Gaming of the company were
not gambling services, hence, the applicable
GST rate should be at 18%.WEEKLY REVIEW