464
June 29 To July 5, 2019 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 45 u 52ompetent Authority to release C
detained goods and vehicle where
assessee has deposited tax and pen-
alty under protestVasu Corporation v. State of Gujarat [2019]
106 taxmann.com 73 (Guj.)
The Competent Authority had detained the
goods and vehicle of assessee.
The Assessee filed a writ petition before High
Court of Gujarat contending that he had
deposited tax and penalty under protest in
respect of detained goods but the competent
authority had continued to detain the same
and issued notice of confiscation.
The High Court of Gujarat ruled that since
the petitioner had already deposited tax
and penalty, GST Authorities were directed
to release the vehicle along with goods of
the assessee.T applicable on testing & comGS -
missioning of pipeline post GST
implementation being covered under
works contractR.B. Construction Company, In re [2019] 106
taxmann.com 205 (AAAR - Gujarat)
The appellant was awarded tender by the
Rajkot Municipal Corporation (RMC) before
GST implementation to supply pipes, lay
the pipes in desired formation and to test
the pipes against the leakages. Supply and
laying of pipes was completed in pre-GST
era, however, testing and commissioning of
networks of pipeline was pending and would
be completed in the GST regime.
The Appellant has sought advance ruling to
determine whether the work executed and
invoice to be raised for the pending event of
testing and commissioning after GST imple-
mentation is a supply of works contract? The
Authority for Advance Ruling, Gujarat ruledthat laying of underground pipeline network
falls under ‘works contract’. GST shall be paid
in respect of testing and commissioning of
networks of pipeline. The appellant has filed
an appeal before the Appellate Authority for
Advance Ruling, Gujarat.
The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling,
Gujarat observed that pipes have been sup-
plied by the appellant in pre-GST era. The
appellant cannot be said to be holding pipes
in stock as inputs or inputs contained in
semi-finished or finished goods on the day of
GST implementation. Therefore, the appellant
is not entitled to avail of transitional input
tax credit of excise duty and VAT paid on
pipes. Denying of credit does not imply that
there is no supply made by the appellant.
Since the appellant is engaged in laying
of pipeline network which would become
immovable property wherein transfer of
property in goods is involved, it would fall
under definition of ‘works contract’. Hence,
testing and commissioning of pipeline after
GST implementation is a part of the works
contract entered into in pre-GST era.
The Appellate Authority for Advance ruling,
Gujarat held that GST is required to be
paid on testing & commissioning of pipeline
undertaken post-GST implementation, being
covered under works contract.ower of arrest exercised before comP -
pletion of assessment for an ‘offence’
committed under GST is not prohibitedVS Ferrous Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. Union of
India [2019] 106 taxmann.com 167 (Telangana)
The assessee had raised contention that
power of arrest can be exercised only after
completion of assessment as per provisions
of the CGST Act, 2017.
The High Court of Telangana observed that
the list of punishable offences provided under
the CGST Act, 2017 has no correlation withWEEKLY REVIEW