Case-1-Sanjay Kumar Jain  108 taxmann.com 514 (AAR- RAJASTHAN)-RCM On Cotton seed oil cake
Held-The cotton seed oil cake is not exempted under the GST Act in general and is also not covered under Notification No. 12/2017 (as amended from time to time). Thus, being recipient of GTA services the applicant is liable to pay tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism.
Case-2-Famous Studios Ltd.  104 taxmann.com 122 (AAR – MAHARASHTRA)-Exemption of Rs 5000/- per day
Held-Applying the Golden rule of construction and the principles laid down by the Apex Court as above to the facts of the present case we find no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that there is nothing to show that the amendment Notification No.38/2017 would have retrospective effect and therefore we find that the provisions of RCM u/s.9(4) of the CGST Act are applicable, irrespective of any threshold limit, right from 01.07.2017. Thus the benefit of exemption from payment of tax on RCM as provided u/s. 9(4) of the GST Act is not applicable from 01.07.2017 as claimed by the applicant.
Case-3-Hemchand Yadav Vishwavidyalaya  114 taxmann.com 308 (AAR – CHHATTISGARH)-RCM on person registered as Tax Deductor
Held- Thus from the facts and circumstances of the issue in hand we come to the considered conclusion that the applicant being only registered as a Tax deductor under section 51 of the CGST and CGGST Act holding GSTIN- 22AAAJH0647Q1DD till 24-6-2019 and having no other GSTIN as supplier of goods or services, would not be liable for GST under reverse charge, in view of the exclusions as stipulated under proviso to Notification No. 29/2013-Central Tax (Rate), dated 31-12-2018. The liability to GST in such case would be with the service provider viz. the security agency under Forward charge. However with effect from 25-6-2019. the applicant having been registered as a regular dealer and normal taxpayer, holding another GSTIN-22AAAJH0647Q1Z4, would be liable to GST under Reverse charge being the recipient of supply of Goods or Services or both under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of Section 9, or under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act. It is also noteworthy to mention here that the applicant is not engaged in providing services by way of pre-school education and education up to higher secondary school or equivalent.
Case-4-Clay Craft India (P.) Ltd  116 taxmann.com 114 (AAR- RAJASTHAN)-RCM on Director Services
Held- We further observe that consideration paid to the Directors is against the supply of services provided by them to the applicant company and are not covered under clause (1) of the Schedule III to the CGST Act, 2017 as the Directors are not the employee of the Company. In the instant case Director is the supplier of services and the applicant company is the recipient of the services. So it is very clear that the services rendered by the Director to the company for which consideration is paid to them in any head is liable to pay GST under RCM.
5.9 Notification No. 13 /2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 has given the distinct identity to the services provided by the Director and specifically included in the category of service on which GST will be payable under RCM. The case laws citied by the applicant are not relevant in the present case in as much as that the liability to pay GST under RCM in this case is required to be decided on the basis of the existing provisions of CGST law as being discussed briefly in this order.
Note-Similar decision was given in Alcon Consulting Engineers (India) (P.) Ltd.  110 taxmann.com 357 (AAR – KARNATAKA)
Case-5-Circular No. 140/2020- Dated 10th June 2020- Clarification on Director Services
4.2. Therefore, in respect of such directors who are not the employees of the said company, the services provided by them to the Company, in lieu of remuneration as the consideration for the said services, are clearly outside the scope of Schedule III of the CGST Act and are therefore taxable. In terms of entry at Sl. No. 6 of the Table annexed to notification No. 13/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, the recipient of the said services i.e. the Company, is liable to discharge the applicable GST on it on reverse charge basis.
4.3 Accordingly, it is hereby clarified that the remuneration paid to such independent directors, or those directors, by whatever name called, who are not employees of the said company, is taxable in hands of the company, on reverse charge basis.
5.1. Once, it has been ascertained whether a director, irrespective of name and designation, is an employee, it would be pertinent to examine whether all the activities performed by the director are in the course of employer-employee relation (i.e. a “contract of service”) or is there any element of “contract for service”. The issue has been deliberated by various courts and it has been held that a director who has also taken an employment in the company may be functioning in dual capacities, namely, one as a director of the company and the other on the basis of the contractual relationship of master and servant with the company, i.e. under a contract of service (employment) entered into with the company.
5.2 It is also pertinent to note that similar identification (to that in Para 5.1 above) and treatment of the Director‟s remuneration is also present in the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein the salaries paid to directors are subject to Tax Deducted at Source (‘TDS’) under Section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act’). However, in cases where the remuneration is in the nature of professional fees and not salary, the same is liable for deduction under Section 194J of the IT Act.
5.3. Accordingly, it is clarified that the part of Director‟s remuneration which are declared as „Salaries‟ in the books of a company and subjected to TDS under Section 192 of the IT Act, are not taxable being consideration for services by an employee to the employer in the course of or in relation to his employment in terms of Schedule III of the CGST Act, 2017.
5.4 It is further clarified that the part of employee Director‟s remuneration which is declared separately other than “salaries‟ in the Company‟s accounts and subjected to TDS under Section 194J of the IT Act as Fees for professional or Technical Services shall be treated as consideration for providing services which are outside the scope of Schedule III of the CGST Act, and is therefore, taxable. Further, in terms of notification No. 13/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, the recipient of the said services i.e. the Company, is liable to discharge the applicable GST on it on reverse charge basis.
Case-6-Circular No. 130/2019- Dated 31st December 2019-RCM on Renting of Motor Vehicle
Though a supplier providing the service to a body corporate under RCM may still be paying GST @ 5% on the services supplied to other non body corporate clients, to bring in greater clarity, serial No. 15 of the notification No. 13/2017-CT (R) dated 28.6.17 has been amended vide notification No. 29/2019-CT (R) dated 31.12.19 to state that RCM shall be applicable on the service by way of renting of any motor vehicle designed to carry passengers where the cost of fuel is included in the consideration charged from the service recipient only if the supplier fulfils all the following conditions:– (a) is other than a body-corporate; (b) does not issue an invoice charging GST @12% from the service recipient; and (c) supplies the service to a body corporate.
Case7-Deccan Tobacco Company  117 taxmann.com 843 (AAR – ANDHRA PRADESH)-RCM On Tobacco Leaves
Held-As seen from the different stages of commodity i.e., from the leaves stage to the final product (manufactured tobacco), the green leaf plucked from the plant undergoes different types of curing to reduce the level of moisture to the maximum extent for sustainability and to continue as leaf for further process. The tobacco leaf will be entitled as a commercial commodity only drying (Curing) and normally put to trade in form of bundles. The same will be traded between the farmer and the trader and trader to trader/manufacturer and so on. As envisaged from the entries under GST, there are four different entries for tobacco, one under Schedule I. Liable @ 5% (COST 2.5% and SGST 2.5%) and the remaining heads are in Schedule IV liable 28% (CGST-14% and SGST 14%).
It is to note that though there are different entries with respect to tobacco there is a specific entry in Schedule I of Notification 1/2017 (CGST Rate) as Tobacco leaves, and for the same the liability was brought under reverse charge mechanism. Hence it is clear that the commodity ‘tobacco leaves’ is distinct from the other entries in this aspect.
As observed from the facts, i.e process of tobacco, from the field to final product, the green leaves undergo curing process, and become eligible commercial commodity, for which the transaction takes place in between the farmer and the trader on the auction platform. Further, as per the clarification issued by The Department TRU(Tax Research Unit)vide circular F.No.322/2/2017/Dec.2017, “Tobacco Leaves” means, leaves of tobacco as such or “broken leaves” or “Tobacco Leaves stems”. It clearly expresses that the leaves as long as they do not loose their basic character as ‘leaves’, shall be considered as tobacco leaves only.
Case-8-DKMS BMST Foundation India  116 taxmann.com 423 (AAR – KARNATAKA)-RCM on Exempted Services
Held-Entry No. 1 of Notification No. 10/2017 – Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28-6-2017 specifies that in case of any service supplied by any person who is located in a non-taxable territory to any person other than non-taxable online recipient, the whole of integrated tax leviable under section 5 of the said Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, shall be paid on reverse charge basis by the recipient of the such services. In this case, the tax liability, if any, would have to be paid by the recipient of service, i.e. the applicant. Since the service itself is exempt, the applicant is not liable to pay tax on the services obtained in the form of HLA testing and typing from LSL DE on reverse charge basis
Case-9-M.K. Agro Tech (P.) Ltd  110 taxmann.com 324 (AAR – KARNATAKA)-RCM on Ocean Freight
Held-The valuation of the supply of goods involved in the imports is inclusive of the value of transportation service. The consideration relating to transportation of goods in case of import of goods is a part of the value of goods as per rule 10(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Import of Goods) Rules, 2007. However, the taxable event is the import of goods into the territory of India and the valuation of the turnover of import of goods on which such tax shall be levied is as per the provisions of the Customs Act. Therefore it is clear from the above that this tax is on the import of goods and not on the services. Hence there is no double taxation involved in the above transactions as these are two distinct taxable transactions, one relating to supply of goods and other relating to supply of services.
Subject to the final decision in the issue by the Hon’ble Court, it is ruled that IGST should be paid by the importer on ocean freight in case of CIF basis contract, under Reverse Charge.
Case-10-Purewal Stone Crusher.  98 taxmann.com 137 (AAR- UTTARAKHAND)-RCM on Government Services
Held-GST on “Marg Sudharan Shulk” : From the documents submitted by the applicant we find that the said “marg sudharan shulk” is charged and collected by applicant from non-government, private and commercial vehicles engaged in mining work in lieu of use of forest road. Stated purpose of said “marg sudharan shulk” is for maintenance of forest road. Under GST, “the services by way of access to a road or a bridge on payment of toll charges” are included in the list of exempted services. Further, A toll road, also known as a turnpike or tollway, is a public or private road for which a fee (or toll) is assessed for passage. It is a form of road pricing typically implemented to help recoup the cost: of road construction and maintenance In the present case we find that the said “marg sudharan shulk” is nothing but toll charges collected by the applicant from the users for using forest road and the said toll charges are being used for the maintenance of forest road. Therefore we conclude that no GST is leviable as on date on the said “marg sudharan shulk” charged and collected by the applicant.
GST on “Abhivahan Shulk” From the documents submitted by the applicant we find that the said “Abhivahan Shulk” is charged and collected by applicant in respect of forest produce carried out by a person. On going through ‘The Uttarakhand Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules 2012″, authority observe that a person who desires to obtain forest produce is required to be registered with the forest ^ department after paying applicable fee and the said “Abhivahan Shulk” is charged on the basis of quantum and quality of forest produce and the said forest produce must be accompanied with a transit pass issued by forest authorities in this regard. Authority further observe that charges for carrying forest, produce through road or water are different and determined according to quality and quantity. Therefore said “Abhivahan Shulk” cannot be termed as toll tax and rather is a form of consideration received by the applicant in lieu of services provided to the person for carrying forest produce. Under GST regime under Section 2(102) services means anything other than goods ……. and all services but for list of exempted services as provided under Chapter 99 of GST Tariff, 2017 are liable for GST. Since the services provided by the ‘ applicant do not find mention in the list of exempted services, therefore the applicant, is liable to pay GST @ 18% on the said “Abhivahan Shulk” under Service Code 9997 and to be treated as “other services”.
From the documents submitted by the applicant we find that the ‘Fee for Ambient Air Monitoring’ has to be paid to the Uttarakhand Environment Protection Control Board, Haldwani as a pollution expenses. We also find that the function of the Uttarakhand Environment Protection Control Board, Haldwani is to safeguard the environment as well as general public from the negative impact of working of stone crushers and other pollution generating plants, for which a prescribed amount of fee is levied by the State Board. We also find from the official website of Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board (herein after referred ‘to as UEPPCB) that it is a statutory Organization constituted under the section 4 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 to implement Environmental laws and rules within the jurisdiction of Uttarakhand. The said Board has been entrusted with the powers and functions under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974. Subsequently the implementation of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977; Air (Prevention and Control Of Pollution) Act, 1981; Environment Protection Aci (1986) and the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 was also entrusted to the State Board.
In view of the above we find that functions, under article 243W of the Constitution, entrusted to municipality specifically mention “protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspects”. Thus we observe that providing protection to the environment and promotion of ecological aspects is one of the functions entrusted to the municipality under the said article. It is evident that primary function of UEPPCB is also to safeguard the environment as well as general public from the negative impact of polluting generating plants. Thus both the conditions namely service has to be provided by local authority and activity should falls under Article 243 of the Constitution, has been fulfilled, hence the said activity of UEPPCB is exempted in terms of serial no. 4 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28th June, 2017. Therefore there is no liability of GST arises on the fee collected by UEPPCB in respect of said activity as the same is exempted service.
Khanij sampada shulk as per document submitted by the applicant is related to ” environmental and mining property fee” which is charged on transportation/release of Natural Sand & Grit and other similar ‘River Bed Material (RBM) from the applicant and credited to the State Government Exchequer on monthly basis. Therefore we observe that the said “Khanij sampada shulk” is a form of consideration received by the State Department in lieu of services provided to the applicant for carrying river produce.
We further find that services which are exempted from GST are notified vide Notification No. 12/201 7-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28th June, 2017. On going through the said notification we find that in totality 81 services are exempted services which includes 12 services’ provided, by government or local authority and we observe that service in question provided by the State Government does not find place in said 12 services. Thus the service in question rendered by State Government is liable for GST. @ 18% under Service Code 9997 and to be treated as “other services”. However the applicant is required to discharge GST liability under reverse charge in terms of serial No. 5 of the Notification No. 13/2017 – Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017 as discussed in point A above.
Fees Paid to RTO-For functioning of any motor vehicle or any kind of earth moving machinery on road, there is a mandatory registration fee required to be paid as per Regional Transport Office of the State. Thus we observe that the said registration fee is covered Under exempted service (supra) under “Services provided by the Central Government, State Government, Union Territory or local authority by way of- (a) registration required under any law for the time being in force. Accordingly the services of registration rendered by State Transport. Office is an exempted service and no GST is payable on the same.
GST applicability on penalty paid by the applicant on unaccounted stock of River Bed Material (RBM) on the orders of the District Magistrate to the Govt, account under S.No 5 of Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) notification.
We find that a service has been stated to mean the ‘tolerating’ of any act among other things. Since a service is any activity for a consideration such tolerating can be a service if it is in exchange of some consideration. According to the definition given by the Act, ‘tolerating’ an act signifies the foregoing of a benefit by the receiver in exchange for a consideration that compensates the act that is being tolerated. For example, when delivery date has been set and the person making the delivery delays it, but the receiver allows such a delay for a certain amount as delivery charges, it is tolerating an act for a certain consideration i.e. the delay charges. Thus, it is the service of tolerating for which the receiver is extracting a certain amount from the other party. Similarly Airlines, Railways and Roadways Services- all deduct cancellation charges from the passengers. These charges are for tolerating the act of not taking the reserved transport by the passenger. Therefore, these charges are liable to GST under this supply of service as the provision of cancellation charges is already informed to the customer and, therefore, it is an agreement to the obligation to tolerate an act or situation. Further penal provisions for non-performance of service or for deficiency in service also imply consideration in lieu of tolerating an act or situation.
In view of the above we observe that the penalty is to be treated as supply of service in terms of Schedule II of the Act and is liable for GST @ 18% under Service Code ‘-99’ and to be treated as “other services”. However the applicant is required to discharge GST liability under reverse charge in terms of serial No. 5 of the Notification No. 13/2017 -Central Tax (Rate), dated 28 06.2017 as discussed in point A above.