|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1965 Records
-
2021 (12) TMI 1266 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TELANGANA
Requirement of GSTR 9 and 9C for FY 2017-18 as both the GSTN turnover is above Two Crore - under which GSTN the Income Tax returns must be reconciled as Part of the turnover i.e., July to Nov 17 is shown under old GSTN and from Dec to Mar 18 turnover is shown under new GSTN - claiming of Credits reflected in old GSTN 2A from Dec 2017 to till date which are not rectified by the suppliers - HELD THAT:- That this state of things came into being at the time of migration from the earlier tax regime to GST regime - That they have stopped business in one GSTIN and continuing in the other only. However certain credits are lying unutilized in the GSTIN where they have stopped business and would like to carry the credits into the active GSTIN. Therefore they have approached the AAR regarding the matter.
It is observed by the AAR that the question raised by the applicant does not fall within the scope of Section 97 of Chapter XVII of the CGST Act, 2017 - the application is not admitted.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1265 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TELANGANA
Levy of IGST - supply of imported goods on High Sea sale basis or supply of goods from FTWZ facilities by the Applicant to the Indian customers - input tax credit already taken will have to be reversed or not - discharge of obligation in terms of Sec 31 of the CGST Act, 2017 - whether the Applicant ought to obtain registration in the States of Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu (location of the FTWZ facilities) for sale of such goods from the FTWZ facilities belonging to the logistic service provider namely DHL?
HELD THAT:- The transactions proposed to be made by the applicant are covered by Entry 8 of Schedule III of CGST/SGST Acts inserted vide CGST (Amendment) Act, 2018 w.e.f. 1-2-2019, i.e., supply of goods by the consignee to any other person, by endorsement of document of title of the goods, after the goods have been dispatched from the port of origin located outside India but before the clearance for home consumption; or supply of warehoused goods to any person before clearance for home consumption. And such transactions by virtue of Entry 8 of Schedule III do not attract tax under CGST or SGST or IGST Acts.
Further, according to the explanation to section 17(3) of CGST Act inserted vide CGST (Amendment) Act 2018, w.e.f. 1-2-2019 all transactions falling under Schedule III except Entry 5 will not be considered as 'value of exempted supply for purpose of reversal of ITC of common input services. Therefore the value of the transaction referred will not form part of value of the exempt supply.
The applicant directs the FTWZ warehouse keeper to deliver the goods to a customer chosen by the applicant. Under Section 10(1)(a) of the IGST Act the place of supply in such case shall be the location of goods at the time of which the movement of goods terminates for the delivery to the recipient - the applicant i.e. supplier in this case is situated at Hyderabad, Telangana State whereas the goods are delivered in Other States. That is the supplier of the goods and the place of supply of goods are in two different states. Therefore it is an inter-state supply. Hence the applicant need not obtain any registration in the Other State in order to effect such inter-state transactions.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1264 - CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
Seeking grant of anticipatory Bail - availment and passing of inadmissible Input Tax Credit - using fake invoices or bills - offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- There is prima facie material showing involvement of the applicant in commission of the offences alleged. The investigation is in progress. If released on bail the applicant may destroy the evidence likely to be collected and may influence the witnesses. Considering same circumstances in the background that the offence is economical affecting national economy and has to be dealt with sensitively, it is not just and proper at this stage to grant bail to the applicant.
The bail application is dismissed.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1263 - CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - allegation is that the applicant availed as well as passed on ineligible input tax credit from and to non existing firms - HELD THAT:- In the case in hand, on perusal of material on record and the investigation papers it appears that the applicant’s Swara Jewels had dealt with Arihant Traders and M/s. Sandeep Trading. The ITC availed in connection with these two firms is difinitely below ₹ 5 crores. However, the matter does not end here. Dealing with golden Bullion and Gajmukhi Bullion and Mumbadevi also, the applicant availed ITC.
The total amount of availment of ineligible ITC is more than ₹ 6 Crores. It may be noted here that respondent No.2 had inputs that Gautam Joshi has created fake entities, and the applicant Swara Jewels has paper transaction with the same entities. Respondent No. 2 has recorded the statement of Gautam Joshi where he admitted that he has created fake entities as Mumbadevi Jwellers and Arihant Traders. The statement of the applicant as recorded by respondent No.2 also reveals that the applicant has dealt with these entities i.e. Arihant Trading, M/s. Sandeep Traders, Gajmukhi and Mumbadevi Bullion in connection with Guatam Joshi. At this infant stage of investigaion, this much material is sufficient to make out prima facie case against the applicant. Since apparantly, these entities do not exist, if anticipatory bail is granted, the applicant is likely to destroy the evidence regarding the matter.
This Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant as the investigation is at initial stage and apparently at this stage as per the contention of respondent No. 2 the amount of availament of input tax credit is more than ₹ 6 Crores which may rise up in further inquiry - anticipatory bail cannot be accepted.
Application rejected.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1227 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Bail - input tax credit - forged documents - HELD THAT:- There is nothing in the record to show whether the input credit actually benefited the applicant. There is no evidence that the applicant was benefited from the aforesaid input credit tax.
Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation. These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.
The applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail - application allowed.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1226 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Transitional Input Tax Credit - seeking to allow filing of declaration in form GST TRAN-1 and GST TRAN-2 - seeking to reopening the portal - HELD THAT:- It appears that a second option has been given by the Calcutta High Court to take care of the problems like the one we are tackling with in the present application. The suggestion of the Calcutta High Court is that instead of directing the portal to be opened, the assessees who are facing such kind of difficulties may be permitted to file individual tax credit in the GSTR-3B Forms for the month of January 2022 to be filed in the month of February, 2022 and the concerned Authority/Assessing Officer would be at liberty to verify the genuineness of such claim. We expect the GSTN and the Nodal Officer to explore such possibility also as suggested by the Calcutta High Court.
Some concrete solution is needed so that the directions issued by this Court is meaningfully complied with. The Nodal Officer is once-again present in the Court today. The Nodal Officer has heard the entire order, which has been dictated in his presence. We want the Nodal Officer to look into the second option also and try to find out a viable solution.
Post the matters for further hearing on 12.01.2022. We hope and trust that atleast on 12.01.2022 a positive statement is made that the order/directions passed in the main matter has been fully complied.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1225 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Refund - amount which was credited in the wrong account due to inadvertent mistake - refund of accumulated ITC as per Section 54(3) - mistakenly the consultant had given the bank account details of another client and thus, the details entered in the petitioner’s GST is of one third party wrongly - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that due to the mistake of the consultant engaged by the petitioner, the amount has been deposited in the wrong account. The bank details are to be entered under RFD-05. The petitioner also did not raise the grievance immediately and made an application with reference to the said issue after nearly three months. The amount which had gone to the wrong account of M/s. Meet Textiles had been refunded on 09.12.2020 by way of DRC-03 under Section 73(5) by way of voluntary payment. The Deputy State Tax Commissioner Circle-16, Surat vide its communications dated 21.01.2021 and 11.02.2021 had requested the Joint Commissioner of State Tax E-governance, Gujarat State to resolve the peculiar issue on hand.
It emerges that second time when the application had been made by the petitioner, the rejection has come as there is a technical glitch. Even by specifying that the refund is being claimed under the head “others” the system has not permitted the amount to be given by way of refund to the petitioner. Undoubtedly, it was a mistake which was committed by the consultant of the petitioner and therefore, the third party namely M/s. Meet Textiles had been benefited where the amount had been deposited - The amount once again has gone back to the authority by way of DRC-03 on 09.12.2020, hence, the only way out now for availing the legitimate claim of the petitioner is by depositing the amount in his account which he has mentioned.
Let the same be done as the application has already been made. No further application will be necessary at a manual level. The officer concerned shall apply the mind and the deposit shall go directly in the account of the petitioner - Application disposed off.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1224 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Seeking direction to allow the presence of applicant’s advocate at a visible but not audible distance during the course of interrogation and/or recording of the statement of the applicant - HELD THAT:- Considering the role attributed to the present applicant in the alleged transaction, the applicant’s advocate is permitted to be present during interrogation of the applicant, but he should be made to sit at a distance beyond hearing range, but within visible distance and the concerned advocate must be prepared to be present whenever the applicant is called upon to attend the interrogation.
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1223 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund - amount which was paid during the course of investigation - seeking direction to respondent to pay the amount which was paid by the petitioner during the course when the officers of the respondent visited the premises of the petitioner and investigated - It is the case of the petitioner that the amount was paid under coercion - Wrong availment of Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT:- The amount paid by the petitioner are only deposits pending proper adjudication under Section 73 / 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. It appears that the amounts were collected from the petitioner during March 2021, at the time when summons were also issued to the petitioner, Mahazar was drawn and seizure memo was also issued to the petitioner on the same date. The petitioner also appears to have sent a representation on 01.04.2021.
There is no merits in this Writ Petition at this stage. The amount paid by the petitioner shall be treated as amount paid by the petitioner “under protest” and will be subject to the final appropriation in the proceedings to be initiated under Sections 73 / 74 of CGST Act, 2017. The respondents perhaps are investigating and therefore, seized the documents from the petitioner - the respondent is also directed to return the photo copies of the seized documents to the petitioner, if they have not been already returned to the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1222 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - validity of assessment order - opportunity of personal hearing as is contemplated under Section 75(4) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, not provided - HELD THAT:- Though specifically the petitioner has not requested for a personal hearing in the aforesaid reply/representation, the respondents have proceeded to pass the impugned orders by confirming the demand proposed in the notice. As adverse orders would have been passed against the petitioner, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to issue a notice of personal hearing to the petitioner. Though in this case, admittedly the petitioner had filed the reply belatedly on 16.08.2021 having considered the reply and having decided to pass an adverse order, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to call upon the petitioner for a personal hearing.
The impugned orders stand quashed and these cases are remitted back to the respondents to pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the reply/representation made by the petitioner on 16.08.2021 - Writ Petitions stand disposed off.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1221 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR
Cancellation of registration of registration of petitioner - non filing of returns for a continuous period of six months - non-deposit of interest liability against late discharged cash payment - HELD THAT:- The appellant has filed and submitted copies of GSTR-3B return for the period April-2020, and May-2020, June-2020, July-2020, August-2020, and September-2020 respectively and also submitted copy of Form DRC-03 ARN No. AD0802210113550 dated 22.02.2021 amounting to ₹ 61,064/- towards payment of due interest liability.
The appellant has filed returns upto date of cancellation of registration hence, the appellant has substantially complied with the said provisions of the CGST Act/Rules,2017 in the instant case. Therefore, the registration of appellant may be considered for revocation by the proper officer.
The proper officer to consider the revocation application of the appellant after due verification of payment particulars of tax, late fee, interest and status of returns - Appeal disposed off.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1184 - JHARKAHAND HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of bail - only allegation against the petitioner is that the principal accused used the address of the premises where the business of the petitioner is situated - petitioner submits that the petitioner does not have any connection with M/s. Balaji Enterprises - HELD THAT:- On consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties coupled with the period of custody undergone by the petitioner which is since 19.01.2021, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of ₹ 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa.
Bail granted - application allowed.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1145 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Cancellation of Bail - violation of conditions of Bail - generation of black money and hawala transactions - issuance of fake paper invoices - Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It cannot be observed to the effect that the applicant/ petitioner had violated the condition no.4 of the order dated 05.12.2020 in as much as investigation in the matter qua any future commission of the offence after 05.12.2020 is still in progress as submitted on behalf of the respondent and presently there are only disclosure statements of two accused Manish and Vikas against the petitioner qua further alleged commission of offence after 05.12.2020, the condition no.4 of the order dated 05.12.2020 cannot be held to be violated presently.
In view thereof though the order dated 22.12.2021 of the learned CMM, New Delhi, PHC setting aside the grant of bail granted vide order dated 05.12.2020 is set aside, it is essential to observe that direction dated 22.12.2021 of the learned CMM, New Delhi whilst disposing of the application seeking cancellation of bail as filed by the respondent herein before the learned CMM, New Delhi after the cancellation of bail granted - Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1144 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment of current Bank Account - direction to the Respondents to de-freeze the Petitioner’s bank account - Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In view of the position of law vis-a-vis Section 83 of the Act, present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to defreeze the petitioner’s bank account bearing current bank Account No. 201001178495 maintained with M/s. IndusInd Bank Ltd., Ground Floor, 2w/3, West Patel Nagar, Opp. Metro Pillar No.195, New Delhi-110008.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1143 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Seeking direction to make the payment/reimbursement of the applicable GST - Works Contract executed prior to GST implementation - HELD THAT:- It is deemed proper to direct the respondent No.3- Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of M.P., Bhopal to decide the said representation which will be filed by the petitioner by a speaking order after providing opportunity of hearing to the representative of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is produced before him.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1142 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
Scope of Advance Ruling - Exempt goods or not - raw water that is supplied through tankers through the Bookwater platform - does the supplier of water through tankers come under supply of raw water or under transport services? - withholding of tax from the suppliers’ before making payments for the supply of raw water through our platform - transaction through an e-commerce operator - GST Registration applicable for all suppliers through the Bookwater platform - withholding of tax from the suppliers before making payments since the supplies have been made through our digital platform - HELD THAT:- It is evident that ‘advance ruling’ are decisions on questions specified in sub section 97(2) of the Act in relation to the supply of goods or services undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant seeking the some. Hence, supplies undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant alone are covered under the advance ruling as per Section 95(a) of the Act. The Act limits the Advance Ruling Authority to decide the issues earmarked for it under Section 97(2) and no other issue can be decided by the Advance Ruling Authority.
Section 52(1) of the Act, provides for collection of an ‘amount’ calculated @1% on the net value of taxable supplies made through it by other suppliers. Thus, it is evident that the provision itself clearly distinguishes that the e-commerce operator is different from the ‘Suppliers’. As per Section 95(a) read with Section 103 (applicability of the Ruling), it is clear that the ruling is applicable to the supply being made or proposed to be made and the ruling extended is binding only on the ‘Supplier’ who makes such supply, his jurisdictional officer and the concerned officer. In the case at hand, the applicant seeks ruling on the supplies being made through their platform by the ‘Concerned suppliers’ mentioned at Section 52 and the questions raised are not on the supplies being made or proposed to be made by him. Further, the provision at 97(2)(e) allows this authority to admit questions on determination of the liability to pay tax.
The applicant, who is an e-commerce operator, and not the ‘supplier’ of Raw water and Sewage Evacuation Services, the question raised on the classification of supply, applicability of Notification for such suppliers, is not the question on supplies being or proposed to be undertaken by him. Therefore, there are no hesitation, to hold that the questions raised, do not pertain to the supply of the applicant and are not admissible for ruling as per Section 95(a)/103 read with Section 97(2) of the Act.
Further, the applicant has sought ruling as to whether the applicant is to withhold TCS from the suppliers before making Payments to the ‘Concerned suppliers’. Section 52 of the Act governs the collection of amount by e-commerce operator in respect of supplies made through Such e-Commerce. The ambit of Advance Ruling do not provide for answering the questions raised on provisions relating to ‘Tax Collected at Source’ provided under Section 52 of the Act. Further the amount collected as TCS is not in the nature of ‘Tax’ - the questions are also not covered under the ambit of this authority as per Section 97(2) of the Act.
The application are not admitted and the same is rejected.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1102 - SC ORDER
Maintainability of petition - non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit - petitioner has strenuously argued that the aspect of hardship has not been considered by the Tribunal and the High Court - HELD THAT:- The order passed by the High Court is examined whereby the exercise of discretion the Tribunal has not been interfered with by the High Court.
There are no reason to entertain this petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this petition seeking special leave to appeal is required to be dismissed - petition seeking special leave to appeal is dismissed.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1101 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Principles of natural justice - validity of adjudication order - appealable order - main ground of challenge of the impugned adjudication order by the petitioners is that though the impugned adjudication order is appealable but the same is without jurisdiction and there is violation of principle of natural justice by not affording them opportunity of hearing - HELD THAT:- It is a settled law that opportunity of hearing may be afforded either by way of allowing the petitioners to make any written representation for their case or it may be by allowing personal hearing and in this case petitioners were allowed to make written representation/objection and when petitioners have not asked for personal hearing and petitioners have not been able to show any provision of relevant laws mandating the authority to give personal hearing, question of violation of principles of natural justice does not arise in this case. It is relevant to note that Section 75(4) of the GST Act simply says about hearing and not about personal hearing.
Exercising a jurisdiction in an irregular manner by an authority is different from exercising a jurisdiction by the authority having inherent jurisdiction. I do not find that the Authority, who has issued the show-cause-notice and passed the adjudication order, is having inherent lack of jurisdiction under the statute or he is not authorised to exercise the jurisdiction of adjudication in the case of the petitioners. If the petitioners are not satisfied with the impugned adjudication order or reasons according to petitioners in not sufficient or proper, it can be a case of appeal but not a case for invoking Constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also not a case where the petitioners are remediless against the impugned adjudication order; Forum for statutory alternative remedy is already available to the petitioners.
Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1100 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - appeal preferred under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - petitioner has failed to deposit 10% of the remaining tax amount required to be made mandatorily under clause(b) of sub section(6) of Section107 of the Act - HELD THAT:- It is evident that while preferring an appeal against the order passed by the respondent No.4-Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes, Circle-4, Durg, 10% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising for the said period was required to be deposited. However, the petitioner has admittedly not complied with the same - there are no infirmity in the order impugned.
The order impugned as passed by the respondent No.3-Joint Commissioner, State Taxes, Durg, is appealable one as statutory appeal is provided under Section 112 of the Act of 2017 before the Appellate Tribunal and without filing the said remedy, the instant petition has been filed, which is rather pre-matured in nature and deserves to be rejected.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (12) TMI 1099 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration of the petitioner - due to loss incurred, the taxes for the period from December, 2017 to December, 2018 could not be paid which was compounded due to non-receipt of incentives by the State Government - HELD THAT:- For serving the larger ends of justice and balancing equities, moreso, in view of the fact that, if the industry starts functioning, it would be in a position, both to satisfy the demand of the respondents as also generate business and to pay future taxes and equally give employment to the workers, the Court is inclined to allow the petitioner to pay the amount as would be quantified by the respondents in ten (10) equal installments.
Let respondent no.2 quantify the actual amount which the petitioner is required to pay with regard to penalty and interest and indicate the same to the petitioner within two weeks. Upon doing so, the petitioner shall pay the amount in ten (10) equal installments to be paid on or before the 5th day of each month commencing from 15.01.2022
As a consequence, let authorities restore the registration of the petitioner within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any default in repayment as per the schedule indicated would also automatically result in cancellation of the registration of the petitioner. - petition disposed off.
........
|
