|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 167 Records
-
2023 (1) TMI 1166 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Legality of search, seizure, actions and prepared panchnama - legality of release of 5 seized trucks which were empty and not loaded with any goods - direction to respondent No.4 to get the goods stored under seized 20 barrels be tested for its characteristics, specification and ingredients by appropriate government laboratory - HELD THAT:- Since a show cause notice dated 04.12.2020 has been issued to the petitioner and others in which the validity of the panchnama is under consideration, hence the petitioner is having efficacious remedy to contest the show cause notice before the adjudicating authority. The petitioner is free to apply to the adjudication authority. The Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority that if such an application is filed by the petitioner, the same be considered in accordance with the law expeditiously.
Petition dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1165 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA
Percentage of GST input tax - GST paid for the shop on commercial rent to landlord - GST paid on commission to Dunzo and Swiggy for ecommerce online service - GST paid on service charges charged by paytm - GST paid on service charges charged by Banks - Packing material - Printed material - Capital goods like cutting machine, weighing scale, refrigerators, computers and hardware and software goods - GST consequences if goods purchased from unregistered and composition dealers - scope of Advance Ruling.
HELD THAT:- The Applicant is into supply of fresh and semi processed meat products like chicken, Mutton, fish, pork and all types of packed cold cut, spices and masala powder. The Applicant is apparently into trading of both taxable and exempted goods - the Applicant wants to know the percentage of input tax credit to be claimed in view of the nature of their business. Since the Applicant is involved in the supply of both taxable and exempted supplies, the Applicant has to avail the input tax credit proportionately in terms of section 16, 17 of CGST Act 2017 read with Rule 42 of CGST Rules 2017; wherein the procedure to be followed is clearly mentioned.
What will be the GST consequences if we purchased goods from unregistered and composition dealers? - Scope of Advance Ruling - HELD THAT:- This question is not covered under the issues referred to in section 97(2) of CGST Act 2017, in respect of which an applicant can seek Advance Ruling and hence this Authority refrains from giving any ruling.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1164 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA
Percentage of GST output tax to be charged - works contract executed to Indian Railways - On Railway under Bridge works - Construction of Tunnels for Railways - Supply and stacking of ballast - Execution of Earth Works Contract - Subcontract works for the contract works - HELD THAT:- The applicant has stated that they are engaged in supply of works contract services to Indian Railways such as construction of Rail under bridge, construction of tunnels, execution of Earth Works Contract, supply and stacking of ballast and sub-contract of the contract works and wants to know the rate of GST on the same - works contract services supplied by the Applicant to Indian Railways such as construction of Rail under bridge and construction of tunnels are covered under entry No. 3(xii) of Notification No. 11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and is exigible to GST at 18%.
Works contract services involving predominantly earth work (that is, constituting more than 75per cent, of the value of the works contract) executed to Indian Railways (Central Government) by the Applicant is exigible to GST at 12% if the Applicant is providing the services either as a main contractor or as a sub-contractor to main contractor.
Supply of ballast to railways is exigible to GST at 5% (HSN 2517) as per entry No. 126 of Schedule I of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated: 28.06.2017.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1163 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA
Exemption from GST - providing catering services to Educational Institutions from 1st standard to 2nd PUC - applicability of N/N. 12/2017-Central Tax Rate -under Heading 9992 - recipient of service - HELD THAT:- The applicant is billing to the KLE Independent PU College and the consideration is payable by the said college. Hence the recipient of the service in question is the KLE Independent PU College.
Since the recipient of service is an institution providing education up to higher secondary school, it is covered under the definition of "educational institution" for the purposes of Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - Since the Applicant is providing ready to eat food by way of catering to a Pre University College, the services provided by the applicant under question before us is also covered under entry No.66 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated: 28.06.2017 as amended further and hence exempted from GST.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1162 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KARNATAKA
Exemption from GST - works contract service provided to Bio Centers, Department of Horticulture and Center of excellence - other service like data entry operator, security, provided to Horticulture Department - material like fertilisers, soil, sand supplied for use of bio centers - HELD THAT:- The applicant is providing manpower supply for tissue culture production and for handling the process of research on flowers, planting and growing for Horticulture department, Government of Karnataka.
Whether tissue culture is covered under 1st entry of eleventh schedule which says 'Agriculture, including agricultural extension'? - HELD THAT:- The tissue culture is not same as agriculture and there is no direct nexus to the items mentioned in eleventh or twelfth schedule of the constitution. Thus supply of manpower for tissue culture production and for handling the process of research on flowers, planting and growing to Horticulture department, Government of Karnataka are not provided by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under article 243G of the Constitution or in relation to any function entrusted to a Municipality under article 243W of the Constitution. Hence provision of such manpower services are liable to tax at 18%.
The Applicant wants to know whether supply of materials like fertilisers, soil and sand for use of bio centers are exempted under GST. However, there is no specific exemption for supply of materials like fertilisers, soil and sand for use of bio centers as per notification No.2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1131 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Realization of its Input Tax Credit (ITC) in the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner as for the Financial Year 2018-19 last date for availing ITC as per provisions under Section 16(4) of Jharkhand Goods & Service Act, 2017 - violation of Section 16(4) of JGST Act, 2017 or not - violation of principles of natural justice or not - HELD THAT:- It appears that a show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the Act dated 12.02.2022 (Annexure-1) was issued to the petitioner which was issued in a format without striking out the irrelevant particulars and thus, there won’t be an exaggeration in treating the same as vague as it does not spell out the contraventions for which the petitioner is charged. As a matter of fact, it is worse than the summary of show cause notice issued under FORM GST DRC-01 of the even date (Annexure-2). It further transpires that without giving any opportunity of hearing State Tax Officer was in so hurry, that he finally issued summary of order in FORM GST DRC-07 on 17.02.2022 (Annexure-3); that means just within five days from issuance of show cause.
Now the law is no more res integra, inasmuch as, Rule 142(1) (a) of the JGST Rules provides that the summary of show cause notice in Form DRC-01 should be issued “along with” the show cause notice under Section 73(1) which will spell out the contraventions in details for which the Assessee is charged. The word “along with” clearly indicates that in a given case show cause notice as well as summary thereof both have to be issued. As per Rule 142(1)(a) of the JGST Rules, the summary of show cause notice has to be issued electronically to keep track of the proceeding initiated against the registered person whereas a show cause notice need not necessarily be issued electronically.
This Court holds that the foundation of the proceeding in the instant case suffers from material irregularity and hence not sustainable being contrary to Section 73 (1) of the JGST Act. Thus, the subsequent proceedings/impugned orders issued under DRC-07 dated 17.02.2022 cannot sanctify the same and liable to be quashed and set aside. At the cost of repetition, DRC-07 has been issued within five days of issuance of DRC-01 is a clear picture of violation of principles of natural justice.
The impugned show cause notice in the instant case does not fulfill the ingredients of a proper show cause notice and thus amounts to violation of principles of natural justice; the challenge is maintainable in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court - Application allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1130 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Cancellation of their respective GST Registrations of petitioners - cancellation on the ground that the said appeals were filed beyond the maximum time limit stipulated under section 107 of GST Act - Difference of opinion.
HELD THAT:- While dealing with the very same issue, one of the Hon'ble Single Judges of this Court (Anita Sumanth, J.) in MR. PANDIDORAI SETHUPATHI RAJA VERSUS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX, CHENNAI [2022 (12) TMI 1028 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that this Court is having the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal under section 107 of the GST Act under certain extraordinary circumstances mentioned in the said order. However, another Hon'ble Judge of this Court in HEMASRI ENTERPRISES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SAKTHI NARAYANAN VERSUS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY / THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) (FAC) GST-APPEAL, CHENNAI-II, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) [2022 (12) TMI 705 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and RAMANUJAN VENKATESAN VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS- II) O/O. OFFICER OF COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS- II) , THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, O/O. CHENNAI OUTER COMMISSIONERATE, THE SUPERINTENDENT GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, O/O. CHENNAI OUTER COMMISSIONERATE [2023 (1) TMI 436 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not have the power to condone the delay when the statutory appeal filed under section 107 of the GST Act is beyond the maximum time limit stipulated in the said section.
Since there are two contradictory views expressed by two Hon'ble Judges of this Court, Judicial Discipline and Propriety demands that, the matter is referred to a Division Bench of this Court.
The point of reference to the Division Bench is as follows:
Whether the view taken by the Hon'ble Single Judge (Anita Sumanth, J.) in her decision dated 16.11.2022 in the case of Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja
or
the view taken by another Hon'ble Single Judge (M.Sundar, J.) in his decisions (a) Hemasri Enterprises vs. The Appellate Authority / The Deputy Commissioner and (b) Ramunajan Venkatesan vs. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) is correct.
Registry is directed to immediately place this matter before My Lord, the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice of this Court for getting suitable orders for posting these writ petitions before the appropriate Division Bench nominated by him for early hearing of these writ petitions.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1129 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - whether section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was adhered to by the respondents or not? - HELD THAT:- As seen from section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the proper officer after detaining the goods or conveyance shall issue a notice of such detention or seizure specifying the penalty payable and thereafter, pass an order within a period of seven days from the date of service of such notice, for payment of penalty under clause (a) or clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 129.
In the instant case, after detaining the petitioner's vehicle and the goods on 26.10.2022, notice was issued by the respondents on 31.10.2022 within seven days from the date of detention. However, the consequential order for payment of penalty was passed only on 10.11.2022 which is beyond the period of seven days from the date of service of notice on the petitioner. Having passed the impugned order beyond the period of seven days from the date of service of notice on the petitioner which is contrary to section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, the impugned orders have to be necessarily quashed and the writ petitions will have to be allowed.
The impugned detention order dated 31.10.2022 as well as the impugned consequential order dated 10.11.2022 are hereby quashed and the writ petitions are allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1128 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Confiscation of goods u/s 130 - Levy of penalty - goods in question were supported by valid documents - whether warrant exists for initiation, continuation and conclusion of proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Acts or not? - HELD THAT:- The undisputed facts of the case are that the 2nd petitioner was carrying certain gold ornaments in a train from Thrissur to Alleppy. He was initially intercepted by the officials attached to the Railway Protection Force and the 2nd petitioner was able to only shown certain documents on his mobile phone, which according to the petitioners, suggest that the gold ornaments were being carried in a valid manner and in accordance with all the requirements of the CGST/SGST Acts and the Rules made thereunder.
The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner had forgotten to hand over about 100 gms of gold, which was being carried in his pocket, cannot be accepted, at least at this stage. The fact that there was discrepancy in the quantity in the documents stated to have been produced and the quantity recovered from the 2nd petitioner itself, is sufficient for the Department to suspect the evasion of tax. There are nothing found on merits regarding the order of adjudication issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Acts for the reason that it would not be proper to do so, considering the fact that the petitioners have appellate remedies against Ext.P18 order.
There was no malice or ill-will or lack of jurisdiction in initiating proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Acts - petition dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1127 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Betting/gambling - Actionable claim - whether nature of gaming services as provided by it is in the nature of services or an actionable claim or not? - HELD THAT:- A Division Bench of this Court in CHANDRESH SANKHLA VERSUS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [2020 (2) TMI 1062 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] in respect of a similar company Dream11 which also provided gaming services online held that the issue is no longer res-integra and as such gaming services are not in the nature of betting/gambling.
Some of the games offered by the petitioners online have already been held to be games of skill rather than that of chance or that of betting/gambling. Thus when the matter is so settled by various Courts, the issuance of the impugned show cause notice is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, we call upon the respondents to file counter affidavit to the writ petition within a period of one month from today.
The writ petition is directed to be listed for admission/final disposal immediately thereafter.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1098 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Seeking release of confiscated goods - whether the authority was justified in holding that the appellant is not the owner of the goods? - HELD THAT:- The appeal is disposed off with a direction to the appellant to file an application before the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Goods and Services Tax, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal, Durgapur zone seeking relief under Section 129(1) (a) of the said Act and such application shall be filed within one week from the date of receipt of the server copy of this judgment and order. On receipt of the said application, the said authority shall independently consider such a prayer uninfluenced by any of the observations made in its order dated 12th December, 2022, which is subject matter of the writ petition and such order shall be passed within a period of 10 days from the date on which the application is filed by the appellant.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1097 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit - Attachment of Bank accounts of appellant - Initiation of garnishee proceedings - HELD THAT:- When the appeal was presented, the mandatory pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax has been complied with by the appellant. If that be so, no coercive action should be taken against the appellant till the appeal is heard and disposed of. In terms of the above direction, the appellant is granted liberty to file an appropriate interim application in the appeal petition and the appellate authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders for the purpose of lifting the garnishee order and the bank attachment. The appellant shall file the application in the statutory appeal not later than 10th February, 2023.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1096 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that proceeding u/s 74 of CGST Act is still pending, he is cooperating with the investigation/enquiry and did not misuse the liberty of aforesaid interim anticipatory bail which was granted on 22.03.2021 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
HELD THAT:- Learned AGA for the State does not dispute the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the appellant.
The aforesaid interim anticipatory bail order dated 22.03.2021 is made absolute till finalization of proceedings on the terms and conditions as indicated in the above order dated 22.03.2021 - the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1095 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternate efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactment - Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - HELD THAT:- The petitioner claims to be a transporter who was transporting goods for a dealer from the Tiruppur District in Tamil Nadu to a recipient in Hyderabad, Telangana. The consignment of Ready-Made Textile/ Hosiery Garments were being transported by the appellant for an unknown consignor and consigneer whose name has been later given as Star Handlooms in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ petition. About 58 bundles of Textile/ Hosiery Garments were being transported by the appellant and that out of 58 bundles 33 did not accompany necessary documents including invoices. For the balance, it can be inferred there was only lorry receipts.
Under these circumstances, the lorry bearing registration number T.N. 39-Ck-5569 was detained by State Tax Officer (Intelligence), Roving Squad, Tiruppur on 4.3.2022 and that on the same day Form GST MOV-02[Order for Physical Verification/Inspection of the Conveyance, Goods and Documents] was issued to the driver in charge of the aforesaid vehicle and the aforesaid vehicle along with the consignments were detained.
There is an indication that 33 bundles accompanied lorry receipts without invoices under section 68(2) and for the balance 25 there were neither any invoices nor any lorry receipts. In the reply dated 15.03.2022 of the appellant also there was no clear explanation as to whether the appellant was carrying the goods for the said Star Handlooms of Tiruppur District or it was being transported by the appellant for itself. The only response of the appellant in its reply dated 15.3.2022 was that only two of the bundles would be valued at Rs. 20,000 each and that rest of the bundles the value would be between Rs.4,500 to Rs.5000 and not Rs.20,000 per bundle.
Whether the value of the 33 out of 58 seized goods/bundles were valued between Rs. 4500 -5000 per bundle or R.20,000/- cannot be determined in a writ proceedings based on the submission of the appellant. The owner i.e. either the consignor or consignee have also not come forward to claim the Bundles. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent State Tax Officer cannot be interfered by this Court. It cannot be construed that the value of two of the bundles out of 58 bundles alone were Rs.20,000 and that rest of them were only between Rs. 4500 -5000. There cannot be determination of the value n a writ proceeding.
Whether the value was Rs.4500 - 5000 is something which the appellant will have to establish only before the appellate authority under section 107 of the respective GST enactments in an appellate proceedings. If the appellant wishes to pursue the appellate remedy, the appellant will have to pay deposit 25% of the amount determined by the respondent State Tax Officer, Intelligence. This Court is not really concerned with the disputed questions of fact. It is for the appellant to establish the same before the Appellate Authority and the amount that may be pre-deposited can be either appropriated or refunded back subject to the out come of the appeal in the proposed appeal against the aforesaid order.
Writ petition dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1094 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Cancellation of the Registration Certificate of petitioner - failure to file Goods and Services Tax monthly returns for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT:- In identical circumstances, this Court, in the case of TVL. SUGUNA CUTPIECE CENTER VERSUS THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) (GST) , THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CIRCLE) , SALEM BAZAAR. [2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] had held that The petitioners are directed to file their returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, if such returns have not been already filed, together with tax defaulted which has not been paid prior to cancellation along with interest for such belated payment of tax and fine and fee fixed for belated filing of returns for the defaulted period under the provisions of the Act, within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been already paid.
This Court has been consistently following the directions issued in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others and the Revenue/Department has also accepted the said view as evident from the fact that no appeal has been filed in any of the matters, this Court intends to follow the above order of this Court - Petition ordered.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1093 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Classification of supply of service - composite supply or not - activity of design and development of patterns used for manufacturing of camshaft for a customer - intermediary service or not - non-speaking order - violation of principles of natural justice.
Whether activity of appellant is an intermediary service as held by the MAAR or as contended by the appellant, an activity of design and development of patterns/tools used for manufacturing of camshafts, for a overseas customer is a composite supply where the principal supply is supply of services?
HELD THAT:- It is appellant who prepares the drawing and designs of tool / pattern and also check feasibility of its manufacturing. The techno commercial offer is being made by the appellant to overseas OEM / Machinist. Overseas OEM / Machinist releases the purchase order, for specific number of units of tools, after approval of techno commercial offer. The appellant undertakes in-house drawing, design, modelling, simulation and documentation for manufacture of the tools. Whereas, it hires third party vendor for machining (manufacturing) the tool as per specification provided by the appellant. The third party vendors charge for the manufacture of tools, which is paid by the appellant. The third party vendor delivers the tool to appellant, of which appellant further raises supply invoice to overseas OEMs / Machinist specifying therein the description of goods (tools), quantity, rate per unit, etc. However, as industry practice in this sector appellant keeps such tools with it for further use in manufacture of camshaft.
The invoice raised by the appellant also exhibits that the tools of specific designs as per the specifications of overseas customer are supplied to them. Thus, from perusal of the purchase order placed by the overseas customers and supply invoice raised by appellant, it is clear that dominant intention of overseas customer is to get the supply of manufactured pattern/tools from the appellant as per specification provided by them.
Thus, it is clear that the appellant is making such supply of tools on his own against the consideration which is price for tools and hence, there is no issue of receiving commission from overseas customers. Appellant is not facilitating any supply between overseas entity and third party vendor. The impugned transaction is supply of goods i.e. tools from appellant to customer on principal to principal basis. Considering these facts of and definition of “intermediary” provided under section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017, it is very much clear that appellant is not an “intermediary”. Hence, the findings of the MAAR that the impugned activity is an intermediary service is erroneous and not acceptable.
On careful perusal of the definition of the term “composite supply” and the essential conditions enumerated in the definition, it is seen that the composite supply comprising two or more taxable supplies of goods or services or both, or any combination thereof should be made by a taxable person to a recipient - However, in the instant case, considering the facts of the case, it is amply clear that impugned transaction between appellant and overseas customer is of supply of goods i.e. pattern/tool of specified specifications. Hence, contentions of the appellant that impugned transaction is composite supply where the principal supply is supply of services is not valid. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the impugned transaction is supply of goods i.e. pattern/tool of specified specifications.
Thus, the impugned transaction between appellant and overseas customer is supply of goods.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1092 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Classification of supply - zero-rated supply - supply of renting of immovable property services provided by the SEZ Authority - supply of any other services by the suppliers located in DTA to the SEZ unit - reverse charge mechanism - section 16(1) of the IGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the provisions of the zero-rated supply under section 16(1) of the IGST Act, 2017, it is clear that any supply of goods or services or both made to a SEZ developer or SEZ unit for carrying out the authorised operation in SEZ will be considered as zero-rated supply. That is, the said supply will not attract any GST whatsoever. It is further mentioned here that this provisions of zero-rated supply will cover even the supply of services which are specified under the reverse charge Notification 10/2017-I.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by Notification No. 03/2018, (Rate) dated 25.01.2018. This is so because it is the settled proposition of the law that the specific provisions made in the Act will have greater legal force than that of a notification issued under same or any other provisions of the same Act. Hence the provisions laid down under section 16(1) of the IGST Act, 2017 will supersede over the notification issued under section 5(3) of the IGST Act, 2017, which enumerates the services which attract GST under reverse charge basis. It is also pertinent to mention here that the said provision of section 16(1) ibid, merely mentions about the supply of goods or services or both to the SEZ developer or SEZ unit. The said provision does not mention any thing about the type of the supplier.
From the provisions of section 16 (1) and Section 5 (3) of IGST Act it is clear that the intention of the legislature is not to tax the supplies made to a unit in SEZ or a SEZ developer, which has been made zero rated under clause (b) of section 16 (1) of the IGST Act. 2017. By virtue of deeming provision under section 5 (3) of the IGST Act, 2017, the levy on procurement of services specified in Notification 13/2017 CT (Rate) falls upon the unit in SEZ or SEZ developer - The appellant will not be required to pay any GST under RCM on the impugned supply of renting of immovable property services received SEEPZ SEZ, if appellant furnishes LUT.
As regards any other services supplied by the DTA to the SEZ unit or developer, it is stated that the aforesaid principle will also be applicable in such cases. That is all the supply of services procured by SEZ unit from the suppliers located in DTA for carrying out the authorised operation in SEZ will not attract any GST in accordance with the provision of section 16(1) of the IGST Act, 2017, and the Appellant will not be required to pay any GST under RCM on the services received from DTA supplier for carrying out the authorized operation in SEZ, subject to LUT.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1028 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking return of money recovered / taken away during search - It is contended by the petitioner that the concerned officers could have no reason to believe that any goods liable for confiscation were lying in the premises of the petitioners - whether cash can be seized by the officers under Section 67(2) of the GST Act? - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, a plain reading of Section 67(2) of the GST Act indicates that the seizure is limited to goods liable for confiscation or any documents, books or things, which may be “useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act”. Clearly, cash does not fall within the definition of goods. And, prima facie, it is difficult to accept that cash could be termed as a ‘thing’ useful or relevant for proceedings under the GST Act. The second proviso to Section 67(2) of the GST Act also provides that the books or things so seized would be retained by the officer only so long as may be necessary “for their examination and for any inquiry or proceedings under the Act.”
Clearly, the petitioners had not handed over the cash to the concerned officers voluntarily. Undisputedly, the action taken by the officers was a coercive action. There are no provision in the GST Act that could support an action of forcibly taking over possession of currency from the premises of any person, without effecting the same. The powers of search and seizure are draconian powers and must be exercised strictly in terms of the statute and only if the necessary conditions are satisfied - In the present case, the GST officers have dispossessed the petitioners of the currency found in their premises during search operations conducted under Section 67(2) of the GST Act but have not seized the currency under the said provision. Plainly, their action in doing so is without authority of law.
Insofar as the action of the officers of dispossessing the petitioners of their currency is concerned; it is clear that the said action of taking away currency was illegal and without any authority of law. The amount of ₹18,87,000/- has already been returned to petitioner no.1. The respondents are directed to forthwith return the balance amount along with the interest accrued thereon to the petitioners. The bank guarantee furnished by petitioner no.1 for release of currency is directed to be released forthwith.
List on 20.02.2023.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1027 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Validity of impugned order passed without granting personal hearing - breach of principles of natural justice (audi alterem partem) - non-application of mind - HELD THAT:- From perusal of the impugned order dated 23/09/2022, it can be seen that it is one of those blatant cases of breach of principles of natural justice and total non-application of mind. The only reason assigned in the impugned order is that the reply filed by the petitioner is not acceptable and no tax has been deposited by the petitioner, therefore, the reply is rejected.
Admittedly, as per Section 75(4) of the Act, personal hearing is mandatory before passing any adverse order against the assessee. In the circumstances, there are no reason why to wait for the respondents to file the reply and prolong the agony of the petitioner and also waste precious judicial time. If the Assessing Officer had only considered the file properly and dealt with the reply filed by the petitioner, then the need for the petitioner to approach this Court would not haven arisen.
The order is set aside - petition disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1026 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
E-way Bill - Period of limitation for expiry of E-way Bill - Constitutional validity of rule 138(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 / Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - restriction imposed on validity period of the e- way bill in terms of distance to be travelled in a day - HELD THAT:- The respondent had challenged the authority of the respondent demanding the tax and penalty under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, where the goods, which were to be delivered on or before 17.10.2022, could not be delivered in time and on 19.10.2022 when inspected, some of the e-Way bill numbers had shown expired. The entire truck along with the goods had been seized on account of expiration of the e-Way bill. Therefore, the Court had, after a detailed consideration, held that e-Way bill had expired 41 hours before and the release of goods of conveyance and transit through the authority concerned.
In the instant case also, the goods of the said vehicle has been detained at 6:05 p.m. at Amirgadh on 27.9.2018, after about expiry of 48 years. This case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court which has not been further challenged and even otherwise, from the facts which are robust in nature, it can be gathered that there does not appear to be any ill-intent on the part of the petitioner to use the expired e-Way bill. The company is situated at Howrah, West Bengal and the place of delivery was Jamnagar, Gujarat and in transit, this e-Way bill has expired.
Petition allowed.
........
|
