|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 167 Records
-
2023 (1) TMI 1025 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund along with interest - It is the petitioner’s case that the refund due to it has not been processed by the respondents as its GSTN registration has been incorrectly reflected as suspended - HELD THAT:- It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the form GSTR-2A is not in the correct format. Concededly, the counter affidavit does not indicate any specific deficiency in the form as uploaded by the petitioner. Admittedly, form GSTR 2A is a system generated form. It is stated that certain columns in the form GSTR 2A are blank and therefore, the application for refund has not been processed. According to the petitioner, the form GSTR 2A, as visible at its end, reflects all relevant particulars. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the scanned copy of the said form (GSTR-2A.pdf) was uploaded along with the application.
The respondents are directed to examine whether the form GSTR 2A, as visible at the petitioner’s end, reflects all relevant details. If it does, it would be apparent that there is a technical error is in the respondents’ system.
List for compliance on 15.02.2023.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1024 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Unblocking of Input Tax Credit - seeking directions regarding refund claim - HELD THAT:- We have already discussed the implications of the order dated 13 September 2022 which has already been acted upon and there was no challenge to the said order, though the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1-State has sought to contend that State has not been given opportunity to contest the case, the Respondent-State has permitted to utilize the account. It is not possible for us to reverse the effect of the order dated 13 September 2022 as it has already been given effect to by the Respondents without challenging the said order.
Though Petitioner states that amount more than what was prayed was allowed to be utilized, we do not find anything on record regarding the same nor the prayer is amended.
Writ petition is disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1023 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Migration of TDS Credit from VAT to GST - Transitional provisions - whether the deduction is a credit of the amount of value added tax which a registered person is entitled to migrate in its electronic credit ledger? - HELD THAT:- The transitional provisions are made to make special provisions for the application of legislation to the circumstances which exist at the time when the legislation comes into force. In the case of UOI. VERSUS FILIP TIAGO DE GAMA OF VEDEM VASCO DE GAMA [1989 (11) TMI 307 - SUPREME COURT], it has been held that transitional provisions are to be purposefully construed and the paramount object in statutory interpretation is to discover what the legislature intended and this intention is primarily to be ascertained from the text of the enactment in question.
It is in the aforesaid background that the provisions of Section 140(1) of the JGST Act are required to be construed. The said provision unambiguously provides for migration of credit i.e. tax paid under the erstwhile tax regime and the words used in Section 140(1) of the JGST Act, namely, ‘credit of amount of value added tax and entry tax’ is to be understood in the context in which it has been used - Admittedly, under the JVAT Act even entry tax was levied vide Section 11 and the said levy of entry tax was available as input tax credit for adjustment against output tax liability. TDS amount was also available for adjustment against output tax liability apart from the input tax credit which was available for adjustment against output tax liability.
Proviso to Section 140(1) of the JGST Act provides that a registered person shall not be allowed to tax credit where the said amount of credit is not admissible as input take credit under the GST Act. It was contended by the Respondents that since TDS was in the nature of output tax, it was not admissible as input tax credit under the GST Act and, hence, cannot be allowed to be migrated.
The Petitioners at the time of filing of their returns were left with no option but to forward the unadjusted TDS amount as excess input tax credit in the succeeding months and were not required or compelled to claim refund of unadjusted TDS amount. Thus, at this stage, the Respondents cannot contend that unadjusted TDS amount cannot be allowed to be migrated in terms of Section 140(1) of the JGST Act. Even otherwise, the stand of the Respondents is self-destructive, as if the Petitioners are not allowed to migrate the unadjusted TDS amount under the GST Regime, they would have become entitled for refund of the same with effect from 1st July, 2017 and would have certainly been entitled to statutory interest @ 9% on the said amount in terms of Section 52/53 of the JVAT Act.
The action of the Respondent-authorities in passing the impugned orders denying migration of TDS amount and, consequently, levying interest and penalty thereupon is not sustainable in the eye of law and are liable to be quashed - It is declared that the Petitioners are entitled for migration of the TDS amount in terms of Section 140(1) of the JGST Act - Petition allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1022 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Unblocking of Input Tax Credit Account - case of petitioner is that the proceedings under Section 73/74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST) was the appropriate remedy and the account should not have been blocked - HELD THAT:- Since the order dated 13 September 2022 directing unblocking of the account was in the nature of final order and that thereafter the Petitioner has unblocked the account, it was put to learned counsel for the State that what is the implication thereof as to the course of action to be taken in the present petition, apart from question of law. Question would also be regarding returns for the next year to be filed. It is pointed out to us that action of blocking under Rule 86A(3) is for period of one year. As regards one of the suppliers, account was blocked on 21 October 2021 and other suppliers it was on 14 March 2022.
Stand over to 20 December 2022 under the caption “For Directions”.
-
2023 (1) TMI 983 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Detention of petitioner's goods - whether there is an error in the E-Way Bill inasmuch as it does not reflect the name of the consignee but merely mentions the petitioner’s GSTIN number, or not? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, there has been no mismatch in the quantity of the goods found in the vehicle and the invoice produced. However, according to the respondents, the goods were not accompanied by an E-Way Bill. Although this is stated in the counter-affidavit, the said fact does not find mention in the order of demand dated 23.10.2020 or the order dated 31.12.2021, passed by the Appellate Authority.
The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is an error in the E-Way Bill inasmuch as it does not reflect the name of the consignee but merely mentions the petitioner’s GSTIN number. She submits that the E-Way Bill is required to be read with the two invoices – one invoice raised by M/s Mahendra Steels addressed to the petitioner and the second raised by the petitioner in the name of S.K. Integrated Consultants. She contends that if these documents are viewed in conjunction with one another, it would be clear that any error in the documents is only a minor error and the petitioner cannot be penalised by imposition of tax on the goods as well as penalty of an equivalent amount.
We are unable to accept that the order of demand and penalty is a consent order and the petitioner was precluded from challenging the same. The goods had been detained and it is not disputed that the same would not have been released unless the tax and penalty was paid. We are persuaded to accept that the petitioner had paid the tax and penalty for release of the goods and the said payment was not voluntary - it is apparent that neither the show cause notice nor the order of demand clearly sets out the reason for imposing the tax liability as well as penalty.
It would be apposite to remand the matter to the concerned GST officer to decide afresh after giving the petitioner full opportunity to address the allegation against him - Order raising a demand of tax and penalty, is set aside - matter is restored to the file of the concerned GST Officer.
-
2023 (1) TMI 982 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Extension of time limit for issuance of the order - extension of time limit for issuance of show cause notice as well - Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act - HELD THAT:- It is clear from a reading of sub-section(2) of Section 73 that, the show cause notice to be issued under sub-section(1) of Section 73 has to be issued at least three months prior to the time limit specified in sub-section(10) for issuance of order. When the time limit for issuance order under sub-section(10) of Section 73 for the financial year 2017-18 has been extended upto 30.09.2023, the only interpretation that can be placed on the provisions of sub-section(2) of Section 73 is that, the show cause notice can also be issued with reference to the date 30.09.2023 and not with reference to any other date. There is absolutely no ambiguity in the provisions requiring this Court to apply any rule of interpretation in favour of the assessee.
The petitioner has not made out any case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it cannot be found that the impugned orders are issued without jurisdiction - petition dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 981 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Violation of principle of natural justice - Cancellation of registration of petitioner - non-reasoned order - appellate authority on the ground of its not having powers to condone the delay has chosen not to decide the matter on merit - HELD THAT:- The matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of AGGARWAL DYEING AND PRINTING WORKS VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 OTHER (S) [2022 (4) TMI 864 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] where it was held that The assignment of reasons is imperative in nature and the speaking order doctrine mandates assigning the reason which is the heart and soul of the decision and said reasons must be the result of independent re-appreciation of evidence adduced and documents produced in the case.
It is further noticed that the issue with regard to the power to condone the delay beyond the statutory time period prescribed under Section 107 is pending before this Court, without opining on that and concluding this issue to be decided at a future date, the show cause notice and the impugned order of the Appellate Authority requires to be quashed and set aside - the show cause notice dated 29.11.2021 and the impugned orders dated 25.03.2022 and 22.09.2022 passed by the respondent-authorities are quashed and set aside.
The GST Registration Number of the applicant stands restored forthwith and decide the matter by following the procedure of law.
-
2023 (1) TMI 980 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Seeking direction upon the respondents to complete the investigation, which has been caused against the appellant - terming the appellant as a risky exporter and a tag being fixed - export consignments of the appellant are either not being allowed to be exported or there is inordinate delay on the alleged ground of verification - HELD THAT:- The risky exporter tag cannot be indefinitely put on valid and precisely for this reason, the Central Board has issued Circular No. 131/1/2020-GST dated 23rd January, 2020 by which strict timelines have been fixed for the authorities to take action. The circular affords an opportunity to such a risky exporter to escalate the matter. If the concerned officer does not take a decision within 14 days, a petition before the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner of Central Tax shall be filed and if such petition is filed, a decision should be taken within 7 working days.
The process of adjudication is quite distinct and different from terming a person a risky exporter, which tag cannot be perpetually affixed to an exporter as it would tantamount to interfering with his right to carry on exports based on suspicion. Therefore, the representation dated 10th March, 2022 should be considered by the sixth respondent within the timeline stipulated by this Court.
The appeal stands disposed of with a direction to the sixth respondent to consider the representation dated 10th March, 2022 after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorised representative of the appellant and an order be passed on merits and in accordance with law and communicate the same to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order.
-
2023 (1) TMI 979 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST number issued to the petitioner - non-speaking order received from the respondent no.2 intimating him that the GST Registration Number is cancelled - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The orders of cancellation of registration which were impugned before the Court were even more glaring which lacked even the basic details. Addressing this issue extensively, the Court had noticed that the respondent authority had failed to extend the sufficient opportunity of hearing before passing the order impugned despite of specific request for adjournment, the order was not only non-speaking but cryptic in nature and the reason for cancellation was not decipherable. On all counts, the respondent authority has failed to adhered to the legal position and therefore held that the basic principles of natural justice is violated and the order needed to be quashed.
The Court also reflects that on inquiry made with the learned AGP appearing for the respondent authority as to why such vague show cause notice and vague final orders bereft of any material particulars were being passed, the reply was that on account of the technical glitches in the portal, the department is finding difficult to upload the show cause notice as well as the final order of cancellation of registration contenting all necessary details and information. The Court did not find this to be a valid ground nor a sustainable explanation for the purpose of issuing show cause notices and passing of the order finally cancelling the registration of the persons concerned therefore, it directed the department that till this technical glitches are corrected, the show cause notices to be issued shall be manual/physical containing all material particulars and information to enable the dealer to effectively respond to the same.
The very officer instead of realizing that this action on the part of the authority is contrary to the directions issued by this Court way back in the month of February, 2022, reiterates that because of some technical glitches of GST portal, the reply of the notice has not been received from the GST portal. Therefore, he declares that he would initiate the fresh cancellation proceedings manually and after it is found satisfactory on receiving the fresh reply, he would restore the GST number of the dealer. The least that was expected of the officer, on realizing that the initial notice on his part was contrary to the directions issued by this Court, was to express apology for repeating this very act and restoring the GST Number, straightway has sought permission of the Court to initiate a fresh action of cancellation. Assuming that this is an initiative out of his bona fide on realizing the mistake, the tenor of the communication does not reflect anywhere remorse of not following the decision. Assuming that it is not in the hands of the officer concerned to make any amendments and changes in the software or on the portal, the least they could have been done is to follow the directions once having realized the same from the averments of the petition.
This writ application is being ALLOWED solely on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.
-
2023 (1) TMI 978 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
Classification of goods - ready to drink Jigarthanda sold in unit container by the appellant - to be classified as Jigarthanda under description of goods or not - taxable or exempt goods - whether to be classified as Milk and Cream covered under HSN 0402 as claimed by the applicant? - HSN of the product and rate of tax on product.
Whether Jigarthanda is goods or not? - HELD THAT:- By analyzing the definition of “goods” defined under Section 2(52) of CGST Act, 2017 which reads as ““goods” means every kind of movable property other than money and securities but includes actionable claim, growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before supply or under a contract of supply. Jigarthanda manufactured by using various ingredients or inputs is in the form of semi-solid form, as stated by the applicant, satisfies the definition of “goods” and accordingly, it is held that “Jigarthanda” is goods.
Classification of Jigarthanda - HELD THAT:- The classification of goods under GST regime has to be done in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which in turn is based on Harmonized System of Nomenclature, popularly known as 'HSN'. The rules of interpretation, section notes and chapter notes as specified under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 are also applicable for classification of Goods under GST regime. However, once an item is classified in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the rate of tax applicable would be arrived at on the basis of notifications issued under GST by the respective Governments.
As per the Oxford Dictionary “beverage” means a type of drink except water. The word 'beverage' though not defined under the CGST Act, 2017, is considered, in common parlance, as a drink that can be consumed directly and the instant product `Jigarthanda” can be consumed as it is and hence is a beverage with a basis of milk. Further, on conjoint reading of Chapter heading 0402 and 2202 and relevant explanatory notes, it is clear that milk flavoured with cocoa or other substances are specifically excluded from Chapter heading 0402 and included under Chapter heading 2202.
Various ingredients prepared and packed separately are sold and invoiced to dealers and outlets as “Jigarthanda” in units of liter and the same are mixed at the retail outlet as a cold beverage before sale to customers / consumers. Therefore, various ingredients cannot be classified as such and treated as mixed supply as claimed by the applicant. The goods has to be classified on the basis and form in which it is bought and sold in the market and not on the basis of packing for transportation and preservation from being decayed - Jigarthanda, which qualify as goods merit classification under HSN 2202 99 30, is neither finding place in Schedule III of the CGST Act, 2017 as non-supply nor exempted under Notification No.2/2017 CTR dated 28.06.2017. Therefore, it is a taxable goods covered under Notification No.1/2017 CTR dated 28.06.2017 vide serial No.50 of Schedule II as “Beverages containing milk” attracting CGST of 6% and attracting SGST of 6% vide serial No.50 of Schedule II of G.O. (Ms.) No. 62 dated 29.06.2077 for intra state supply. It attracts 12% IGST vide serial No.50 of Schedule II of Notification No.1/2017 Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, for interstate supply.
-
2023 (1) TMI 977 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
Classification of goods - dried coconuts (shelled or peeled) used for human consumption - to be classified under Chapter 8, HSN 0801, on which rate of tax is nil or in Chapter Heading 1203 thereby attracting 5% GST? - HELD THAT:- The Applicant has dried all coconuts (copra in trade/common parlance) in their mill yard on black stone under sun. With respect to copra selected for human consumption, soil and dirt are removed manually and other copra are sent to oil mills for extraction of oil. In short, edible copra is physically round, circular cup like finish which is free of dust and dirt and is soft, while other copra which are irregular shape, dusty are sent as milling copra. A dried coconut for human consumption can also be used for milling purpose, therefore the basis of determination of GST rate on the basis of end use is not appropriate in terms of classification of the product.
As the Circular 163/19/2021-GST dated 6th October 2021 clearly clarifies that the whole unbroken kernel could be taken out of shell only when it converts to copra. The Applicant takes the copra cuts into half, sun dries and segregates manually based on the round shape of copra, free of dirt/dust and send it as edible copra and the rest of copra which are irregularly shaped, dusty are sent to oil milling units. But as the Circular clearly states, Copra is classified under heading 1203 irrespective of use - Hence, the impugned goods of the Applicant is only Copra and the same shall be classified under Heading 1203 thereby attracting GST rate of 5% vide entry at SI.No. 66 of Schedule I of 1/2017-Central Taxes (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
-
2023 (1) TMI 976 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
Classification of supply - Composite supply or not - Job-Work or not - activity of tanning, with chemical consumption - treatment or processing undertaken on goods owned by other person - to be chargeable under the item i(e) of the Heading 9988 ie., or Manufacturing Services On Physical Inputs (Goods) owned by Others and if not what would be the applicable tax rate or not? - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, on perusal of the invoices of job work and flowchart of the process submitted by the Applicant, it is clear that hides and skins (Chapter 41) are received from Applicant's customer for the job work of tanning and that certain tanning chemicals are added to assist the tanning process. After various processes, the raw hides and skins (Chapter 41) are converted in to finished leather (Chapter 41) and returned back to the Applicant's customer. The Customer (M/s Century Overseas -who is a registered person-Principal) while transporting the raw hides and skins and receiving the finished product, does not transfer the ownership to the Applicant. This is apparent in the Job Tanning order given by the customer (M/s Century Overseas). The terms and conditions stipulate that Applicant (M/s Zuha Leathers) should return the goods without any damage. Hence, it is clear that the Applicant in the instant case is the job worker, who has to process the raw hide supplied by the Principal and after tanning process (job work) return the same to the Principal.
If the activity of the Applicant is a service by way of treatment or processing undertaken by a person on goods belonging to another registered person, it is rightly classifiable as processing of hides, skins and leather falling under Chapter 41 in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and as per (i)(e) (para 6.7) and applicable CGST rate is 2.5% and applicable SGST rate is 2.5%. However, if the activity of Applicant is undertaken on physical inputs (goods) which are owned by persons other than those registered under the CGST Act, then it falls within entry at item (iv) and applicable CGST rate is 9% and applicable SGST rate is 9%.
-
2023 (1) TMI 975 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
Classification of supply - supply of goods or supply of services - activity of Bus Body Building on the chassis supplied by the customer on job work basis - applicable rate of GST and its SAC/HSN code - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is observed that the bus body is fabricated and mounted by the Applicant on the chassis owned and supplied by the customer. After completing the work, it is delivered back to the customer, charging a lump sum amount as Job Work Charges. The ownership of the chassis remains with their customers and will not be transferred to the Applicant at any point of time. The consideration is received only towards fabrication services besides some materials involved in the course of fabrication.
In the case of IN RE: M/S. TVL ANAMALLAIS ENGINEERING (P) LTD. [2021 (8) TMI 732 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU], it was held that the activity of Bus body building undertaken on the chassis supplied by the customers amounts to supply of service as per Schedule II clause 3 of CGST Act 2017. The service rendered was classified under SAC 998881 and the applicable rate will be CGST @ 9% and SGST @ 9% as per entry no.26 of Notification No.11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dt.28.06.2017(as amended) and Sl.No,26 of Notification No.11(2)/ CTR/532(d- 14)/2017 vide G.O.(Ms)No.72 dated 29.06.2017 (as amended) respectively. - The facts and circumstances of the instant case are similar and there are no reason to deviate from the decision taken in the order.
The Bus body building on the chassis supplied by the customer is a service under SAC 998881, Motor Vehicle and trailer manufacturing services and 18% GST as applicable will be charged accordingly - it is evident that the activity undertaken by the Applicant for bus body building on the chassis supplied by the customer is to be classified as job work. As per Schedule II (3) of the CGST Act 2017, the said activity bus body building on the chassis belonging to the customer by the applicant is supply of services.
-
2023 (1) TMI 916 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Service of SCN - SCN served on portal and no hard copy served - Validity of ex-parte order passed without following principles of Natural Justice - HELD THAT:- It is not disputed that the personal hearing had not been granted in the instant case. It is an ex-parte order in Form GST DRC-07 passed on 14.04.2022 by making the addition of huge amount of tax, interest and penalty of Rs. 2.40 crores (rounded off).
The decision of this Court in case of GRAZIANO TRASMISSIONI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT [2022 (7) TMI 752 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and other decisions will need to come to the rescue of the petitioner which insist on providing the opportunity of personal hearing when any adverse decision is contemplated, even without any request for personal hearing on the part of the party concerned.
The impugned order of assessment with all consequential proceedings are set aside - petition allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 915 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Attachment of debtors and immovable property of the petitioner - whether the provisional attachment order of the property of the petitioner passed under Sections 79 and 83 of the Act, was liable to continue after filing of the statutory appeals in terms of Section 107 of the Act? - HELD THAT:- As per above Chart given by the petitioner in its rejoinder, so far as the assessment year, 2017-18 is concerned, the entire amount demanded by the respondent-Department has already been deposited/recovered. However, there is some deficiency with regard to the assessment year, 2018-19. So far as the assessment years, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 are concerned, petitioner has preferred appeals under Section 107 of the Act and it is the case of the petitioner that the requisite amount as per Section 107(6) of the Act has already been deposited with the Department. The said submission made by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner so far as the appeal preferred by the petitioner with regard to the assessment years, 2019-20 and 2020-21 is concerned, is duly corroborated by the order passed by the appellate authority (Annexure P-6).
In the present case, it is the case of the petitioner that for three assessment years, i.e., 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, petitioner has preferred appeals and has deposited the requisite amount as per Section 107(6) of the Act. Under these circumstances, the recovery proceedings qua the balance amount are deemed to be stayed. Hence, the appellate authority by passing order (Annexure P-6) by only directing to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner is against the provisions of Section 107(7) of the Act. In fact, the attachment order of the debtors as well as immovable property of the petitioner was also liable to be re-called.
This petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner clears the entire amount due so far as the assessment years, 2017-18 and 2018-19 are concerned, within ten days from today and in case the petitioner has also made the pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the Act, vis-à-vis, assessment year, 2021-22, then the attachment order of the immovable property of the petitioner as well as attachment of the debtors shall be revoked forthwith by the respondents.
-
2023 (1) TMI 903 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Seeking permission to the petitioner to submit Form GST ITC-01 after due date as there was error in the portal on the due date - HELD THAT:- Petitioner was bonafide and prompt in making complaint to the GSTN on failing to submit form GST ITC-01 just after the prescribed date i.e. 12.08.2018. In that event, as per the petitioner, he loses ITC to the tune of Rs. 5.00 lakh if such switch over is not permitted.
Proviso to Rule 40(1)(b) of JGST Rules, 2017, brought into force with effect from 01.07.2017 vide Notification dated 18.08.2017 bearing S.O. No. 64, issued by the Commercial Taxes Department, does confer the power upon the Commissioner of State Tax to extend the time limit - Respondents have interpreted the proviso as being a power conferred upon the Commissioner, State Tax for extension of time in a class of cases in general and not confined to the individual taxpayer, though no such restriction is apparently made out in the enabling provisions.
The petitioner should approach the Commissioner, State Taxes with a request for extension of time limit for submission of Form GST ITC-01, which may be considered in accordance with law - Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 902 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Conditions of delay in filing appeal before the first Appellate Authority - Appeal belated by two years and one month - person concerned looking after the affairs of the company, had passed away - Cancellation of registration of petitioner company - HELD THAT:- There has been no calculation of the tax even after filing of SCN. This when came to the notice of the petitioner, the time had already lapsed for filing the appeal and as per section 107, since 30 days had already lapsed, the petitioner company could not upload the application on the common portal seeking revocation application in Form GST REG 21 and, manually, it was not permissible. The order of appellate authority has come, which says that the authority, if is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the period of three months or six months as the case may be, it can further allow the period of one month to be condoned. However, the appeal was belated by two years and one month and, hence, it is not empowered to condone the delay, even when there is justifiable cause as in the instant case as the person concerned looking after the affairs of the company, had passed away, nobody else was deputed and the email had gone into spam folder.
It is to be noted that the decision of AGGARWAL DYEING AND PRINTING WORKS VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 OTHER (S) [2022 (4) TMI 864 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] rendered by this Court is subsequent to the filing of issuance of show cause notice as also the order of cancellation of registration. Therefore, what needs to be done is to quash and set aside the impugned order of the authority concerned for it to issue the show cause notice with requisite details and after following due procedure of law, it shall determine the same. The order of the appellate authority is also quashed.
The cancellation of registration is revoked. The show cause notice dated 24.05.2019 issued under Rule 22 of the Rules is also quashed and set aside - petition allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 881 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Permission to rectify the GST Return filed for the period September, 2017 and March 2018 in Form-B2B instead of B2C as was wrongly filed under GSTR-1 in order to get the Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit - HELD THAT:- The fact remains that by permitting the Petitioner to rectify the above error, there will be no loss whatsoever caused to the Opposite Parties. It is not as if that there will be any escapement of tax. This is only about the ITC benefit which in any event has to be given to the Petitioner. On the contrary, if it is not permitted, then the Petitioner will unnecessarily be prejudiced.
In similar circumstances, the Madras High Court in M/S. SUN DYE CHEM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX [2020 (11) TMI 108 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] accepted the plea of the Petitioner and directed that the Petitioner in that case should be permitted to file the corrected form.
The letters of rejection dated 19th June and 23rd September, 2020 are hereby set aside - The Court permits the Petitioner to resubmit the corrected Form-B2B under GSTR-1 for the aforementioned periods September, 2017 and March, 2018 and to enable the Petitioner to do so a direction is issued to the Opposite Parties to receive it manually.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 880 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration certificate of petitioner - cancellation on the ground that the petitioner did not remain present even though, admittedly, the petitioner submitted the reply and no opportunity of hearing was given - HELD THAT:- It is quite apparent from the material, which is placed on the record that the cancellation of registration certificate is contrary to law. It is a non-speaking order, which cancelled the registration on the ground that he did not remain present even though he did submit the reply. Thus, cancellation of registration without assigning any reason is wholly mechanical and stereotyped. He has explained that it is already on record that he has shifted to another premises from 01.01.2022. The day the premises was visited, he was not intimated and assuming that it may not be necessary, the fact remains that he has explained and when he appeared before the respondent authority along with the documents so far as the financial transactions are concerned.
It needs to be pointed out that the petitioner concerned had shifted to another premises and, hence, he simply cannot be found at the old address. In absence of any intimating during the spot visit, if it was difficult for him to remain present because of the shift in the office, the cancellation of registration with the retrospective date is fully impermissible.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 879 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Rejection of refund claim - Period of limitation - ground raised by the authorities in not sanctioning the refund was that the refund applications were belatedly filed under section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- When the petitions come up for consideration, learned advocates for the parties are ad idem that in view of the Notification dated 5.7.2022 bearing No. 13/2022 issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers under section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which excludes the time limit specified for computing of period of limitation in filling the refund application, the claim of the petitioners for refund was filed within such excluded period.
The competent authority of the respondents is directed to process in accordance with law the claim of refund of the petitioners treating it within time and grant refund with statutory interest, if the petitioners are found eligible.
Petition disposed off.
........
|
