- 2020 (9) TMI 1141 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Detention of vehicle - E-way bill did not mention correct details - the G.S.T. Tribunal has not been constituted so far by the Central Government for the State of Uttar Pradesh - Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in the facts of the present case the petitioner did accept that the e-way bill with the vehicle did not contain correct description with regard to movement of goods. Another e-way bill (though not available with the vehicle, at the time of detention) has also been produced along with details of job work executed in favour of the petitioner. The tax invoice which has been relied upon for determining the liability of tax admittedly is of the year 2018 and it is not the case of the Department that such amount of tax was not paid at the time when the machine was purchased in the yea....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1107 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Restoration of Registration Certificate of petitioner - Today, Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned senior standing counsel states that petitioner’s registration has been restored retrospectively w.e.f. 06th November, 2018 in accordance with the Appellate Authority’s order dated 15th June, 2020. HELD THAT:- The present writ petition is disposed of as satisfied.
- 2020 (9) TMI 1106 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund of unutilized input tax credit - time limitation - constitutional validity of Circular No.125/44/2019-GST dated 18th November 2019 - vires of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 or not - HELD THAT:- Issue Notice. List on 09th December, 2020 along with W.P.(C) 6486/2020.
- 2020 (9) TMI 1105 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Non-constitution of GST Tribunal - Submission is that issues of facts and law both can be raised before the Tribunal in view of Sections 112 and 113 of the Act - HELD THAT:- The seized goods shall be released to the petitioner upon payment of specified tax along with 100 % penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act. For the remaining amount, the petitioner shall furnish security other than cash and bank guarantee. Such payment shall remain subject to the final determination to be made in this matter. Learned State counsel shall also apprise the Court as to by what date the GST Tribunal would be constituted - List in the regular cause list after its publication resumes.
- 2020 (9) TMI 1060 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Territorial Jurisdiction - transfer of the case - It is the prayer of the petitioners that the investigation with respect to them may be carried out by an officer at Kollam especially due to the COVID situation as also due to the voluminous documents which would have to be transported to Ernakulam - HELD THAT:- The officer at Ernakulam has been authorised to look into the matter specifically on the grounds stated in the statement. We do not think that the location of the lawyer can at all be a reason for the department to carry out proceedings in a particular place. There are no reason to interfere with the refusal of the Single Judge, to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226. For production of books of accounts a month's time shall be granted from today which can also be in the digital mode. As far as the supply of copies of docume....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1059 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Learned counsel for the State states that there were prior proceedings which led to the issuance of impugned demand notice dated 29.06.2020 (Annexure-P/2) - If that be so, we are not inclined to examine the statement made by the petitioner, factual in nature. The petitioner has equally efficacious remedy in law under the CGST Act. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (9) TMI 1058 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Release of confiscated goods alongwith Truck - detention on the ground that the goods were found without E-way bill - petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the tax and penalty and has also ready and willing to give bank guarantee for the amount for total value of confiscated conveyance as mentioned in Form GST MOV-10 - HELD THAT:- In the facts of this case, we direct the petitioner to deposit an amount of ₹ 39,512/- in cash towards tax and penalty and balance amount of ₹ 3,95,098/- shall be by way of bank guarantee of any nationalized bank. On deposit of amount of tax and penalty and furnishing of the bank guarantee of the balance amount, the respondent authority shall immediately release the goods as well as truck conveyance. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (9) TMI 1057 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Territorial Jurisdiction - Detention of goods during stock transfer - recovery of GST and penalty - It is contended that the deviation pointed by the 3rd respondent in the detention order is unsustainable because the GST registration of the petitioner in the State of Telangana itself shows its principal place of business at Hayathnagar and additional place at Bongulur village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal and therefore the 3rd respondent acted illegally in recovering tax and penalty from the petitioner by detaining the goods - HELD THAT:- Once it is clear that petitioner has additional place of business in the State of Telangana in Bongulur village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal and the goods were being transported to that address from its Corporate office at Ranipet, Tamil Nadu State, it cannot be said that the petitioner was indulging in any illegal act....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1056 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of communications issued by the Additional Assistant Director DGGI /R1 dated 15.07.2020 & 18.07.2020 - HELD THAT:- The impugned communication only solicits certain particulars from the petitioner and any further action in continuance thereof will be taken in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. This is recorded. There is thus no basis for the apprehension expressed by the petitioner to the effect that demands would be raised on the basis of the impugned communication itself. Petition dismissed.
- 2020 (9) TMI 1027 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Input Tax Credit - mismatch in the Input Tax Credit claimed in GSTR-3B and that appearing in GSTR-2A during the period April, 2018 - March, 2019 - It is the petitioner’s case that the conditions mentioned in Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017 are not satisfied in the present case - HELD THAT:- The present writ petition is directed to be treated as a representation to respondent no.1, who is directed to decide the same by way of a reasoned order within four weeks, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and/or its authorized representative. The present writ petition and application stand disposed of.
- 2020 (9) TMI 1026 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - requirement of pre-deposit - he petitioner is ready and willing to deposit an additional 20% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute in compliance of the requirements under Section 112 (8) of the Act - HELD THAT:- The petitioner shall deposit 20% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute in accordance with Section 112 (8) of the Act within three weeks from today and in which event, the recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall remain stayed till disposal of the instant petition. List for hearing in the second week of February, 2020 before the appropriate Court.
- 2020 (9) TMI 985 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Search and Seizure - the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent which is without any legal basis - HELD THAT:- This order is in continuation of order dated 14.08.2020. No coercive steps be taken against the petitioners till the next date of hearing, i.e., 30.09.2020. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners ensure the compliance of order dated 14.08.2020 shall be done within the time frame fixed.
- 2020 (9) TMI 984 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - there exists valid tax invoice and e-way bill - Contention is that merely because certain loose invoices were also found, the liability cannot be converted into one under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act - HELD THAT:- Matter requires consideration. In the event, petitioner deposits the disputed amount of tax and penalty in terms of Section 129(1)(a) and also furnishes security in respect of the remaining amount found due and payable under the order of Appellate Authority, the detained goods shall be released to the petitioner subject to final outcome of this petition.
- 2020 (9) TMI 983 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Allegation of Bribery - Excise and Taxation (GST) officer - evasion of GST - The evasion of tax is by connivance of transporters, officers/officials of Excise and Taxation Department and the passers - It is alleged that the tax was being evaded by ensuring that there was no checking or verification of the documents or goods, while being transported to & from State of Punjab - HELD THAT:- The nature of allegation in present case of evasion of GST requires a deeper probe. There are far reaching ramifications which may vary from allowing of input credit/ MODVAT of tax not paid to the Government to an eventuality that the credit of tax paid on some other product is used for something else. Not only this, someone later in chain in spite of being a bona fide purchaser not aware of the earlier misdeed in the chai....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 982 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Profiteering - service of notice - grievance of the petitioner is that the notice dated 7th February, 2020 issued by the respondent No.2 DG to the petitioner is not in compliance with Rule 129(3)(a) & (b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice though has sought to contend by reading of Rule 129(2) that the proceedings still are at the stage thereof and the stage of issuance of notice under Rule 129(3) has not reached but prima facie it does not appear to be correct inasmuch as Rule 129(1) as well as Rule 129(2) use the word 'investigation' and Rule 129(3) provides that, before initiation of investigation, notice containing the aforesaid particulars will be issued. It thus appears that before the investigation under Rule 129(2) is initiated, no....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 981 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Levy of CGST and IGST - Duty Free Shops (DFS) at Airport - Refund of the Input Tax Credit - supply of goods and services effected by the petitioner in the arrival and departure Duty Free Shops (DFS) at Calicut International Airport in terms of the Concession Agreement - applicability of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the Kerala State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the rules thereunder - levy of CGST and IGST on the revenue sharing in terms of the Concession Agreement dated 22.04.2016. HELD THAT:- The question posed qua entitlement of refund of taxes in respect of goods and services provided at international airport would be applicable to outgoing international tourist i.e. departure area in view of the Circular dated 29.06.2020 as has been argued by the Revenue, would also ....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 980 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy is available for the petitioner against the impugned orders - appealable order or not - HELD THAT:- he present writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall file an appeal against the impugned assessment orders under Annexures-2, 3 and 4 within a period of 15 days from today before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. In the event the appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Simultaneously, if the petitioner files an application before the competent authority within the period as stated above for revocation of cancellation of registration as per the procedure prescribed under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the competent authority shall decide the same on merits. The writ petition stands disposed of.
- 2020 (9) TMI 979 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Revocation of cancellation of registration - filing of return with part payment of tax or with outstanding tax liability - manual filing of GSTR 3B till August 2020 and from September 2020 onwards electronically - permission of payment of GST liabilities in accordance with the undertaking attached - HELD THAT:- It appears from the materials on record that the GST registration of the writ applicant has been cancelled for failure to file appropriate returns. We take notice of the fact that entire issue has been brought to the notice of the Commissioner of SGST by way of representation dated 26th August 2020 addressed to the Commissioner, SGST, Ahmedabad. In the said representation, the request is two-fold; first to revoke the cancellation of registration as according to the writ applicant, it is causing unnecessary hardship in the current s....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 978 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Refund of unutilized ITC - inverted duty structure - Circular No.59/33/2018-GST dated 04.09.2018 (Annexure-4) issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs - HELD THAT:- Since an efficacious statutory remedy is available to the petitioner to assail the legality and validity of the order passed under Annexure-5, this Court should be slow in entertaining the writ petition at this stage. The petitioner has also not made out any ground for interference with the order under Annexure-5 in a writ petition which he cannot raise before the Appellate Authority. The grounds raised by the petitioner can be considered by the Appellate Authority in exercise of power under Section 107 of the Act. This Court without interfering with the impugned order under Annexure-5, dispose....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 931 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit - accumulation on account of being subjected to an inverted duty structure - constitutional validity of Section 54(3)(ii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - constitutional validity of amended Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - ultra vires of Section 54 of the CGST Act and the Constitution of India - Whether it is necessary to read the word “inputs” in Section 54(3)(ii) as encompassing both goods and services so as to ensure that the said provision is not struck down? - Whether the words input services may be read into Section 54(3)(ii) as an exception to the general rule of casus omissus? - Whether the proviso to Section 54(3) qualifies and curtails the scope of the principal clause to the limited extent of specifying the two cases in which regist....... + More