|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 156 Records
-
2021 (3) TMI 638 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Vires of Rule 44A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - It is the case of the petitioners that the said Rule is ultra vires the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- List the captioned mattes on 30.04.2021, albeit, at the end of supplementary board.
-
2021 (3) TMI 610 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the appeal was filed with a delay of 14 months and 3 days. The delay was sought to be explained on account of illness of the petitioner. Perusal of Section 107(2) read with Section 107(4) of the Act reveals that against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax Mobile Squad, Etah dated 29.12.2018, the appeal could have been filed within three months from the date of communication. The delay, if any, in filing such appeal could be condoned under Section 107(4) of the Act which provides that the delay not exceeding one month beyond the period of three months may be condoned by the assessing authority on being satisfied.
In the instant case, against the order dated 29.12.2018, the petitioner had filed the appeal on 02.03.2020. Thus, the appeal was filed well beyond the period of 14 months and 3 days.
The admitted delay of 14 months and 3 days could not have been condoned. Consequently, the appellate authority has committed no error in rejecting the appeal as time barred - Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 601 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Levy of service tax / GST on royalty - scope of the term "taxable service" - royalty in quarrying stones - minerals 'removed or consumed' by the holder of a mining lease from the leased area, at the rate specified - also seeking declaration that Notification No. 22/2016-ST dated 13.04.2016 and its clarification is ultra-vires the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- The legal issues concerning the leviability of the tax can be answered after considering the response of the respondent CGST and the State. The challenge in these writ petitions are in two parts. One relating to levy of service tax on royalty till the coming of the GST regime. The other writ petitions relate to challenge to both service tax and GST upon royalty in case of the respective petitioners or JGST in three writ petitions referred to earlier. Finance Act, 1994 brought into force the concept of service tax. The GST Act was introduced from 01.07.2017. Both are separate enactments with detailed provisions relating to charging section and the measure of tax and machinery.
It appears that in similar challenges made to the levy of service tax on royalty paid on minerals, the matter went up to the Apex Court in the case of Udaipur Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Others [2018 (8) TMI 287 - SC ORDER], arising out of a judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur [2017 (10) TMI 975 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT]- It was held by Apex Court that Until further orders payment of service tax for grant of mining lease/royalty by the petitioners shall remain stayed.
Other High Courts have passed more or less similar interim orders relating to payment of service tax on royalty as noticed hereinabove. The High Court of Bombay at Goa in GOA MINING ASSOCIATION & ANR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2017 (8) TMI 1632 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has stayed the imposition of service tax on royalty, but at the same time clarified that it would not come in the way of the revenue for conducting and completing its assessment and enquiry.
While the revenue is not restrained from conducting and completing the assessment proceedings, until further orders recovery of service tax for grant of mining lease/royalty from the petitioners shall remain stayed. However, we are not satisfied at this stage that any case for granting interim protection is made out so far as the levy of CGST and/or JGST is concerned - Let these matters appear in the week of 26th April, 2021.
-
2021 (3) TMI 578 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
Maintainability of application - application has not been filed in the prescribed format required as per the provisions of Section 97(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- On a combined reading of the provisions of the Section 97 and Rule 104 of both the aforementioned Acts and Rules, we find that the application for obtaining an Advance Ruling under sub-section(1) of Section 97 is to be submitted in FORM-GST ARA-01 and shall be accompanied by a fee of Ten thousand rupees (Five thousand rupees as per Rule 104 of the CGST Rules, 2017 + Five thousand rupees as per Rule 104 of the GGST Rules, 2017).
The applicant has neither filed the application in the prescribed format of GST-ARA-01 nor paid the required fees of ₹ 10,000/- as required as per the provisions of aforementioned Sections and Rules. Therefore, the instant application is liable for rejection under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 for not filing the application in proper FORM GST-ARA-01 and not paying the total fees of ₹ 10,000/- i.e ₹ 5,000/- under each head CGST & GGST as required under the provisions of CGST Act and Rules and respective GGST Act & Rules.
Instant application filed by M/s. Wiptech Peripheral pvt.ltd., 101, Dwarkadish, Virani Chowk, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360002 is hereby rejected under Section 98(2) of the CGST/GGST Act, 2017 being non-maintainable.
-
2021 (3) TMI 577 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
Maintainability of Advance ruling application - application not filed in proper format - Levy of GST - Supply of services or not - amount collected as membership subscription and admission fees from members - levy of GST on transactions between the Applicant and its members, on account of Principles of mutuality - classification of goods - rate of tax - input tax credit on on Catering services for holding members meetings and various events - HELD THAT:- On a combined reading of the provisions of the Section 97 and Rule 104 of both the aforementioned Acts and Rules, we find that the application for obtaining an Advance Ruling under sub-section (1) of Section 97 is to be submitted in FORM-GST ARA-01 and shall be accompanied by a fee of Ten thousand rupees (Five thousand rupees as per Rule 104 of the CGST Rules, 2017 + Five thousand rupees as per Rule 104 of the GGST Rules, 2017).
Although the applicant has filed the application in the prescribed format of GST-ARA-01, they have not paid the required fees of ₹ 10,000/- as required under the provisions of aforementioned Sections and Rules. Therefore, the instant application is liable for rejection under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 for not paying the total fees of ₹ 10,000/- i.e. ₹ 5,000/- under each head CGST & GGST as required under the provisions of CGST Act and Rules and respective GGST Act & Rules.
Instant application filed by M/s. The maharaja Pratapsinh Coronation Gymkhana (Trade Name : Polo Club), Vadodara is hereby rejected under Section 98(2) of the CGST/GGST Act, 2017 being non-maintainable.
-
2021 (3) TMI 576 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
Scope of Advance Ruling application - functions entrusted to a municipality under article 243W of the Constitution - pure services or not - Exemption under Entry No. 3 of the Notification No. 12 / 2017 – CT - HELD THAT:- The Advance Ruling sought by the applicant is the determination of the liability to pay tax on services. After examining the kind of activities and services the applicant is engaged in, it is made clear that the applicant do not make any of the supplies in question, but is in fact the recipient of the various supplies made to him by the contractors as stated in his application. Thus the questions raised are on the liability to pay tax on the services supplied to them and not on the supplies made by them.
As per section Section 95(a) of CGST and GGST Act, it is evident that an applicant can seek an advance ruling in relation to supply of goods or services or both undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. Further, as per Section 103(1) of the CGST Act such an Advance Ruling is binding only on the applicant and on the Officer Concerned or the jurisdictional Officer in respect of the applicant.
In the present case the applicant is recipient of the services and not supplier of such services. Accordingly, the application is not liable for admission and therefore rejected.
-
2021 (3) TMI 575 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - application not filed in proper format - Double Taxation relief - freight portion of imported goods - Goods imported and IGST levied on CIF Value (which includes freight) Plus Basic Custom duty plus Social Welfare Cess - IGST levied again on the freight component (Ocean Freight) on reverse charge basis.
HELD THAT:- On a combined reading of the provisions of the aforementioned Section 97 and Rule 104 of both the aforementioned Acts and Rules, we find that the application for obtaining an Advance Ruling under sub-section(1) of Section 97 is to be submitted in FORM-GST ARA-01 and shall be accompanied by a fee of Ten thousand rupees (Five thousand rupees as per Rule 104 of the CGST Rules, 2017 + Five thousand rupees as per Rule 104 of the GGST Rules, 2017).
The applicant has not paid the fees of ₹ 10,000/- under the proper head i.e. ‘CGST’ and ‘GGST’ as required under the provisions of aforementioned Sections and Rules where as paid fees of ₹ 10,000/- under “IGST” head. Therefore, the instant application is liable for rejection under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 for not paying the total fees of ₹ 10000/- i.e. under each head CGST & GGST as required under the provisions of CGST Act and Rules and respective GGST Act & Rules.
Instant application filed by M/s. Khaitan Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., Bharuch is hereby rejected under Section 98(2) of the CGST/GGST Act, 2017 being non-maintainable.
-
2021 (3) TMI 574 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - application not filed in proper format - Service of construction and development of state highway roads provided by GSRDC - activity in relation to function entrusted to Panchayat or Municipality under Article 243G or Article 243W respectively of the Constitution of India - Government Entity’ or ‘Governmental Authority’ - HELD THAT:- On a combined reading of the provisions of Section 97 and Rule 104 of both the aforementioned Acts and Rules, we find that the application for obtaining an Advance Ruling under sub-section(1) of Section 97 is to be submitted in FORM-GST ARA-01 and shall be accompanied by a fee of Ten thousand rupees (Five thousand rupees as per Rule 104 of the CGST Rules, 2017 + Five thousand rupees as per Rule 104 of the GGST Rules, 2017).
Although the applicant has paid the required fees of ₹ 10,000/- as required, they have not filed the application in the prescribed format of GST-ARA-01 required as per the provisions of aforementioned Sections and Rules. Therefore, the instant application is liable for rejection under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 for not filing the application in proper FORM GST-ARA-1 as required under the provisions of CGST Act and Rules and respective GGST Act & Rules.
Instant application filed by M/s. Gujarat State Road Development Corporation ltd., Ground floor, Nirman Bhavan, Sector-10A, Gandhinagar-382010 is hereby rejected under Section 98(2) of the CGST/GGST Act, 2017 being non-maintainable.
-
2021 (3) TMI 573 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - requirement of deposit fees along with the application - Classification of goods - Zipper Roll - Zipper Roll with slider - Zip Fasteners, Zipper etc. - whether it is Slide fastener or parts of Slide fastener? - HELD THAT:- On a combined reading of the provisions of the aforementioned Section 97 and Rule 104 of both the aforementioned Acts and Rules, we find that the application for obtaining an Advance Ruling under sub-section(1) of Section 97 is to be submitted in FORM-GST ARA-01 and shall be accompanied by a fee of Ten thousand rupees (Five thousand rupees as per Rule 104 of the CGST Rules, 2017 + Five thousand rupees as per Rule 104 of the GGST Rules, 2017).
Although the applicant has filed the application in the prescribed format of GST-ARA-01, they have not paid the required fees of ₹ 10,000/- as required as per the provisions of aforementioned Sections and Rules. Therefore, the instant application is liable for rejection under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 for not paying the total fees of ₹ 10,000/- i.e ₹ 5,000/- under each head CGST & GGST as required under the provisions of CGST Act and Rules and respective GGST Act & Rules.
Instant application filed by M/s. Ashokkumar Khimjibhai Patel, Shop No.7 Ajanta Diamond Society, Ground Floor, A.K.road, Varachcha road, Surat is hereby rejected under Section 98(2) of the CGST/GGST Act, 2017 being non-maintainable.
-
2021 (3) TMI 572 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - scope of Advance Ruling - purchase of E-scrap under RCM - tax at 5% being trader - HELD THAT:- Although the applicant has filed the application in the prescribed format of GST-ARA-01, they have not paid the fees of ₹ 10,000/- as required under the provisions of aforementioned Sections and Rules. Therefore, the instant application is liable for rejection under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 for not paying the total fees of ₹ 10,000/- i.e. ₹ 5,000/- under each head CGST & GGST as required under the provisions of CGST Act and Rules and respective GGST Act & Rules.
Since the applicant has failed to comply even with the statutory requirements of the provisions of the relevant sections and rules of the CGST Act, 2017/GGST Act, 2017 as well as the CGST Rules, 2017/GGST Rules, 2017 with regard to filing the application of Advance Ruling before the Advance Ruling Authority, thus rendering it an invalid application for Advance Ruling under Section 97(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Instant application filed by M/s. Abdulwahid Shamsudin Malik (Legal Name), IQRA Traders (Trade Name), Ahmedabad is hereby rejected under Section 98(2) of the CGST/GGST Act, 2017 being non-maintainable.
-
2021 (3) TMI 567 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
Maintainability of Advance Ruling - application not submitted in proper format - Classification of goods - Water pump - to be classified under HSN 8413 or HSN 8421? - HELD THAT:- On going through the provisions of Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 104 of the CGST Rules, 2017, it is found that the application for obtaining an Advance Ruling under sub-section(1) of Section 97 is to be submitted in FORM-GST ARA-01 (which is the prescribed format for the said application) and shall be accompanied by a fee of Five thousand rupees which is to be deposited in the manner specified in Section 49 of the CGST Act, 2017. Similarly, as per Section 97 of the GGST Act, 2017 and Rule 104 of the GGST Rules, 2017, the application for obtaining an Advance Ruling under sub-section(1) of Section 97 is to be submitted in FORM-GST ARA-01 and shall be accompanied by a fee of Five thousand rupees which is to be deposited in the manner specified in Section 49 of the GGST Act, 2017.
The applicant has neither filed the application in the prescribed format of GST-ARA-01 nor paid the required fees of ₹ 10,000/- as required as per the provisions of aforementioned Sections and Rules. Therefore, the instant application is liable for rejection under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 for not filing the application in proper FORM GST-ARA-01 and not paying the total fees of ₹ 10,000/- i.e ₹ 5,000/- under each head CGST & GGST as required under the provisions of CGST Act and Rules and respective GGST Act & Rules.
Application is rejected under Section 98(2) of the CGST/GGST Act, 2017 being non-maintainable.
-
2021 (3) TMI 548 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
Classification of goods - Geo Membrane for Water Proof Lining Fabrics - goods manufactured and supplied by the applicant (also referred to as Pond Liner) which is used for Water Proof Lining of Ponds, Canals and other Water storage places - liability of GST - HELD THAT:- The HDPE fabrics manufactured by the applicant are made by weaving the HDPE tapes into a fabric. These HDPE tapes are manufactured from HDPE Granules which are mixed with additives and then extruded through sheet die to produce solid sheet which is further uniformly slitted into number of tapes. We find that the HDPE granules i.e. High Density Polyethelene(HDPE) granules or High Density Polyethelene (HDPE) tapes are actually nothing but plastics and are covered under Chapter 39 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975). Further, Chapters 50 to 63 of the said schedule covers Textile and Textile articles only. So for the products manufactured by the applicant, to be included under the sub-headings 5903 or 5911, they need to be textile material.
The product of the applicant namely “Geo Membrane for Waterproof Lining fabrics (also referred to as Pond Liner) is classifiable under Sub-heading No.39269099 of Chapter 39 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975(51 of 1975) since we do not find the specific mention of this product in any of the other sub-headings of Heading 3926.
Classification of the product namely “Geo Membrane for Waterproof Lining fabrics(also referred to as Pond Liner) manufactured and supplied by the applicant was covered under Entry No.45 of Schedule-IV of Notification No.01/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (upto 14.11.2017) which read as “Other articles of plastics and articles of other materials of headings 3901 to 3914 [other than bangles of plastic, PVC Belt Conveyor, plastic beads and plastic tarpaulins] and during this period, the said product was liable to GST at 28%. However, Entry No.45 of Schedule-IV was omitted with effect from 15.11.2017 and Entry No.111 of Schedule-III of Notification No.01/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 which read earlier as “PVC Belt Conveyor, Plastic Tarpaulin” was amended with effect from 15.11.2017 to read as “Other articles of plastics and articles of other materials of headings 3901 to 3914 [other than bangles of plastic, plastic beads and feeding bottles]”. Hence, it is concluded that the aforementioned product of the applicant would be covered under the Entry No.111 of Schedule-III of Notification No.01/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017(as amended) with effect from 15.11.2017 liable to GST at 18%.
-
2021 (3) TMI 547 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
Levy of CGST/SGST - composite supply of health care treatment or not - supply of medicines, surgical items, implants, consumables and other allied services & items provided by the hospital through their hospital in-house pharmacy, as well as food, room on rent, other services to the in-patients - supply of Occupational Health Check-up service (OHC) by the hospital i.e. nursing staff, Doctors, Paramedical staff on hospital’s payroll working in different corporate for providing health check-up service, ambulance facility, and allied medical services to their employees and also the camps conducted for health check-up outside the hospitals - Health care services or not.
Whether the supply of medicines, surgical items, implants, consumables and other allied items provided by the hospital through their hospital in house pharmacy, as well as food, room on rent, other services to the in-patients is part of composite supply of health care treatment; and hence not taxable under CGST/SGST? - HELD THAT:- The hospital provides medicines, consumables, implants, etc. to the In-patients in the course of treatment on the directions of medical doctor for which the In-patient is billed together by the hospital. The hospital cannot provide health services including diagnostic, treatment surgery etc. without the help of medicines to be taken during treatment, implants and consumables used during their stay in the hospital. Only on using these medicines, consumable and implants as required and prescribed by the doctors and administered during their stay will the treatment be complete. Hence, supply of medicines, implants and consumables are natural bundled with the supply of health services. In this case, supply of health services is the principal supply as that is the reason the in-patients get admitted to hospital instead of buying the medicines or consumables and using on themselves. Therefore, supply of medicines, consumables and implants to the In-patients in the course of their treatment is a composite supply of health services.
The applicant’s contention that room rent for patients in hospital is exempted in lieu of Circular No.27/01/2018-GST dated 04.01.2018 and the food supplied to the in-patients, as advised by the doctor/nutritionist, is a part of composite supply of health care and not separately taxable, is also agreed with.
Whether the supply of Occupational Health Check-up service (OHC) by the hospital i.e. nursing staff, Doctors, Paramedical staff on hospital’s payroll working in different corporate for providing health check-up service, ambulance facility, and allied medical services to their employees and also the camps conducted for health check-up outside the hospitals, to be treated as Health Care service and, hence, not taxable under CGST/SGST? - HELD THAT:- The Applicant’s hospital is providing health services to employees of the business entities, in relation to Occupational Health Check-up’ (OHC) or preventive care along with ambulance facility, and allied medical services. Payment thereof is being made by such business entity directly to the applicant’s hospital. In this case, service provider is the hospital of the applicant and the service receiver is the business entity, who have made payments directly to the applicant - With the change in the style of functioning of the business organizations, health check-up is a routine facility provided by the employers to their employees. The main purpose is to ensure that the productivity of the organization is not adversely affected due to ill health of its employees.
The activities are by no stretch of imagination covered under the scope of ‘healthcare services’ as defined - the “health care services” do not include the services of the Occupational Health Check Up Facilities, which is commonly known as corporate health check-up schemes, provided to business entities by the applicant as same are provided in order to detect any medical indicator or to ensure timely diagnosis of any disease so that prophylactic measures can be taken - services are not covered under exempted “Health care services”.
The applicant will be liable to pay GST @ 18% on the payment received directly from the business entity for health services provided to employees of the business entities in relation to Occupational Health Check-up’ (OHC) or preventive care along with ambulance facility, and allied medical services under “Human health and social care services”, in terms of S. No. 31 of the Table of the Notification No.11/2017Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
-
2021 (3) TMI 546 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
Exemption from GST - State Examination / Education Board - Eligibility for benefit under Sr.No.5 and Sr.No.66 (a) & (aa) of Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - Education Department came into existence as separate secretariat department, which looks after education including primary education, continuous education, literacy education, secondary education, higher education, technical education, pharmacy education - services supplied by applicant are of conducting of examinations - Governmental Authority or not - HELD THAT:- The ‘State Examination Board’ being one of the sub-divisions of the Education Department of Gujarat, is, therefore, a Board which has been established by the Government of Gujarat itself. Also, as per the submission of the applicant, all the 13 members of the State Examination Board are appointed by the Government of Gujarat and all of them are officers belonging to the State Government or are State Government employees of Gujarat - Besides, on the homepage of the website of State Examination Board, it is seen that the state emblem of India (the adaptation of the Lion Capital of Ashoka) as well as the Swachh Bharat emblem which indicates that the applicant is a Government of Gujarat enterprise or a Government of Gujarat body - Thus, it appears that the ‘State Examination Board’ is a Board which is fully controlled by the Government of Gujarat through the Members of the said Board who are all appointed by the Government of Gujarat and are all State Government employees and therefore, the said Board appears to be a Government body wholly owned by the State Government of Gujarat.
There is an entry at Sr.No.17 of the list of functions entrusted to a Panchayat vide Article 243G of the Constitution which reads as “Education, including primary and secondary schools.” It is also found that the applicant themselves have referred to the said entry in their submission stating that the services provided by them are in relation of discharge of functions covered under the aforementioned Entry at Sr.No.17 only - As per the definition, Education is the act or process of imparting knowledge, especially at a school, college or university. On comparing the functions of the State Examination with that to the definition of ‘Education’, it is found that the function of the applicant does not pertain to imparting of knowledge at school, college or university but pertains to conducting of various types of examinations. However, since the conduct of examinations pertaining to Primary, secondary and higher secondary schools by the applicant would be indirectly related to Education, such type of examinations would get covered under the above entry.
Whether the applicant is eligible for exemption as available under Sr.No.5 of Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017? - HELD THAT:- Since16 of the 23 exams held by the applicant do not get covered under the Entry at Sr.No.17, the services supplied by the applicant in respect of these exams are not eligible for the benefit of exemption available at Sr.No.5 of Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 for the simple reason that the services supplied for these exams are not related to any functions entrusted to the Panchayats under Article 243G of the Constitution of India. However, since the exams listed at Sr.No.9 to 15 of para-5 are covered under Entry at Sr.No.17 of the list mentioned, the services supplied by the applicant in respect of these exams are eligible for the benefit of exemption available at Sr.No.5 of Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
Whether the applicant is eligible for exemption as available under Sr.No.66(a) and (aa) of Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended? - HELD THAT:- The applicant has stated that the State Examination Board is a State Educational Board and are therefore covered under the above mentioned clause(iv) and would therefore be eligible for the exemption under Entry No.66(a) and 66(aa) of Notification No.12/2017-central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended. In this regard, we would like to emphasize that the State Examination Board, although established by the Education Department of the Government of Gujarat, is an autonomous body, established for the sole purpose of conducting various types of examinations and cannot, therefore, be considered as a State Education Board as the functions of the State Examination Board are completely different from that of a State Educational Board - the applicant is not eligible for the benefit of exemption of GST available under Sr.No.66(a) and 66(aa) of Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended from time to time.
-
2021 (3) TMI 541 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bail application - allegation of issuing fake invoices - issuing invoices or bills without supply of goods or services or both leading to wrongful availment or utilization of input tax credit or refund of tax and availing input tax credit using such invoices or bills - Constitutional validity of section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - seeking declaration that power under section 69 can be exercised only upon determination of liability and consequent upon failure of the taxable person to meet such liability - seeking restraint on respondents from lodging any criminal complaint against the petitioners - enlargement of petitioners on bail.
HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is found that both the petitioners taken together had appeared before the respondents on multiple occasions particularly on 20.11.2020, 01.02.2021, 03.02.2021, 09.02.2021, 12.02.2021, 15.02.2021 and 16.02.2021 when their statements were recorded. Not only that a number of employees and officials of the petitioner company as well as independent directors had appeared before the investigating authorities and their statements were also recorded. As a matter of fact in the statement of Mr. Akashnand Karnik, director of the petitioner company recorded on 01.02.2021, he meticulously answered all the queries pertaining to various transactions of the petitioner company with M/s. Wiggins Coretech Equipments Pvt Ltd, M/s. Siddharth Education Services, M/s. HNO Furnishings Ltd, M/s. Creative Business Associates, M/s. Mystique Media Pvt Ltd, M/s. Gradient Infotainment Ltd and M/s. Cannon Ball Trading Pvt Ltd including supply of computers and whatever services were provided by them - there is no instance of the petitioners tampering with documents or trying to influence any witness being brought on record. Merely saying or apprehending that in future they may tamper with evidence or induce any witness as observed by the learned Magistrate cannot be a justification to deny bail.
It is already noticed that the maximum sentence that can be imposed upon conviction for the said offence is imprisonment for five years. This brings us to section 167 of the Cr.P.C.. Section 167(2)(a)(ii) makes it clear that a person cannot be kept in detention beyond a total period of sixty days where investigation relates to an offence punishable for imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years and is not completed - there are no instance of the petitioners tampering with documents or trying to influence any witness being brought on record. Merely saying or apprehending that in future they may tamper with evidence or induce any witness as observed by the learned Magistrate cannot be a justification to deny bail.
Without expressing any opinion at this stage as to the legality and validity of the initial arrest, the continued detention of the petitioners would not at all be justified - Let formal notice be issued to the respondents.
-
2021 (3) TMI 540 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Confirmation of demand of GST with penalties - Principle of natural justice - Detention of goods - E-way bill had expired on account of a clerical error which would not result into any tax liability - HELD THAT:- As per this Circular dated 14th September, 2018, in case the goods are accompanied by an invoice as also an E-way bill, proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 should not be initiated if there is a error of one or two digits in a document number mentioned in the E-way bill. In such a situation, at best, penalty of ₹ 500 & 1000/- under State and Central GST may be collected under Section 125 of the Act.
In view of such facts, this is not considered fit case where we should relegate the petitioner to appeal remedy, more importantly when the order passed by the Inspector of State Tax suffered from gross irregularity of no hearing been granted to the petitioner. As noted, the said authority issued a notice of personal hearing making it returnable on 19.11.2018, long before that however, on 05.11.2018 i.e. a date on which he issued the notice, he passed a separate order confirming the demand of tax with penalty. This was wholly impermissible since he does not treat this order as a tentative demand but as a mandatory demand.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (3) TMI 536 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - release of detained truck alongwith the goods - HELD THAT:- The writ applicant is relegated to avail the remedy of filing an appeal against the final order of confiscation available to him under Section 107 of the Act in accordance with law.
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (3) TMI 535 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Release of seized goods alongwith the truck - Section 130 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- This Court is not sure whether any final order of confiscation under Section 130 of the Act has been passed or not. If the final order of confiscation under Section 130 of the Act has been passed, then it shall be open for the writ applicant to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Act. If, ultimately, the writ applicant succeeds in appeal, then he would be entitled to the refund of the amount as deposited by him.
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (3) TMI 533 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Stay on the operation of the directions - Input tax credit - HELD THAT:- This direction is being passed, for the present, as Mr. Monish Panda, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that after 01.07.2017 [when the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Rules framed there under kicked-in] the petitioner was not required to pass on input tax credit or reduction in tax to those flat buyers with whom negotiated contracts were executed post 01.07.2017. Even qua these contracts, insofar as reduction in taxes are concerned, nothing could have been passed on as there was no reduction in taxes.
This aspect of the matter will be examined after returns are filed by the respondents - List the matter on 30.04.2021.
-
2021 (3) TMI 532 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Profiteering - washing machine - contention is that information/data has been sought qua all goods manufactured and sold by the petitioner although they are not the subject-matter of the notice dated 03.02.2020 - HELD THAT:- Since the impugned communication does not disclose the basis for seeking such information, we are inclined, for the moment, to direct respondent no.3 not to insist on information/data with regard to goods other than the washing machine.
List the matter on 28.04.2021.
|
