|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 161 Records
-
2023 (3) TMI 269 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - wrongful availment of ITC - Section 132 of the Punjab Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that the petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 27.05.2022 and he has appeared before learned trial Court in pursuance to the same. However, both the counsel have disputed the amount of ITC involved in the present case. The specific stand of the respondent-complainant is that the amount involved is about Rs.7.22 crores and once the amount is more than Rs.5.00 crores, offence is nonbailable.
This Court while dealing with the anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case specifically regarding the amount alleged to have been wrongly availed as the same lies within the domain of the trial Court to decide on the basis of the evidence to be led by the respective parties. However, confining itself to the prayer made for anticipatory bail, interim order dated 27.05.2022 is made absolute subject to his complying with the conditions as envisaged under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 222 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - petition dismissed on the ground that application under section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for revocation of cancellation of the registration was not filed - HELD THAT:- Considering the conspectus of the matter, we are inclined to accord an opportunity to the Petitioner to file an application before the Authority under Section 30 of the CGST Act.
In case the application is filed by the Petitioner within 15 days from today under Section 30 of the CGST Act before the Authority, the Authority shall construe the same within limitation and take decision upon the application on merits expeditiously.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 163 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - cancellation on the ground of non-submission of reply to SCN - case of the petitioner is that he has not been able to get the show cause notice issued by the respondent and, therefore, he could not submit the reply within the stipulated time and, thus, an order came to be passed whereby registration of the petitioner was cancelled - HELD THAT:- The present petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of the order passed by this Court in Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Union of India and others [2022 (9) TMI 1412 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. In the said judgment, the Court has held that the impugned order does not assign any reason whatsoever for cancelling registration of the petitioner and is passed only on the ground that reply to the show cause notice is not given. The non-submission of reply to the show cause cannot be a ground for cancellation of the registration.
The present petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. The benefit of the order dated 26.9.2022 passed in Writ Tax No.145 of 2022, shall also be made available to the present petitioner.
The order as well as the appellate order is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to appear before the respondent along with the reply to show cause notice - Petition allowed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 162 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - non-submission of reply to SCN - case of the petitioner is that he has not been able to get the show cause notice issued by the respondent and, therefore, he could not submit the reply within the stipulated time - HELD THAT:- The present petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the order passed by this Court in TECHNOSUN INDIA PVT. LTD. LUCKNOW THRU. ITS DIRECTOR AMIT KUMAR GAUTAM VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THRU. PRIN. COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL G.S.T., LKO. U.P. AND 2 OTHERS [2022 (9) TMI 1412 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. In the said judgment, the Court has held that the impugned order does not assign any reason whatsoever for cancelling registration of the petitioner and is passed only on the ground that reply to the show cause notice is not given. The non-submission of reply to the show cause cannot be a ground for cancellation of the registration.
In view thereof, the present petitioner is also entitled for the same relief - the order dated 23.01.2021 as well as the appellate order dated 06.02.2023, is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to appear before the respondent along with the reply to show cause notice and the certified copy - petition allowed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 161 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rejection of petitioner's application seeking for amendment under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to reconstitute the partnership firm - liability of N.Azeem Basha, being partner of Azeem Transport Company - HELD THAT:- N.Azeem Basha seems to have retired from the petitioner's partnership business as early as on 18.04.2019 itself. Unless and until the aforementioned documents are considered by the respondent, the respondent cannot come to the conclusion that N.Azeem Basha is also involved in the petitioner's partnership business as well as in the other businesses viz., M/s.Azeem Packaging and M/s.Nawas Garments.
Having not considered the documents that too when the petitioner has categorically stated that N.Azeem Basha is no longer involved in the petitioner's partnership business, this Court is of the considered view that by total non application of mind to the aforementioned documents, the impugned order has been passed by the respondent, rejecting the petitioners' application seeking for amendment as required under the TNGST Act. Hence, the impugned order has to be necessarily quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law, after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner including granting them the right of personal hearing.
The matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2023 (3) TMI 160 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - non-filing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months - non-constitution of GST Tribunal - time limitation for filing appeal - HELD THAT:- This is an order passed by the first appellate authority under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act. As per subsection (1) of Section 107 of the CGST Act, limitation for filing appeal is three months from the date of communication of the order appealed against. Under sub-section (4) of Section 107 of the CGST Act, the appellate authority may allow the appeal to be presented within a further period of one month, provided sufficient cause is shown by the appellant - Though the lower appellate authority may be right in holding that while it may allow filing of an appeal beyond the limitation of three months for a further period of one month, therefore, by extension of limitation beyond the extended period of one month delay beyond the extended period of one month cannot be condoned, such a stand taken by respondent No.1 may adversely affect the petitioner.
This is more so because respondent No.2 had suo motu cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner on the ground of non-filing of returns and as GST Tribunal has not been constituted under Section 109 of the CGST Act, petitioner would be left without any remedy.
Matter remanded back to respondent No.3 for a fresh decision in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2023 (3) TMI 159 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rejection of request of the petitioner for registration of the Sale Certificate - rejection for registration on the sole ground that property was provisionally attached under Sec.83 of the G.S.T. Act - petitioner was a prior mortgagee in the year 2017, whereas the provisional attachment was passed by the G.S.T. authorities on 18.12.2021 - petitioner would mainly contend that even applying Rule 55-A of the Registration Rules, the socalled provisional attachment has lapsed by operation of law itself - constitutional validity of Rule 55-A of the Registration Rules - subordinate Legislation is ex facie found to be in conflict with the provision of the Parent Act and Transfer of Property act as well as constitutional rights.
HELD THAT:- This Court has encountered with several Writ Petitions challenging the orders of the Registering authority refusing to register the documents or transaction permitted under law. Though the rule 55(A) has not been directly challenged this Court is of the view that when a subordinate Legislation is ex facie found to be in conflict with the provision of the Parent Act and Transfer of Property act as well as constitutional rights, the sub ordinate legislation will have to yield to substantive law governing the field and constitution as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Government of Andra Pradesh vs Lakhsmi Devi [2008 (2) TMI 850 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it is held that The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and no law which is in conflict with it can survive. Since the law made by the legislature is in the second layer of the hierarchy, obviously it will be invalid if it is in conflict with a provision in the Constitution (except the directive principles which, by Article 37, have been expressly made non-enforceable).
Prior to the insertion of Rule 55-A the Registrar could refuse to register a document if it fell within any of the categories in Section 22-A& B of the Act or under Section 34 or if the case fell within any of the circumstances set out in Rule 162 of the Registration Rules. However, it has become a practice for Sub-Registrar’s to refuse registration of documents citing internal circulars requiring them to produce title deeds to scrutinize title etc. Several writ petitions have come up before this Court challenging such refusals.
In one such case, the issue was whether once a sale agreement is registered by the vendor, the subsequent documents in respect of the same immovable property could be refused to be registered by the Registrar. In other words, once an agreement for sale is registered under the Registration Act, whether the vendor is debarred from effecting any agreement or transfer in respect of the same immovable property. As there were conflicting decisions of single judges the matter was directed to be placed before a Division Bench - The reference was eventually answered by the Division Bench in N. RAMAYEE VERSUS THE SUB-REGISTRAR, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT AND ORS. [2020 (11) TMI 1100 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that it cannot be said that merely because agreement for sale is registered without obtaining decree of declaration that such agreement is void, subsequent transfer is prohibited and cannot be registered. We hold that as discussed in our judgment, Registrar has no right to refuse to register the subsequent document on the basis that agreement of sale was already registered in respect of same property.
In VANNARAKKAL KALLALATHIL SREEDHARAN VERSUS CHANDRAMAATH BALAKRISHNAN AND ANR. [1990 (3) TMI 371 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the Supreme Court made it clear that an agreement of sale entered before the order of attachment can be taken to its logical conclusion and a sale deed can be executed even after the order of attachment.
The issues have been thoroughly deliberated and elaborately discussed in Ramayee’s case, which has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the effect of the first proviso is to set at naught to the above declaration of law by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench and it nullifies the several provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, as stated above. The authorities under the Registration Act have no jurisdiction to make rules which have the direct and immediate effect of restraining transactions which are permitted under the Transfer of Property Act. Such a restriction would be clearly illegal and violative of a citizen’s right to deal with his property and would clearly infringe Article 300-A of the Constitution. It does not bear repetition that Article 300-A has now been recognised as a human right.
It is also well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, [2007 (11) TMI 401 - SUPREME COURT] that a subordinate legislation may be struck down as arbitrary or contrary to statute if it fails to take into account vital facts which expressly or by necessary implication are required to be taken into account by the statute or the Constitution. Furthermore, Rule 55-A is a delegated legislation which cannot go beyond the scope of the Parent Act viz., the Registration Act as well the Transfer of Property Act which is the substantive law governing the transfer of immovable properties. Hence, the first proviso is clearly ultra vires and unconstitutional.
In the case at hand, provisional attachment was passed by the G.S.T. authorities. The registration of the Sale Certificate was rejected for this reason. It is relevant to note that the petitioner was a prior mortgagee in the year 2017, whereas the provisional attachment was passed by the G.S.T. authorities on 18.12.2021. This order has already lapsed by operation of law.
Sec.83(2)of G.S.T.Rule makes it clear that every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1). Therefore, provisional attachment made by the second respondent vide order dated18.12.2021 has ceased to have effect, after expiry of a period of one year. There is no material to show any final order of attachment, or any subsequent order passed by the second respondent pursuant to the aforesaid order.
As this Court has held that the first proviso to Rule 55-A has been found to be invalid and ultra vires, the respondent cannot refuse to register the document - The respondent cannot refuse to register the Sale Certificate as sought for by the petitioner - Petition allowed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 158 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Rejection of refund request - educational institution - sanction of refund for the tax period April, 2020 to August, 2020, along with interest computed from the date of filing of the original application for refund - applicability of circular dated 17.06.2021 (Circular No. 151/07/2021-GST) as ultra vires to the provisions of entry at Serial No. 66(a) read with Para 2(y) of the Notification No. 12/2017-CTR - fee charge for FMGE Screening Test as a fee for accreditation.
HELD THAT:- Issue notice.
List on 22.03.2023.
-
2023 (3) TMI 157 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Seeking refund of reversal of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) reversed under threat, coercion and without the Will of the petitioner - It is case of the petitioner that no assessment has been framed so far nor any demand has been raised in absence of any assessment, the quantum of demand cannot be determined hence, the action of coercive recovery by reversing the ITC in electronic credit ledger is bad in law.
HELD THAT:- It appears that the officer concerned was to remain present before the Court. There is no reference of his remaining present. However it has been conveyed to that Court that the officer had remained present. Be that it may today the officer is also present. The fact remains that there is categorical directions issued by this Court in [2021 (2) TMI 701 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and allied matters. That, order itself was the reason for publishing the instructions which received the attention of Delhi High Court which also frowned upon the action of the authority by questioning its non-fulfillment of one of the directions, (direction No.2) contained in Bhumi Associates. as the instructions had permitted making of voluntarily payments of filing DRC 03 on the basis of ascertainment of their liability on non payment/short payment of taxes before or at any stage of proceedings. The only safeguard is of the tax officers to inform the tax payers regarding the provisions of voluntary tax payments through DRC-03. These instructions surely are not keeping in pace with the directions issued in toto. They being binding in nature even though issued at an interim stage everywhere in sur-rejoinder, the officer concerned has referred to them as the observations.
This is an apparent case where scant regard is shown to the interim directions of this Court which have so far not been challenged. Having issued the instructions with regard to the same by No.01/2022-23 on 25th May, 2022, this disregard on the part of the officer concerned is required to be viewed with little seriousness, what has been offered thereafter, is of filling up of the form for reversal of ITC, instead of an end that to by saying that there is some amount of difficulty with the portal and due to those limitations the filling up the Form will be necessary - Assuming that the directions contained in the Bhumi Associates at the interim stage, no authority should forget that its own Board had followed it subsequently by issuing the instructions on the basis thereof and same had also received the scrutiny at the end of Delhi High Court.
This Court requires to hold that the respondent-revenue is required to reverse the ITC to the tune of Rs. 37,68,300/- along with 6% interest - Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 113 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Suspension/cancellation of registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner’s grievance insofar as suspension / cancellation of its registration is concerned, stands addressed.
It is also noted that the question whether the petitioner is liable to pay the amount as demanded appears to be a contentious one. However, we do not consider it apposite to examine that issue in this petition. Needless to state that the petitioner is at liberty to avail of such remedies in respect to the said demand notice as available in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 112 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Rejection of Petitioner’s appeal as not maintainable - cancellation of GST registration under section 107 of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that although the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the suo-moto orders of the Supreme Court in respect of the limitation period considered the same and held the same to be within limitation, however, it has held that the appeal to be not maintainable as the course of action under section 30 was not adopted.
This court in BALAJI ENGINEERING WORKS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2022 (5) TMI 637 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] n similar circumstances this court has granted an opportunity to the Petitioner to file an application before the authority under section 30 of the CGST Act - We therefore do not propose to take any different course of action in the matter.
We are inclined to afford an opportunity to the Petitioner to file an application to the authority under section 30 of the CGST Act. It is made clear that if an application is made by Petitioner within 15 days from today before the authority under section 30 of the CGST Act, the authority to consider the same and take a decision on merits as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from today.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 111 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Seeking permission to Petitioner to rectify the GST Return filed in Form- B2B instead of B2C as was wrongly filed under GSTR-1 in order to get the Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit by the principal contractor - evasion of tax or not - 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.
This Court permits the Petitioner to resubmit the corrected GSTR-1 for the aforementioned periods and to enable the Petitioner to do so, a direction is issued to the Opposite Parties to receive it manually. Once the corrected Forms are received manually, the Department will facilitate the uploading of those details in the web portal - Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 110 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund of GST paid - Non-supply of service - lease rentals “on account of assessment/provisional assessment/appeal/any other order” for the period of 01.07.2017 to 30.07.2018 - impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice or not - failure on the part of Appellate Authority to appreciate that the lease was nullified in terms of the resolution plan.
HELD THAT:- It is important to note that the SCN dated 11.01.2021 had proposed rejection of the petitioner’s application on the premise that the lease of the property was required to be considered as supply of the services and the same were required to be valued in terms of Section 15 of the CGST Act. The Adjudicating Authority had reasoned that there was no specific exclusion under Section 15 of the CGST Act from the value of the supply in respect of “non-recovery of payments of bad debts”. Thus, according to the Adjudicating Authority, the fact that the petitioner had not recovered the lease rentals on which GST had been paid, it did not entitle it to any refund because a liability to pay GST would not stand extinguished on that ground.
It is clear that the Appellate Authority had granted sufficient opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner but the petitioner had failed to avail the same. The assumption that the Appellate Authority was bound to accede to repeated request for adjournment is erroneous. The contention that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice is bereft of any merit.
Whether the petitioner was liable to pay GST in respect of the lease of the property in view of the resolution plan terminating all agreements/arrangements between BSL and other related parties? - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the resolution plan was sanctioned by the National Company Law Tribunal and is binding. It is the petitioner’s contention that, in terms of the sanctioned plan, the ‘Memorandum of Agreement for Lease’ dated 01.04.2015 was terminated without any liability on the part of BSL to pay or make any payment - The entire transaction of lease was brought into question and was terminated under the resolution plan. Thus, according to the petitioner, there was no supply of services. This contention has not been considered by the Appellate Authority. The impugned order largely proceeds on the basis that the supply of services was admitted and the refund of GST was sought on account of non-recovery of the lease rentals.
The impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to the Appellate Authority to consider the aforesaid contention and pass a speaking order after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard - petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 109 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Seeking release of confiscated goods and vehicle - interaction, interplay and inter se application of Section 129 and Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- As far as prayer for interim relief is concerned regarding release of the goods and vehicle of the petitioner, the same deserves to be considered on the same line and upon imposition of the similar conditions as done in the aforesaid order dated 01.07.2022 in Special Civil Application No. 8353 of 2012 [2022 (7) TMI 1364 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT].
As could be seen from the impugned order, the penalty amount is Rs. 13,27,052/-. The fine and other charges are demanded to the extent of Rs.73,72,512/- and the tax is demanded of Rs.13,27,052/-.
It is directed that the respondents shall release the goods and conveyance of the petitioner, confiscated and detained subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 108 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Seeking release of confiscated goods and vehicle - interaction, interplay and inter se application of Section 129 and Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- As far as prayer for interim relief is concerned regarding release of the goods and vehicle of the petitioner, the same deserves to be considered on the same line and upon imposition of the similar conditions as done in SMIT DIPEN SHAH, M/S LIBERTY PRODUCTS VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT [2022 (7) TMI 1364 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where it was held that A prima facie case is made out for grant of interim relief.
As could be seen from the impugned order, the penalty amount is Rs. 2,85,120/-. The fine and other charges are demanded to the extent of Rs.15,84,000/- and the tax is demanded of Rs.2,85,120/- and fine in lieu of confiscation of conveyance of Rs. 2,85,120/-.
It is directed that the respondents shall release the goods and conveyance of the petitioner, confiscated and detained subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 107 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KARNATAKA
Input tax credit - vouchers and subscription packages procured by the Applicant from third party vendors that are made available to the eligible customers participating in the loyalty program against the loyalty points earned/ accumulated by the said customers - Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The eligibility to input tax credit is governed by the provisions of Chapter V (Sections 16 to 19) of the CGST Act. Section 16 states that a registered person shall, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed and in the manner specified in section 49, be entitled to take credit of input tax charged on any supply of goods or services or both which are used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of business. Thus, the primary conditions for eligibility of ITC is that there should be an inward supply of either goods or services or both; such inward supply should be charged to tax by the supplier and such inward supply should necessarily be used or intended to be used in the furtherance of business - Input tax credit is restricted when the goods and services or both are used for non-business purposes or exempt/non-taxable supplies. Further, notwithstanding the entitlement conferred by Section 16(1), certain goods and services and certain forms of supply, as mentioned in Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, are expressly denied input tax credit.
The Bombay High Court in SW ENERGY LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.[2019 (6) TMI 717 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that the scrutiny in writ jurisdiction of the orders passed by the lower Authority and the Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling is minimal. Under the writ proceedings, the Court can examine the order of the Appellate Authority by applying the principles of judicial review and not the principles which apply in case of an appeal. Any attempt by the Court to examine the orders of the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling on their substantive merits or demerits will amount to enlarging the supervisory power of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution into an appellate power. Any challenge to the order passed by the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling before the High Court in writ proceedings will have to be confined to a judicial review which will inter alia include the issue as to whether there has been a failure of natural justice at the appeal stage thereby vitiating the decision-making process leading to the making of the order by the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling.
The Appellant has also made detailed submissions on why the vouchers cannot be termed as 'gifts' given to the customers. Again, we find that examining this aspect is of no relevance since it is already held that input tax credit is not eligible on an inward supply which is held by the High Court as being neither a supply of goods or service. Therefore, it is agreed with the ultimate ruling given by the lower Authority that input tax credit is not available on the vouchers received by the Appellant.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 58 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - Misuse of E-Way Bill - Cancellation of E-way Bill - once the goods were not dispatched on the same day - Rule 139(9) of CGST Rules - evasion of GST taking place or not - HELD THAT:- From the findings recorded by the taxing authorities it is clearly evident that vehicle no.NL01N/6504 was not only used by Bombay Kandla Transport (P) Ltd. through which goods were sent by the petitioner-dealer, but also by Bombay Kolkata Logistics for sending fruits and vegetable to Panchkula and by Delhi Hemkunt Logistics for sending rice to Darbhanga (Bihar). Once, the vehicle was not available on 08.04.2018 and was used for transporting fruits and vegetable and its journey commenced on 07.04.2018, the case set up by the petitioner cannot be accepted and has rightly been denied by the authorities.
It is clear that the goods were sent on 07.04.2018 to West Bengal through the vehicle in question and thereafter, on 12.04.2018 to Darbhanga (Bihar). Filling the details of the vehicle and transporter in Part-B of Form GST EWB-01 completely belie the story set up by the petitioner before the authorities - Moreover, the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority that Darbhanga Dealer to whom it is alleged that rice was sent had denied such transaction as the firm having already closed down two months prior to the transactions which corroborates the facts that through tax invoice and E-Way Bill generated on 08.04.2018, the dealer has made several transactions and evaded tax. The Chart given in para 7 of the counter affidavit reflects movement of the vehicle through various Toll Plazas on relevant dates and is a establishment of fact that number of trips were made from Delhi to other places through one and the same document and also through one and the same vehicle.
This Court therefore, finds that there has been a complete misuse of statutory provision of the Act and Rules by the dealer. The inference drawn by the taxing authorities after interception of goods on 18.04.2018 needs no interference by this Court - Petition dismissed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 57 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of regular bail - petitioner has already faced incarceration for more than 1 year and 4 months and the maxmium sentence otherwise even if it is more than Rs. 5 crores is five years - HELD THAT:- The quantum of amount which the petitioner is involved is yet to be decided at the time of trial. Under Section 132 of the GST Act even if the amount is more than Rs. 5 crores, the maximum sentence is five years as per the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has already faced incarceration for more than 1 year and 4 months. The complaint is still at the summoning stage. The other two accused have already been extended the benefit of bail. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has stated that regarding recovery from the petitioner a separate show-cause notice is yet to be issued.
Considering the total custody of the petitioner which is more than 1 year and 4 months, this Court deems it fit and proper to grant regular bail to the petitioner - Petition allowed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 56 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Refund of IGST - Refund to the SEZ when it is not required to actually fulfill the supplier’s obligation as has been reiteratively contended before this Court - Export of Goods/Services without payment of tax - It is the case of the petitioner that CGST Act does not make any distinction between a SEZ unit and other registered persons so far as eligibility of ITC is concerned - according to the petitioner, the appellate authority erred in holding that Section 54(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 89(1) and Rule 89(2)(f) of the CGST Rules mandates only the supplier to claim the refund of ITC - HELD THAT:- There is no express denial of refund of output tax or ITC to a SEZ under Section 54. Therefore, the averment that since the supply to SEZ unit is a zero rated, the units situated in SEZ are not eligible for refund under Section 54 of the Act is not sustainable.
The SEZ since is considered as zero rated supply in terms of 16 of the IGST Act, such supplier is exempted from IGST. The notification No.15 of 2017 integrated tax dated 30th June, 2017 provides that the suppliers supplying the goods at SEZ can supply under the bond or electronic undertaking without payment of IGST and claim credit of ITC or can supply on payment of IGST or claim refund of taxes paid - It is an additional burden on the administration, the respondents authorities to verify whether the supplier has claimed the refund or not and whether the SEZ unit has actually paid the taxes to the supplier. A system since is not geared up for the same, the concern has multiplied. Any inadvertent payment of the amount of taxes to the supplier in wake of thousands of such transactions happening everyday in the SEZ, it is urged that no exceptions be made.
An attempt is made to distinguish the matter on the facts and particularly, since the petitioner is non- SEZ by pointing out that the one which is decided in M/s. Britannia Industries [2020 (9) TMI 294 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] is in relation to the credit of IGST distributed by ISD for the services pertaining to the SEZ unit, as it was not possible for a supplier to file refund application to claim the refund of ITC distributed by the ISD. It is also the stand of the department that the matter is pending in the form of SLP No.13431 of 2021 before the Apex Court. It is fairly admitted that no stay has been granted.
Not only this decision but also M/s.IPCA Laboratories versus Commissioner in [2022 (2) TMI 947 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] covers this issue squarely with a specific undertaking having been tendered along with the application for the refund that the supplier has not claimed any refund and any eventuality of the supplier having been given the refund, the petitioner is taking the responsibility to make good the amount which may have been given will need to be borne in mind and accordingly, this petition is allowed, quashing the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the period of September, 2018 to December, 2019 and Assistant Commissioner for the period of 2020 to November, 2021 that the respondent grant the refund of ITC to the petitioner after proper verification and by obtaining a specific undertaking / bond from the petitioner where by stating that if the supplier at any point of time has taken refund and it comes to the notice of the department, then department will be in a position to recover it with interest.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 55 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
Seeking permission to withdraw the appeal - Exemption from GST - services provided by the applicant in affiliation to/ partnered with Gujarat University and providing education for degree courses to students under specific curriculum as approved by the Gujrat University, for which degrees are awarded by the Gujarat University - Exempt under Entry No. 66 of the Notification No. 12/ 2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017 or not.
The applicant has requested to permit him to withdraw the appeal filed for determination, on the grounds that their contract with Gujarat University was not renewed and that they would like to rely on the case of M/s. C Ramappa [2020 (4) TMI 689 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING KARNATAKA], M/s. S K Properties [2020 (8) TMI 489 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KARNATAKA] and Sampada Caterers [2018 (9) TMI 439 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA] - existence of restriction or any time line prescribed for withdrawal or not.
HELD THAT:- The application filed by the applicant for advance ruling is dismissed as withdrawn. The application for rectification of order dated 9.10.2020 in view of the foregoing has become infructuous.
....
|
