|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 12 of 12 Records
-
2018 (1) TMI 1656 - AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, JHARKHAND
Classification of goods - water Tank Assembly of Aluminium metal - to be classified under chapter 8607 or chapter 7611 of the Tariff? - HELD THAT:- In the present case the applicant M/s ASL Industries Limited sales water tank which are not common use in general market. Since, they are manufactured as per specific design provided by the central railway and to be fitted in passenger coaches hence it is a part of railway bogies.
The specially designed water tank assembly specifically made for Indian railways is falling under the HSN Code-8607 and the same has been specified in the entry no- 241 in notification no- 1/2017 dated 28.06.2017 of schedule I as notified u/s 5 (1) of the IGST Act (act no-13 of 2017) shall be taxed @5%.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1313 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Confiscation of goods - detention under Section 129 of the CGST and SGST Acts - case of petitioner is that the documents that accompanied the goods was absence of Form KER-1 declaration and that since Form KER-1 declaration was uploaded and made available to the first respondent immediately on receipt of notice, there is no justification for the continued detention of the goods - Held that: - A combined reading of Sections 129 and 130, especially the provision contained in sub section (6) of Section 129 indicates that the detention of the goods is contemplated under the statutes only when it is suspected that the goods are liable to confiscation. This aspect is seen clarified by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in the FAQs published by them on 31.3.2017 also. Section 130 dealing with the confiscation of goods indicates beyond doubt that the confiscation of goods is contemplated under the statutes only when a taxable supply is made otherwise than in accordance with the provisions contained in the statutes and the Rules made there under with the intent to evade payment of tax. If that be so, mere infraction of the procedural Rules like Rules 55 and 138 of the State GST Rules cannot result in detention of goods, though they may result in imposition of penalty.
The detention of goods merely for infraction of the procedural Rules in transactions which do not amount to taxable supply, is without jurisdiction.
Petition allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1245 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Extension of time period for filing of GST Tran-1 - petitioner has alleged in the petition that despite making several efforts on the last date for filing of the application, the electronic system of the respondent no.2 did not respond, as a result of which the petitioner is likely to suffer loss of the credit that it is entitled to by passage of time - Held that: - the respondents are directed to reopen the portal within two weeks from today. In the event they do not do so, they will entertain the application of the petitioner manually and pass orders on it after due verification of the credits as claimed by the petitioner - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1149 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - inter-state sale - goods not accompanied by valid documents as prescribed under the State Goods and Service Tax Rules (for first three consignments) - absence of invoice evidencing the sale (for fourth consignment) - Held that: - it is not in dispute that there is no document prescribed under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act and Rules for the purposes of covering an interstate movement in respect of consignments which have to suffer tax under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, the detention on the part of the respondents cannot be held to be valid and justified.
In respect of the 4th consignment, the detention is justified inasmuch as what is shown in Ext.P3 delivery chalan is that the transaction is an interstate sale, whereas the document accompanying is only a chalan and not the invoice which is a prescribed document to evidence a sale.
The 1st respondent directed to release the three consignments, to the petitioner, on the petitioner producing a copy of this judgment before the said respondent - As regards the third consignmen, the respondents are directed to complete the adjudication proceedings in respect of the detention of the said consignment within a period of one week - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1116 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - surgical gloves - detention on the ground that the goods were not accompanied by the document provided for under Rule 138(2) State SGST Rules - Held that: - the power of detention contemplated under Section 129 of the SGST Act can be exercised only in respect of goods which are liable to be confiscated under Section 130 of the SGST Act; that there is no taxable supply when goods are transported on delivery chalans so long as the authenticity of the delivery chalan is not doubted and that therefore, such goods cannot be detained merely for infraction of Rule 138(2) of the State SGST Rules.
Detention also on the ground that goods were intended to be supplied to an unregistered firm - Held that: - The learned Government Pleader, in the circumstances, did not attempt to support the impugned detention on the said reason. Instead, the learned Government Pleader attempted to support the impugned detention on the reason that the delivery chalan that accompanied the goods was not one prepared in accordance with the provisions contained in the State SGST Rules - The defect, if any, of the delivery chalan being not a reason mentioned in Ext.P2 notice, the same cannot be permitted to be urged to sustain the detention, for, the same is not the reason for the detention.
The impugned detention is held to be illegal and the respondent is directed to release the consignment to the petitioner forthwith - petition allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1003 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Validity of Tender process initiated by the Geological Survey of India, Eastern Region by a notice inviting tender dated April 27, 2017 - Held that: - action of the authorities in obtaining information from the participants as to the tax implications cannot faulted - On evaluation, the authorities found the price quoted by the successful bidder to be lower than that of the petitioner after taking GST implications. Such a decision cannot faulted as being perverse - there is no material irregularity in the decision making process of the respondent authorities or their decision warranting an interference by the writ Court - petition dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 950 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seizure of goods - discrepancy in the quantity - also, penalty imposed on the ground that the goods, started their journey one week after the date of the invoice - Held that: - discrepancy as regards quantity has been resolved and it is accepted to the department that the quantity of goods as disclosed in the documents is the same as found on physical verification - also, reason for which penalty imposed, prima facie cannot be the ground to seize the goods or to impose penalty.
Subject to the petitioner furnishing security equal to the value of the goods and tax payable, in the form of indemnity bond, the vehicle along with goods shall be released in favour of the petitioner forthwith - petition allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 949 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seizure of imported goods - penalty - seizure on the ground that the E-Way Bill was not found accompanying the goods though admittedly, the goods were being imported against regular Tax Invoice - Held that: - it does appear that the E-Way Bill had been downloaded and produced though with some delay but before conclusion of the penalty proceedings - there is no allegation of evasion of tax liability established either from the reading of the show cause notice or the seizure order or the penalty order the consequential penalty imposed appear to have been occasioned upon a mere technical breach and not on account of any intention to evade tax - penalty and seizure order could not sustain - petition allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 948 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Difficulty in filing e-return - problem in the portal - waiver of penalty - Held that: - taking note of the fact that the penalty fee has been waived for three months i.e. July, August and September 2017 and since the portal has been activated, no further orders are required in this writ petition - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (1) TMI 815 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Improper implementation of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act (IGST) and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST) - increasing the flying squad in State Level, District Level, Zonal Level to monitor the movement of goods and E-Way Bills - Held that: - Government has issued Notification No. 27/2017-Central Tax, New Delhi, dated 30. 08. 2017 - the counter-affidavit of the second respondent has answered the prayer Nos. (a) to (d) and in the light of the stand taken by the petitioner, this Court directed him to submit his response to the Notification, dated 30. 08. 2006 - Writ Petition is closed
-
2018 (1) TMI 276 - DELHI HIGH COURT
IGST on sale consideration - Warehousing of imported goods - double payment of IGST - Held that: - Learned counsel for the respondents would obtain instructions on the said aspect and clarify the position in the counter affidavit - Re-list on 8th March, 2018.
-
2018 (1) TMI 179 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods - Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Held that: - the writ petition is disposed of directing the competent authority to complete the adjudication provided for under Section 129 of the statutes referred to above, within a week from the date of production of a copy of the judgment - It is is also directed that if the petitioner complies with Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the goods detained shall be released to him forthwith.
|
