|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 107 Records
-
2019 (1) TMI 1079
Acceptance of manual filing of revised FORM GST TRAN-I and the resultant FORM GST TRAN-2 - error in electronic filing due to technical reasons - Held that:- The fourth respondent is directed to accept FORM GST TRAN-I and FORM GST TRAN-2 from the petitioner manually. The petitioner shall submit FORM GST TRAN-I and FORM GST TRAN-2 within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner submits FORM GST TRAN-I and FORM GST TRAN-2 within the time as mentioned, the fourth respondent shall accept and transmit it into the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner within a further period of one week - petition disposed off.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1078
Cancellation of GSTIN registration - earlier this Court had directed the Revenue to explore the possibility of opening the GST portal and reinstating the GSTIN - Held that:- Today, it is informed that the portal was opened and the petitioner’s GSTIN was reinstated. Learned counsel has produced a copy of the intimation and the relevant returns filed by the petitioner. The intimation is hereby taken on the record - In view of the statement made, the writ petition is rendered infructuous - petition dismissed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1022
Valuation of supply - motor vehicle - inclusion of tax collected at source (TCS) u/s 206C of income tax in the value of goods and services - charging of tax, duties, cess or fee by the supplier - Held that:- The authority will not act on the clarification at Sl.No.5 of Ext.P1 pending the disposal of the writ petition - however, this arrangement shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition and without prejudice to the rights of the Department in collecting the taxes in future if the writ outcome is adverse to the petitioner - petition disposed off.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1021
Classification of goods - rate of tax - Tile Adhesive - Tile Grout - Whether the two categories of products will be classifiable under Entry 24 of Schedule IV of Notification No. 1/2017,-Central Taxes (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 liable to CGST at 14% or Entry 97 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017- Central Taxes (Rate) liable to CGST at 9%?
Held that:- The applicant in their submissions have mentioned that the concerned products are non-refractory chemical-based preparation. Now it is seen that non-refractory preparations are covered under Chapter 3214 - resort shall be made the Explanatory Notes of Harmonized System of Nomenclature published by the World Customs Organization, Brussels (HSN Explanatory Notes) to interpret the above relevant Sub-headings.
The group of Non refractory surfacing preparations which fall under Chapter 32.14 includes “preparations in powder form based on quartz and cement with small quantities of added plasticizers, used for instance, after adding water, for setting wall or floor tiles.”. The polymers used in the above mentioned products acts as plasticizers. As mentioned in their application the product Tile Adhesive mentioned by them are specifically used for setting tiles, whether on floor, walls or other tiles, etc and therefore it is apparent that their products would be classifiable under Chap. 32 and not Chap 38.
Tile grout is compound used as joint filler between tiles. This product is also used for setting the wall/ floor tiles because the same is used between two tiles as an adhesive by way of filling the gap between two tiles so that the tiles become attached to each other.
Ruling:- The products in question will be classifiable under Entry 24 of Schedule IV of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Taxes (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 liable to GST @ 28% (14% each of CGST and SGST).
-
2019 (1) TMI 947
Detention of vehicle with goods - Section 129(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act - contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has already deposited the required tax of ₹ 64,400/- with penalty of a like amount which is evident from the payment receipt filed at page 36 of the writ petition and therefore he is not required to pay further penalty of ₹ 2,30,000/- as owner of the vehicle - Held that:- The matter requires consideration - List thereafter.
-
2019 (1) TMI 946
Validity of order - Section 107(4) of the U.P. GST Act - submission of the petitioner is that there is a remedy of appeal under Section 112 before the Appellate Tribunal but because the Tribunal itself has not been constituted, he has no remedy except to approach this Court under Article 226 - Held that:- This fact has not been denied by the learned Standing Counsel - petition is entertained - List on 13.02.2019.
-
2019 (1) TMI 809
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - Held that:- There is a remedy of appeal under Section 112 before the Appellate Tribunal but because the Tribunal itself has not been constituted, he has no remedy except to approach this Court under Article 226 - petition is entertained - List on 13.02.2019.
-
2019 (1) TMI 808
Failure to upload FORM GST TRAN-1 within the stipulated time - input tax credit - Held that:- Not only the petitioner but also many other people faced this technical glitch and approached this Court. Both the learned counsel submit that this Court on earlier occasions permitted the petitioners to apply to the sixth respondent for the issue resolution.
The petitioner may apply to the sixth respondent, the Nodal Officer. The petitioner applying, the Nodal Officer will look into the issue and facilitate the petitioner’s uploading FORM GST TRAN-1, without reference to the time-frame - petition disposed off.
-
2019 (1) TMI 807
Profiteering - sale of Fortune ADW Detergent 1 Kg. and Fortune Rinse Aid 500 ml. - benefit of reduction in the GST rate not passed - base price of goods also increased - contravention of provisions of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 - penalty - Held that:- The Respondent has admittedly not passed on the benefit of tax reduction since the base prices of the above two products were increased to maintain the same selling prices which were existing before the reduction in the rate of tax. The Respondent, who is a registered manufacturer, is liable to pass on the benefit to the recipients irrespective of the fact whether the base prices are still lower as compared to the pre-GST price or not. Moreover, from the documents submitted to the DGAP by the Respondent it is also established that the base prices of the two products in question were increased to maintain the same selling prices (inclusive of GST), although there was a reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017.
In the present case, the Respondent has admittedly accepted the fact that there was no reduction in the prices post 15.11.2017 on any of the products sold by him. Therefore, the Authority holds that the Respondent has violated the provisions of section 171 in as much as the prices have remained the same inspite of reduction in the tax rate. His plea that the base prices were drastically lowered when GST came in effect cannot absolve him from not passing on the benefit.
Penalty u/r 133(3)(d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Held that:- The Respondent has indulged in profiteering in violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and has not passed on the benefit of reduction of tax as per the Notification 41/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 14.11.2017 in respect of the above products to his customers and therefore, he is liable for penalty under Rule 133(3)(d) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Penalty u/s 122 (1) (i) of the Act - Held that:- As it is clear from the facts of the present case that the Respondent was fully aware of the Notification No. 41/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 whereby the rate of GST was reduced from 28% to 18% and he was also fully aware of Section 171 of the CGST Act 2017, whereby he was bound to pass on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax by commensurate reduction in the prices of the products in question, therefore he is liable for penalty - respondent has committed an offence under section 122 (1) (i) of the above Act and hence, he is liable for imposition of penalty under the above Section read with Rule of the CGST Rules 2017.
Decided against Respondent.
-
2019 (1) TMI 763
Transitional credit - consideration of Form TRAN-1 and Form TRAN-2 - lack of clarity in the new transitional provisions under the GST Act - Held that:- The writ petitioner shall submit their application in accordance with the circular dated 03.04.2018 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the Assessing Officer/Jurisdictional Officer/GST Officer - The Nodal Officer in consultation with the GSTN shall take note of the grievance expressed by the petitioner/Assessee and forward the same to the grievance Committee, which in turn would take appropriate decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of six weeks thereafter.
-
2019 (1) TMI 680
Filing of TRAN-I Form - input tax credit - Section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Held that:- The petitioner has asserted that substantial credit was available to it on the transactions which it conducted prior to 30.03.2017, for which the law entitled it to credit, it appears to the Court that the authorities have so far not looked into the merits of the claim for input credit but rather rejected his entire entitlement itself on the ground that the credit reflected in the electronic ledger does not show any figure - The conundrum which the Court is presented with here is that if the petitioner were to obtain a screenshot of the figures it had filled just before it actually uploaded TRAN-I, the Revenue would have then contended that those figures were inchoate as the document would not have been final and was merely at the stage of preparation.
The Court is of the opinion that the respondents should disclose as to what was actually filled in the TRAN-I Form [whether for the first time or the second time when it was uploaded], by the petitioner in this case and the basis of its assertion that no credit was available to it, having regard to the fact that the petitioner claims credit on the basis of real transactions in real goods.
List on 13th March, 2019.
-
2019 (1) TMI 679
Detention of goods - Part-B of the E-Way bill was not updated - Held that:- The petitioner shall pay one time tax liability of ₹ 1,61,032.78 under the CGST Act and ₹ 1,61,032.78 under the SGST Act before the second respondent within a period of four days from today - On receipt of such payment, the detained goods shall be released forthwith.
-
2019 (1) TMI 678
Detention order - non-compliance of the mandate under the provisions of Section 129(4) of the Act - Held that:- From a plain reading of the order, it is apparent that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that no opportunity has been afforded under Section 129 (4) of the CGST Act stands falsified - it is apparent that the alleged owners have waived the right of hearing and have consented, levy of tax and penalty and have undertaken to pay as per the provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act.
The Proper Officer realizing the lacuna, has proceeded to pass the rectification order after taking into consideration the objections and hence, the same is nothing but an attempt by the Proper Officer to ensure that the objections filed and contention raised by the petitioner are considered in the proper perspective and in the manner required under the Act. Hence, no malafides can be attributed to the same - this Court is of the opinion that the points raised by the petitioner does not survive for consideration.
The matter requires adjudication of facts, which are seriously disputed by the parties - petition dismissed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 677
Principles of Natural Justice - right to appeal denied on the ground that no such Appellate Forum has been notified by the State of Himachal Pradesh - Held that:- The aggrieved party cannot be left remedy less merely because the State Government has not notified the Appellate Forum - The petitioner may, if so advised, file an appeal within one week from the date the Appellate Forum is notified. Till such time, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. It is clarified that we have not expressed any views on merits. - petition disposed off.
-
2019 (1) TMI 610
Refund of integrated tax (IGST) - opportunity of personal hearing - principles of natural justice - Held that:- It is evident that the respondent has chosen to pass the impugned order not only by ignoring the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 13.07.2018, filed in response to the deficiency memo dated 04.07.2018 and also in violation of the principles of natural justice, as admittedly the petitioner was not afforded with the personal hearing, even though such request was specifically made by the petitioner through their reply dated 13.07.2018.
Perusal of the impugned order would show that the respondent has chosen to reiterate the deficiencies already pointed out in the deficiency memo, as the reason for rejecting the refund application, without considering the explanation given by the petitioner, as to how such deficiencies pointed out by the respondent are either improper or not warranted - this Court is of the view that the respondent should consider the application already filed by the petitioner once again on merits based on the petitioner's reply dated 13.07.2018 and also after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2019 (1) TMI 552
GST TRAN-1 - opening the GST portal - petitioner has placed before us a screen-shot of GST TRAN-1 application which the assessee wants to file, which is dated 09.01.2019 and which clearly mentions that the filing of declaration in TRAN-1 is not available now as the due date is over - Held that:- The respondents are directed to file their counter affidavit within one month - List after one month.
-
2019 (1) TMI 551
Permission to withdraw the present petition - Held that:- The present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation with respondent No.4 within a period of three days from today.
-
2019 (1) TMI 550
Cancellation of petitioner's bail - the sole ground for cancellation of the petitioner’s bail is the impression given to the Sessions Court that the quantum of tax evasion involved is not ₹ 4.58 crores but ₹ 85 crores - Held that:- It is evident that the order cancelling the petitioner’s bail does not proceed on the basis of the quantum of tax evasion involved but on the basis that the petitioner has attempted to intimidate witnesses whom he had made dummy directors/proprietors in certain companies/firms - this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in order dated 22.12.2018 made by the Sessions Court cancelling the petitioner’s bail; and that, the petitioner having misused and abused the liberty granted to him, is not entitled to the benefit of bail, at this stage - application dismissed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 549
Imposition of penalty equal to 200% of the tax - the penalty order was an appealable order, however, since no Appellate Authority had been constituted so far, therefore, the petition was being filed - Held that:- Additional Commissioner (Appeals) has been appointed to perform the functions as an Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and rule 109A of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - the writ petitions disposed off by relegating the petitioners to take recourse to the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority, in accordance with law - petition disposed off.
-
2019 (1) TMI 488
Input tax credit - lease rent paid during pre-operative period for the leasehold land on which the resort is being constructed to be used for furtherance of business, when the same is capitalised and treated as capital expenditure - Held that:- The prohibition from availing input tax credit, as provided under section 17(5)(d) of the GST Act, is not limited to the civil structure being constructed. It extends to the immovable property in general (other than plant and machinery), which includes the supplies received for retaining the right to use and develop the land. Such supplies are essential for construction of the civil structure on the piece of land - The Applicant will admittedly capitalize the lease premium. The property is, therefore, admittedly being constructed on the Applicant’s own account and treated as fixed asset, including the lease rental paid. Whether the lease rental paid for the pre-operative period is capitalized under the head ‘Leasehold Land’ or ‘Building Block’ is of little significance in this context.
The lease rental paid during the pre-operative period should be treated as part of the cost of goods and services received for the purpose of constructing an immovable property (other than plant and machinery) on the Applicant’s own account - Input tax credit is, therefore, not admissible on such lease rental in terms of section 17(5)(d) of the GST Act.
Ruling:- Input Tax Credit is not available to the Applicant for lease rent paid during pre-operative period for the leasehold land on which the resort is being constructed on his own account to be used for furtherance of business, when the same is being capitalised and treated as capital expenditure.
|
