|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 128 Records
-
2019 (2) TMI 1719 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Offence under Section 132(1)(B), (C) & (D) of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 - Service of notice - HELD THAT:- Petitioner was summoned in terms of Section 70 of the Act. Petitioner appeared and was duly interrogated and his statement was recorded and thereafter, he was arrested. Under the Act show cause notice is to be served to the company with regard to the amount due. However, in the present case, no such notice has been issued to the company. The amount required to be paid by the company has not been determined so far. Company has a remedy to file an appeal against the determined amount. Company has already deposited ₹ 4 crores with the concerned authority which would have been required to be paid by the company in case of filing of appeal against the assessment order. In-fact, no further amount is required to be deposited by the company with the concerned authority in the present case. Offence under the Act is compoundable. Petitioner is merely an employee of the company.
The offence committed by the accused is serious in nature. In-fact, the accused had issued bogus invoices without actual movement of goods which led to involvement of fraudulent input taxes amounting to ₹ 40.58 crores. Admittedly, company has deposited ₹ 6.95 crores with the concerned authority towards non-payment of G.S.T. Case is still under investigation.
Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, no ground for grant of bail to him is made out - petition dismissed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1698 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Service of order - grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been able to get the copy of the final order - HELD THAT:- In case any final order has been passed the opposite parties may provide a copy of the same to the petitioner.
Writ petition, as such, is not require to be decided on merit.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1633 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Setting up of appellate Tribunal - refusal of right of appeal - HELD THAT:- On the one hand the right of appeal is not being given to the petitioner, on the other hand the State and the Centre are both very quick to make recoveries from persons, who have orders against them. A litigant cannot be left without a remedy for reasons that the Government is unable to provide forums - In the present case there is not even an assurance that within next six months, one year or two years it may come up.
We direct both the Centre and the State Governments to file better affidavits giving us a cut off date by which they propose to set up the Tribunal. Learned Standing Counsel also states today that they are likely to give a revised proposal. They may do so within next two weeks.
List this matter after two weeks on 15th March, 2019. The personal appearance of two Officers, who are present today is exempted unless directed by this Court.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1606 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL
Classification of goods - Bags/Sacks (both with & without Handle) made of (i) Laminated P.P. Non-woven Fabric, (ii) B.O.P.P. Pasted P.P. Non-woven Fabric and (iii) Woven Fabric Pasted with Non-woven Fabric - Held that:- HS Code 3923 covers articles of the conveyance or packing of goods, of plastics; etc. Sub-Heading 39232990 is applicable for sacks and bags of plastics which are neither polymers of ethylene nor of poly-vinyl chloride and are subject to 18% GST - Regarding Bags/Sacks made of Woven Fabric Pasted with Non-woven Fabric the Applicant has not stated the constituting materials of the fabric and hence, in the absence of any definite material mentioned for the fabric, the General Rules for the Interpretation of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff, which has been adopted by GST have to be referred to.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1605 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL
Classification of supply - Composite supply or mixed supply - service to the students for lodging along with food under MOU with the school / college - exemption under Sl. No. 14 of Notification No. 12/2017–CT (Rate) dated 28/06/2017 - rate of tax - Held that:- The Applicant is offering several individual services in two different combinations to the recipients, depending upon their need for lodging facility. Each of the recipients, however, is charged a consolidated amount for the combination of services he wants to enjoy. The combination of services is, therefore, offered as a mixed supply within the meaning of Section 2(74). In accordance with Section 8(b) of the GST Act it is stated that, “a mixed supply comprising two or more supplies shall be treated as a supply of that particular supply which attracts the highest rate of tax - each of the combinations includes services taxable at 18% rate, which is the highest rate applicable to the services being offered vide Section 8(b) of the GST Act. Being mixed supply, value of the entire combination of services offered is taxable at 18% rate.
Sl. No. 66 of the Exemption Notification is applicable to the services provided by or to an educational institution, as defined under clause 2(y) of the said notification. The Applicant is not an educational institution within the meaning of the above clause. Although the services are provided in terms of an MOU with St Michael’s School, the Applicant charges the consideration on the individual students. Being liable to pay the consideration, such students are, therefore recipients of the Applicant’s services and not the educational institution. Sl. No. 66 of the Exemption Notification is, therefore, not applicable.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1604 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL
Input tax Credit - ambulances purchased for the benefit of the employees under legal requirement of the Factories Act, 1948 - Second Proviso to Section 17(5)(b) of the GST Act - Held that:- Input tax credit on inward supply of ambulance, being a motor vehicle, is not admissible under Section 17(5)(a) of the GST Act. The exception carved out under Section 17(5)(b)(iii)(A) of the GST Act for services which are obligatory for an employer to provide to its employees under any law for the time being in force is limited only to rent-a-cab, life insurance and health insurance - Credit not available.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1603 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ODISHA
Classification of supply - setting up a project in the school - supply of goods and services including training - challenge to AAR Decision - Applicability of Entry No. 72 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax(Rate), dated 28.06.2017, read with Entry No. 72 of Notification bearing SRO No. 306/2017-Finance Department - services provided under the category of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) @ School Project
Held that:- The Appellant themselves have contended that the activities undertaken by the Appellant are under BOOT model basis and therefore, the ownership in the infrastructure developed by them would be transferred after the expiry of the contract period (i.e 5 years) This is also clearly provided in the agreement that the ownership of the entire hardware software, other equipment, etc. will be transferred at zero value at the end of the contract period Therefore, the stand taken by the Appellant is self-contradictory in as much as on one hand, they claim that the provision of service as operation or maintenance of self-owned equipment does not amount to supply of services to third party. But on the other hand, they claim that the ownership in the infrastructure developed by it would be transferred after the expiry of the contract period (i e 5 years). The said transfer of ownership is also unconditional.
Moreover, under Schedule-II (1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017/SGST it is clearly defined that any transfer of title in goods under an agreement which stipulates that property in goods shall pass at a future date upon payment of full consideration as agreed, is a supply of goods.
It is also observed that the Appellant at para-13.3 of their Appeal, have clearly admitted that the funds for implementation of project are being provided by OMSM to OKCL, for further release to the Appellant. The Appellant has cited the agreement copy of OMSM and OKCL, where it is provided that if OKCL fails to discharge the obligation under the agreement, OMSM would discharge all the responsibilities. The agreement cited between OMSM and OKCL is not relevant to the present issue. The Appellant themselves have admitted that OKCL will release the money for the supplies made by the Appellant. The contention/pleading of the Appellant that they merely act as an implementing agency on behalf of OMSM, is factually not correct.
The Advance Ruling passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Odisha, made under Section 98 of the Goods and Services Act, 2017 in RE: M/S. IL & FS EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LTD. [2018 (10) TMI 780 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ODISHA] upheld.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1602 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Imposition of IGST - appealable order under Section 107 of Punjab General Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Held that:- We dispose of the present petition by permitting the petitioner to file an appeal assailing the order dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure R-2) before the Appellate Authority. It is however, clarified that in case any appeal is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be decided by the Appellate Authority expeditiously after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1527 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ODISHA
Input Tax credit - inputs and input services used by for maintenance of its township/residential colony, guest house/transit house/training hostel, hospital, horticulture and maintenance & security service in townships - Challenge to AAR Decision - Held that:- The ruling of the AAR that inward supplies received by the Appellant-I by way of management, repair, renovation, alteration or maintenance service or goods received for furnishing the residential colony shall not qualify for input tax credit is found to be correct. Expenditure incurred by the Appellant-I towards construction, reconstruction, renovation, additions or alterations or repairs to the residential colony is not eligible for input tax benefit if the said expenditure has been capitalized. Moreover, provision of housing to its employees by the Appellant-I is nothing but a perquisite.
As clarified by the CBIC vide its Press Release dated 10.10.2017, referred to by the Appellant-I, perquisites are not subjected to GST. Therefore, since the perquisites are outside the scope of GST, input tax credit shall not be available to the Appellant-I in respect of tax paid on goods and services procured by it for management, repair, renovation, alteration or maintenance services (including watch and ward services, security services, Plantation/Gardening/Landscaping services, etc.) pertaining to residential accommodation for its employees in township/colony.
Input and input services for maintenance of guest house, transit house and trainee hotel - Held that:- The guest house of the Appellant-I is used for temporary accommodation of its employees as well as non employees. Thought the provision of guest house may not be treated as a perquisite, it cannot also be treated as an activity integrally related to the business of the Appellant-I. That means, the guest house service provided by the Appellant-I to its employees as well as non-employees cannot be treated as an activity in course or furtherance of its business - the tax paid on inward supplies of goods and services in connection with the guest house cannot be allowed the benefit of input tax credit - Decided against assessee (Appellant-1)
Services availed in relation to plantation and gardening within the plant area including mining area and the premises of other business establishments - Held that:- Creation and maintenance of green area/zone inside plant/mining/office premises is a business necessity for controlling pollution as well as atmospheric temperature. It is also a requirement for preventing soil erosion. This is also mandated in various laws under which the Appellant-I conducts its business such as the Forest Conservation Act, the Environment Protection Act, etc. Therefore, such activities are integral to the business activity of the Appellant-I and hence can be treated as activities in course or furtherance of its business. - Credit allowed - Decided against Revenue (Appellant-11)
It is established that to claim input tax credit, an input service must be integrally connected with the business of manufacturing the final product Cost of an input service forming part of the cost of final product alone cannot be a condition to allow the benefit of input tax credit.
The appeal filed by M/s.National Aluminium Company Ltd (Appellant-I) fails, whereas the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CX & GST, Bhubaneswar (Appellant-II) succeeds partially - The ruling of the Odisha Authority for Advance Ruling in RE: M/S. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD., (NALCO)[2018 (10) TMI 748 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ODISHA] allowed in part.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1526 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, ODISHA
Rate of IGST - Imported of specified Equipments delivered to the Eligible Institutions - liability of IGST on such imported Equipments by the OEM suppliers of imported equipment - Applicability of 51/1996-Customs, Dt. 23.07.1996 read with Notification No-43/2017-Customs, Dt: 30.06.2017 - Held that:- The applicability of Notification No. 51/96-Customs dated 23.07.1996 as amended vide Notification No-43/2017-Customs, Dt: 30.06.2017 to “OEM Suppliers” needs to be examined. In this case, the OEM supplier is a supplier located in India and the supply of equipments by such supplier to the specified Research Institutions is undeniably a case of domestic supply. The nature of such domestic supply can be intrastate or interstate depending on the location of such supplier. The equipments supplied might have been imported from other countries and such import might be with the sole intention of supply to some pre-determined Research Institutions, which might be entitled for IGST exemption provided through the aforesaid Notifications, such as the Applicant. In spite of that, such preceding import or the intent behind such import will not alter the nature of the transactions - the ‘GST liability will be on the importer (in this case the Applicant) and exemption from the said liability can be claimed and availed. The Applicant cannot claim exemption from the liability of another taxable person.
Further, Notification No. 51/96-customs dated 23.07.1996 is restricted to importers like Public funded research institution or a university or an Indian Institute of Technology or Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore or a Regional Engineering College, other than a hospital - In the instant case, the intended beneficiary is the specified eligible institutions such as the Applicant but not the OEM suppliers. The said notification is restricted to the public funded and non-commercial research institutions and I.I.T. etc. So, by any stretch of the imagination, the said notification read with notification no. 43/2017-customs dated 30.06.2017 cannot be extended to the OEM suppliers.
Whether the decision of the GST Council granting the exemption is binding on the Department in the absence of non-issuance of corresponding Notification by the Central/State Government to give effect to such decision of the Council? - Held that:- Obviously the decision of GST Council is final and binding on the State and Central Government and accordingly, as per the decision of the council, Notification No.51/96-customs dated 23.07.1996 was amended providing for exemption from levy of IGST on import of goods. GST council is a constitutional body to formulate GST policies and to make recommendation to the Union and the State. Accordingly, every notification, circular or orders issued by the Central and State Governments are duly vetted by the GST Council. However issues pertaining to rate of tax and tax concessions/ exemption have to be as per the statutory notifications.
Concessional rate of GST/IGST at the 5% vide Notification No-45- CGST(Rate), Dt:14.11.2017 and Notification No-47-lGST(Rate), Dt:14.11.2017 - whether applicable only for supply of specified Indigenous Equipments to the eligible Institutions fulfilling conditions as specified under Column-(4) of the said notification with effect from 15.11.2017? - Held that:- It is clarified that Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) vide the aforesaid notifications exempts in access of 5% (2.5% in case of CGST) the specified goods as listed under column (3) of the said notification to specific institutions subject to the conditions as specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) Of the said notification. The said notifications do not distinguish between imported and indigenous goods.
Therefore, concessional rate of IGST at 5%, CGST @ 2.5% and SGST @2.5% vide the aforesaid Notifications is applicable to supply of all the specified goods as mentioned above whether imported or indigenous.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1525 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, ODISHA
Classification of goods - Gudakhu - liability to pay NCCD (National Calamity Contingency Duty) - Held that:- Gudakhu as manufactured by the applicant is certainly not classified under any specific tariff item in any of the sub-headings under the Heading 24 03. Accordingly, it can be classified and rightly so under the residual tariff item 2403 99 90 - other’ of the said Chapter Heading because of its composition, character and use.
Determination of the liability to pay NCCD (National Calamity Contingency Duty) - Held that:- It is clarified that the aforesaid duty is a levy under the Central Excise Act and not under the CGST/ OCST/IGST Act. The scope of issuing a ruling u/s 98 of the OGST/CGST Act is limited to the extent prescribed in sub-section (2) of Section 97 of the OGST/CGST Act. NCCD being not a levy under the OGST/CGST Act, it is not within the competence and mandates of the Authority of Advance Ruling constituted u/s 96 of the OGST Act to give a ruling on the liability of the applicant to pay NCCD.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1524 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Vires of clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Sub Section 2 of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Act, 2017 - jurisdiction or powers to levy, assess and collect tax under the Kerala Value Added tax Act, 2003 - repeal of statutes - transition provisions - Held that:- The issue decided in the case of M/S. SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) -1, AND OTHERS [2019 (2) TMI 300 - KERALA HIGH COURT], where the petitioner's plea is rejected that the State lacks the vires to graft Section 174 into KSGST Act, 2017 - petition dismissed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1456 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Extension of time for filing GST Tran-1 - input tax credit - migration to GST regime - extension sought on the ground that application was not entertained on the last date i.e. 27.12.2017 - 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. They will also ensure that the petitioner is allowed to pay its taxes on the regular electronic system also which is being maintained for use of the credit likely to be considered for the petitioner.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1452 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Attachment of bank accounts - input tax credit - power of Commissioner to order provisional attachment - section 83 of the CGST Act - Held that:- Under section 83 of the CGST Act, the Commissioner is empowered to order provisional attachment for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue. In the facts of the present case, while a liability of ₹ 14.62 crores had been estimated at the time when the order under section 83 of the CGST Act came to be passed, the present estimate is ₹ 16.24 crores. Thus, the petitioner, upon conclusion of any proceedings that may be taken pursuant to the proceedings under sections 67, 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, may be liable to pay such amount.
Admittedly, the petitioner has already reversed input tax credit to the tune of ₹ 13,28,00,000/ - In the opinion of this Court, considering the amount paid by reversing input tax credit, the interest of the Revenue is sufficiently secured. Therefore, the provisional attachment of the above referred bank accounts of the petitioner is no longer justified.
Petition allowed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1450 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Release of seized vehicle alongwith the goods - Sub-section (1) of Section 129 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act read with sub-Section (3) of Section 68 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Held that:- We dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.3 to take a decision on the representation dated 25.01.2019 (Annexure P-2), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1341 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Extension of time period for filing of GST Tran-1 - input tax credit - migration to GST regime - 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 open the portal before 31st of March 2019. In the event they do not do so, they will entertain the GST TRAN-1 of the petitioner manually and pass orders on it after due verification of the credits as claimed by the petitioner. They will also ensure that the petitioner is allowed to pay its taxes on the regular electronic system also which is being maintained for use of the credit likely to be considered for the petitioner.
List this matter on 25.03.2019.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1340 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Imposition of advertisement tax - Vires of the Mathura Vrindavan Nagar Nigam (Vigyapan Kar Ka Nirdharan and Wasuli Viniyaman) Upvidhi, 2017 - submission is that the aforesaid bye-laws were notified in the Official Gazette and were enforced w.e.f. 6.1.2018 but on the said date the Municipal Corporation had no authority in law to impose any advertisement tax - Held that:- The Mathura Vrindavan Nagar Nigam framed the said bye-laws in exercise of its powers under Sub-Section (2) (h) of the Section 172 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act which enabled it to impose tax on advertisement not being advertisement published in the news papers. The aforesaid provision of Sub-Section (2)(h) of Section 172 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act was omitted vide Section 173 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act which was enforced w.e.f. 01.07.2017. It may be pertinent to note that not only the G.S.T. Act was implemented w.e.f. 01.07.2017 but even the provision of Section 173 thereof was enforced with effect from the said date. Thus, Section 172 (2) (h) of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act stood omitted w.e.f. 01.07.2017.
In view of the aforesaid omission of Section 172 (2) (h) of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act by the U.P. G.S.T. Act, all Municipal Corporations in the State of U.P. were denuded of the power to impose tax on advertisement after 01.01.2017. Once the said power of imposing tax on advertisement itself was taken away, no bye-law in that regard could have been framed and promulgated. Apart from the above, the State legislature was invested with the power to make laws in respect of taxes on advertisement vide Entry 55 of List II to the 7th Schedule of the Constitution but the said Entry was deleted by the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 12.09.2016.
The Mathura Vrindavan Nagar Nigam had no legislative competence on 6.01.2018 to promulgate the aforesaid bye-laws in view of omission of Section 172 (2) (h) of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act by virtue of Section 173 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act which was enforced on 01.07.2017 as also due to the omission of Entry 55 of List II of 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India empowering the State to make bye-laws in respect of tax on advertisement vide Section 17 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 enforced w.e.f. 16.09.2016.
Thus, the Municipal Corporation on the relevant date lacked the necessary legislative competence to make and promulgate the said bye-laws - petition allowed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1286 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods alongwith vehicle - submission of petitioner is that petitioner has already paid the required tax for the goods which were being transported. In fact more tax amount has been deposited - Held that:- As per Rule 140, in case the owner of the goods furnishes the security in the form of Bank Guarantee equivalent to the amount of applicable tax, interest and penalty payable, the authorities can consider the release of the goods and vehicle.
The writ petition is disposed of with the observation that petitioner shall furnish the security in the form of Bank Guarantee before the authority concerned, the concerned authority, thereafter may consider the release of of the goods and the vehicle and pass appropriate orders expeditiously say within a period of ten days thereafter.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1218 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Rectification/revision of Form GST TRAN 2 electronically or manually - the present scheme of CGST Act does not allow rectification or revision of the Tran 2 form - Whether an assessee can rectify/revise GST TRAN 2 form subsequent to its uploading? - Held that:- Since the Rules of 2017 do not contemplate revision of Form GST TRAN 2, the common portal available under the Act and Rules of 2017, does not provide for revision of Form GST TRAN 2 in the electronic manner. The petitioners are therefore unable to file a revised declaration under Form GST TRAN 2 electronically. There is no mechanism under the Act or Rules of 2017 to file any document manually.
Taxing statutes are to be strictly construed. However, such interpretation should not lead to a reckless or a mindless mechanical application of the statute.
In the present case, the petitioners contend that, there are mistakes in Form GST TRAN 2 requiring revision. The Form GST TRAN 2, at best, is an admission of the person filing the same with regard to the contents of the document. Admission is a strong evidence against the person making it. However, law contemplates that, the person making such admission has the opportunity to explain the same - The Form GST TRAN 2, at best can be an admission allowing the authorities to inform the state of affairs of the first petitioner in relation to the subject matter governed by such form. However, neither the Act of 2017 nor the Rules of 2017 can be read to mean that, the same excludes the right of a person making an admission, to forfeit the opportunity to explain it. Neither the Act of 2017 nor the Rules of 2017 forfeits the right of a person making an admission to substantiate that, such admission was made by mistake or was untrue.
A person filing a Form GST TRAN 2 therefore, should be afforded an opportunity, to explain the Form GST TRAN 2, in the event, such person chooses to do so. Moreover, Form GST TRAN 2 will be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessment. In the assessment proceedings, the person filing the Form GST TRAN 2 would be at liberty to establish by cogent evidence that, the figures filed therein are incorrect or untrue. The Assessing Officer will be obliged to take into consideration such a stand while pronouncing upon the assessment - There is no ground as to why, a person filing Form GST TRAN 2 should not be allowed to revise Form GST TRAN 2 after its initial filing.
The authorities are directed to allow the first petitioner to file a revised Form GST TRAN 2, either electronically or manually, in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of communication of this order - petition allowed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1217 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
CENVAT Refund - Tran-1 Claim has not been filed by the petitioner online within stipulated time - Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rules 117(1), 118, 119 & 120 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Held that:- It shall be open to the petitioner to apply for rectification of Tran-1 to the Nodal Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. It is, however, further clarified that in case the claim is made by the petitioner within the aforesaid period, the officer concerned shall take necessary action thereon before 31.03.2019, in accordance with law - petition disposed off.
........
|
