|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 128 Records
-
2019 (2) TMI 737 - THE NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Profiteering - supply of Trousers - benefit of reduction in the rate of tax not passed on - contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of CGST Act, 2017 - Held that:- There was no reduction in the rate of tax on the above product w.e.f. 01.07.2017 and hence the anti-profiteering provisions contained in Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted - Also, there is no increase in the per unit base price (excluding tax) of the above product and therefore the allegation of profiteering is not sustainable in terms of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Application dismissed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 542 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
CENVAT Credit - credit of eligible duties in respect of inputs held in stock on the appointed day - Held that;- No documents have been prescribed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules; under the circumstances, when the petitioner has produced documents evidencing payment of duty, he is entitled to the credit in respect thereof - Issue Notice returnable on 27th February, 2019.
-
2019 (2) TMI 541 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Search or seizure - seizure of goods, documents or books or things - subsection (2) of section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Held that:- The basic requirement is that the goods, documents, books or things should have been secreted in any place. It was submitted that in the facts of the present case, the goods in respect of which the impugned order of prohibition under rule 139(4) of the rules has been issued, are the goods which are accounted for in the books of account and are not secreted anywhere, and hence, the order of prohibition is contrary to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 67 of the Act - Issue Notice returnable on 21st February, 2019.
-
2019 (2) TMI 540 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Validity of search proceedings - power of proper officer to carry on search proceedings - Held that:- It appears that the proper officer could not have any reason to believe as contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 67 of the Act, and hence, the entire search proceedings are without authority of law - Issue Notice returnable on 21st February, 2019.
-
2019 (2) TMI 462 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Vires of Section 174 of the KSGST Act - power of State to graft the section - demand barred by time limitation u/s 25(1) of the KVAT Act - Held that:- The issue is squarely covered by the decision 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 it was held that the State do not lack the vires to graft Section 174 into KSGST Act, 2017 - petition dismissed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 461 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Filing of Form GST Tran-1 - It is the grievance of the petitioners that, the respondent No.6 has issued the endorsement advising the petitioners to contact the respective individual officers for redressal of their grievance - Held that:- In view of the insertion of Rule 1 (1)(A) to Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, which provides that the Commissioner on the recommendations of the counsel, can extend the date for submitting the Form in GST Tran-1 by a further period not beyond March 2019 in respect of registered persons, who could not submit the said declaration on the common portal and the notification issued by the Commissioner dated 17th September 2018 extending the period for submitting the Form GST Tran-1 till 31.01.2019 for the class of registered persons, who could not submit the Form / declaration by the due date on account of the technical defect on the common portal - the writ petition does not survive for consideration and is rendered infructuous.
Petition dismissed as infructuous.
-
2019 (2) TMI 460 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Vires of Section 174 of the KSGST Act - power of State to graft the section - demand barred by time limitation u/s 25(1) of the KVAT Act - Held that:- The issue is squarely covered by the decision 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 it was held that the State do not lack the vires to graft Section 174 into KSGST Act, 2017 - petition dismissed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 427 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
IT-grievance redressal mechanism - Circular No.39/13/2018-GST dated 03.04.2018 issued by CBIC - Held that:- The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 7 will ensure that the Commissioner, second respondent, meets the petitioner or its representatives on Monday i.e. 11th February, 2018 at 11.30 a.m. and will ensure that the petitioner’s grievances are redressed - matter posted for “Passing Orders” on 14th February, 2018.
-
2019 (2) TMI 426 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Legislative competence to the imposition, collection and realization of the Advertisement Tax - Constitutional validity of Nagar Palika Parishad Hathras (Vigyapan Kar Ka Nirdharan Aur Wasuli Viniyaman) Upvidhi, 2015 - Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 - Articles 14, 19, 21, 246, Seventh Schedule, List-II.
Whether the bye-laws framed on 12.1.2017 by the respondents and published on 19.8.2017, were beyond the statutory power of the municipalities?
Held that:- This Court has no hesitation in holding that after the omission of Entry-55 of the List-II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India having been omitted by the 101 Amendment Act, 2016 with effect from 16.9.2016, even the State Government did not have the legislative competence to levy or collect taxes on advertisement which was earlier available under Entry-55, this coupled with the fact that the power of taxation earlier vested with the municipalities under section 128(2)(vii) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 having been omitted by virtue of Section 173 of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the municipality did not even have the statutory competence to levy, impose or collect Advertisement Tax.
The levy and collection of the Advertisement Tax under the provisions of Nagar Palika Parishad, Hathras (Vigyapan Kar Ka Nirdharan Aur Wasuli Viniyaman) Upvidhi, 2015 is clearly without legislative or statutory competence and is ultra-vires under Article 265 of the Constitution of India, U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the said Nagar Palika Parishad, Hathras (Vigyapan Kar Ka Nirdharan Aur Wasuli Viniyaman) Upvidhi, 2015 is without any legislative or statutory competence and, thus, are hereby struck down - the Court has held the levy and collection of Advertisement Tax as ultra-vires, the amounts so collected from the petitioner are liable to be refunded.
Petition allowed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 425 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment of property - invocation of provisions of section 83 of the CGST Act against the directors of the petitioner-company - Held that:- The reliance placed upon section 89 of the Act is thoroughly misconceived inasmuch the same relates to recovery of any tax, interest or penalty due from a private company in respect of supply of goods or services. Moreover, even if such amount cannot be recovered from the private company, the directors of the company do not ipso facto become liable to pay such amount and it is only if the director fails to prove that non-recovery cannot be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part in relation to the affairs of the company, that the same can be invoked. However, in any case, at this stage, section 83 of the Act does not apply to the directors of the private company.
The impugned orders of attachment, to the extent the same attach the bank accounts of the directors, as set out in the statement at page 8 and 9 of the petition, at serial No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 11 are concerned, are totally without any authority of law - the respondents are directed to forthwith release the attachment of bank accounts - petition allowed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 424 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Filing of Form GST TRAN - 1 - petitioner made several complaints before the Nodal Officer, but the same has not been considered so far - Held that:- It is hardly required to be stated that the Nodal Officer appointed under the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) and State Goods & Services Tax (SGST) Acts is obligated to consider the complaint of the petitioner and take a decision in the matter. However, the same has not been done, it is imperative for this Court to direct respondent No.7 - Nodal Officer to consider the complaint/representation made by the petitioner at Annexures-H and K to the writ petition and take a decision in accordance with law in an expedite manner - petition disposed off.
-
2019 (2) TMI 391 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Constitutional vires of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act - Held that:- Learned Government Pleader fairly submits that the authorities will defer all actions under the Ext.P5 until the petitioner receives a copy of the judgment in [2019 (2) TMI 300 - KERALA HIGH COURT] - Petition disposed off.
-
2019 (2) TMI 390 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction - power of respondent to seal the business premises - access to the business premises was not denied by the petitioner - software stopped functioning all of a sudden along with internet connection abruptly. - seeking co-operation from the assessee for inspection/search of the computer system and other records available in the premises - Held that:- Section 67[4] of the Act contemplates that the officer authorized under Sub-section [2] shall have the power to seal or break open the door of any premises or to break open any almirah, electronic devices, box, receptacle in which any goods, accounts, registers or documents of the person are suspected to be concealed, where access to such premises, almirah, electronic devices, box or receptacle is denied.
This Court is of the considered view that the justice would be sub-served in directing the Revenue to unseal the premises in question on 05.02.2019 at 11.00 a.m., which is convenient to the petitioner and the petitioner shall co-operate for inspection/search of the premises in question, including the computer system - the date is fixed on 11.02.2019 at 11.00 a.m., to unseal the premises in question - petition allowed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 389 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction - power of respondent to seal the business premises - access to the business premises was not denied by the petitioner - software stopped functioning all of a sudden along with internet connection abruptly. - seeking co-operation from the assessee for inspection/search of the computer system and other records available in the premises - Held that:- Section 67[4] of the Act contemplates that the officer authorized under Sub-section [2] shall have the power to seal or break open the door of any premises or to break open any almirah, electronic devices, box, receptacle in which any goods, accounts, registers or documents of the person are suspected to be concealed, where access to such premises, almirah, electronic devices, box or receptacle is denied.
This Court is of the considered view that the justice would be sub-served in directing the Revenue to unseal the premises in question on 04.02.2019 at 11.00 a.m., which is convenient to the petitioner and the petitioner shall co-operate for inspection/search of the premises in question, including the computer system - the date is fixed on 08.02.2019 at 11.00 a.m., to unseal the premises in question - petition allowed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 388 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Levy of tax on construction activities - value of the land at one-third of the total amount charged - Constitutional validity of entry 5(b) of Schedule II to the GST Act, 2017 - legislative competence - Article 246A and 265 of the Constitution - Held that:- passing of a legislation by itself does not confer any such right to file the writ petition unless a cause of action arises therefor
Enacting a legislation or issuing Notification/Circular could not confer a right to challenge unless the litigant is affected by the action initiated by the executive in furtherance of such legislation/administrative Circular/Notification more particularly, in taxing statutes. Cause of action is sine qua non for challenging such legislation/ Notification/Circular. The writ Court cannot adjudicate upon such matters in vacuum - The petitioner involved in construction activity or works contract would not be suffice to examine the constitutional vires of the Act and the related Notification/Circular unless the cause of action emerges.
This Court is of the considered view that the writ petitions at this stage are premature and deserve to be dismissed as not maintainable - petition dismissed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 330 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Amount involved in E-way bill - petitioner has generated e-way bill for more amount and on physical verification the same was found less - contravention of provisions of CGST and SGST 2017 or not - Held that:- The e-way bills have been annexed on page 20-23. The hard copies are not required. There is no inference drawn by the opposite parties that the e-way bills were not correct or they were fake - an officer of not less than the rank of Assistant Commissioner, who is well versed with the facts of the case, may be present before the Court on the date fixed.
List on 14.2.2019 as fresh.
-
2019 (2) TMI 329 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods and vehicle - Failure to remit tax and penalty u/s 129 of KGST Act, 2017 - Confiscation u/s 130 of the Act justified or not? - Held that:- We are afraid that the time for raising such a contention has not arisen, since as of now the Department has not proceeded under Section 130.
On furnishing the Bank Guarantee for tax and penalty as provided under Rule 141 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and simple bond without sureties for the value of the goods, the goods and the vehicle shall be released expeditiously
Appeal disposed off.
-
2019 (2) TMI 328 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Vires of Articles 246A of the Constitution of India - Section 19 of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 - clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Sub Section 2 of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Act 2017 - Held that:- The issues stand squarely covered against the petitioner by judgment in the matter of SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [2019 (2) TMI 300 - KERALA HIGH COURT] and connected cases - petition dismissed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 327 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Vires of Articles 246A of the Constitution of India - Section 19 of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 - clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Sub Section 2 of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Act 2017 - Held that:- The issues stand squarely covered against the petitioner by judgment in the matter of SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [2019 (2) TMI 300 - KERALA HIGH COURT] and connected cases and connected cases - petition dismissed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 300 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Constitutionality of section 174 of KGST Act and 101st Constitutional Amendment - Jurisdiction - power to enact section 174 of KGST Act - amendment to Entry 54 of List II - the assertion mainly comes from 101st Constitutional Amendment that is the attenuated or modified Entry 54 of List-II, the State List - Does the State have the legislative competence to enact section 174 and save the past taxation events-comprising levy, and recovery-when Entry 54, List II, which is the field of legislation empowering the State, stood omitted permanently with effect from 16.09.2017? - repeal of statutes - transitional provisions.
Held that:- With the Entry 54 of List II unavailable for the State to incorporate Section 174 of KSGST Act, the whole saving mechanism vis-a-vis transactions before 16-09-2017 crumbles - it is fallacy on the petitioner's part to content that the State lacks the legislative power to enact Section 174 of KSGST Act. Article 246A is the special provision on the GST. It empowers both the Union and the State, for the first time, to have simultaneous -not concurrent- powers to legislate on certain items. Indeed concurrency yields to the Doctrine of repugnancy, but simultaneous legislative power does not. That is, both the Legislatures, say one from the Union and other from the State, co-exist-operate in the same sphere subject to other constitutional safeguards.
The petitioner's plea is rejected that the State lacks the vires to graft Section 174 into KSGST Act, 2017 - petition dismissed.
|
