|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1712 Records
-
2019 (12) TMI 1000 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reopening of portal for Filing of Form GST TRAN-1 - transitional credit - transition to GST regime - HELD THAT:- The factual position in the present case is not any different and petitioner is also entitled to similar relief. At this juncture, it may be noted that as per Notification No. 49/2019 dated 09.10.2019 issued by CBIC, the date prescribed for filing of Form GST TRAN-1 under Rule 117 (1A) of the CGST Rules has been extended to 31.12.2019. This itself demonstrates that the Respondents recognise the fact that the registered persons were not able to upload the Form GST TRAN-1 due to the glitches in the system. It is not fair to expect that each person who may not have been able to upload the Form GST TRAN-1 should have preserved some evidence of it – such as, by taking a screen shot.
From the documents placed on record, it emanates that the Respondents have no cogent ground to deny the benefit of the Notification No. 49/2019 dated 09.10.2019 issued specifically to grant relief to taxpayers who faced difficulty in filing Form GST TRAN-1 due to technical glitches.
The respondents to either open the online portal so as to enable the petitioner to file the Form TRAN-1 electronically, or to accept the same manually on or before 31.12.2019 - Petition allowed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 999 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reopening of portal for filing of Form TRAN-1/TRAN-2 - Input tax credit - HELD THAT:- The factual position in the present case is not any different. At this juncture, it may be noted that as per Notification No.49/2019 dated 09.10.2019 issued by CBIC, the date prescribed for filing of Form GST TRAN-1 under Rule 117 (1A) of the CGST Rules has been extended to 31.12.2019. This itself demonstrates that the Respondents recognise the fact that the registered persons were not able to upload the Form GST TRAN-1 due to the glitches in the system. It is not fair to expect that each person who may not have been able to upload the Form GST TRAN-1 should have preserved some evidence of it – such as, by taking a screen shot.
Many of the registered dealers/traders come from rural/semiliterate background. They may not have had the presence of mind to create any record of their having tried, and failed, to upload the Form GST TRAN-1. They cannot be made to suffer in this background, particularly, when the systems of the Repsondents were not efficient - From the documents placed on record, it emanates that the Respondents have no cogent ground to deny the benefit of the Notification No. 49/2019 dated 09.10.2019 issued specifically to grant relief to taxpayers who faced difficulty in filing Form GST TRAN-1 due to technical glitches.
The respondents are directed to either open the online portal so as to enable the petitioner to file the Form TRAN-1 electronically, or to accept the same manually on or before 31.12.2019 - petition allowed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 998 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reopening of portal for filing of Form “TRAN-I” - transitional credit - transition to GST regime - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in the case of ADFERT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2019 (11) TMI 282 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] where it was held that The Respondents are directed to permit the Petitioners to file or revise where already filed incorrect TRAN-1 either electronically or manually statutory Form(s) TRAN-1 on or before 30th November 2019.
The present petition is allowed with permission/modification to file the said Statutory Form TRAN-I by 31.12.2019.
-
2019 (12) TMI 997 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reopening of portal for filing of Form “TRAN-I” - transitional credit - transition to GST regime - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in the case of ADFERT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2019 (11) TMI 282 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] where it was held that The Respondents are directed to permit the Petitioners to file or revise where already filed incorrect TRAN-1 either electronically or manually statutory Form(s) TRAN-1 on or before 30th November 2019.
The present petition is allowed with permission/modification to file the said Statutory Form TRAN-I by 31.12.2019.
-
2019 (12) TMI 996 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Grant of Bail - Fake/Bogus Firm - fake input tax credit claim - CGST Act - offence under Section 132 Sub-Clause (b) and (c) of the Act - HELD THAT:- Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the Union of India, the bail cannot be granted - bail application rejected.
-
2019 (12) TMI 995 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment to GST - Imposition of penalty - main contention raised therein was that the notification to apply EWay bill was not made known to the assessee - HELD THAT:- The notification to apply E-way bill mechanism was revised subsequently but was not notified to the assessee. In absence of information of application of E-way bill mechanism, the petitioner made the transaction, as per the procedure then existing with required declaration. The document in that regard were not considered by the Assessing Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority as compliance of E-way bill system was not made by the petitioner though it was not notified by the Government. The order for assessment and penalty was challenged in appeal for the aforesaid reasons.
Ignorance of the judgment of a superior Court on the similar issue cannot be expected rather the appellate authority needs to be careful in future - The impugned orders are accordingly set aside with remand of the case to the Assessing Authority to examine the matter afresh in light of the law propounded by this Court. It would be without applying E-way bill mechanism.
Petition disposed off.
-
2019 (12) TMI 994 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods - segregation of vehicle from the goods - section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The heading is wide and clear enough to encompass within its fold this vehicle which has been seized along with the goods and as such, the writ petitioner cannot wriggle out of his liability to pay the amount as imposed in terms of section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the purpose of release of his vehicle. He cannot have the benefit of a segregated liability in the present context and the procedure prescribed for release of vehicle under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, cannot be avoided by the petitioner.
Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 993 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Profiteering - supply of “Kit Kat 4 Finger 18” - allegation that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - penalty - HELD THAT:- On perusal of records, it is clear that the Respondent has indulged in profiteering in violation of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has not passed on the benefit of reductions of tax given vide Notification No. 41/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 and Notification No. 06/2018 dated 25.01.2018 in respect of the 116 products as per the details given, to his customers and has thus profiteered an amount of ₹ 16,45,559/- therefore, he is liable for action under Rule 133 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Accordingly, a sum of ₹ 16,45,559/- is determined as the profiteered amount in respect of the 116 products including an amount of ₹ 14,62,981/- which has been profiteered in respect of 81 products on which the rate of tax was reduced from 28% to 18% and an amount of ₹ 1,69,379/- on 32 products on which the GST was reduced from 18% to 12% w.e.f. 15.1112017 and 3 products on which the tax rate was reduced from 18% to 12% w.e.f. 25.01.2018, as per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - The Respondent is directed to reduce the sale prices of the above products immediately commensurate with the reductions in the rates of tax as were notified on 14.11.2017 and 25.01.2018 respectively and pass on the benefit of reductions in the rates of tax to his customers.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- The Respondent has profiteered an amount of ₹ 16,45,559/- as he has not passed on the benefit of tax reductions to his customers. It is also apparent that the Respondent has deliberately and consciously acted in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence he is liable for imposition of penalty under Section 171 (3A) of the above Act read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Keeping in view the principles of natural justice, before imposition of penalty, a notice be issued to him asking him to explain why penalty should not be imposed on him under the above provision.
-
2019 (12) TMI 926 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Requirement of pre-deposit - Appeal before the GST tribunal to be filed against the order of first appellate authority (commissioner appeals) - Recovery proceedings - U.P. Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 - petitioner had deposited 10% of the disputed tax liability as provided under sub-section (6) of Section 107 of the Act - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is permitted to deposit 20% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute and as soon as the said amount is deposited, the recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall remain stayed as provided under sub-section (9) of Section 112 of the Act.
List in the third week of January, 2020.
-
2019 (12) TMI 925 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Filing of Form TRAN-I - grievance of the petitioner is that it could not upload the details of un-utilized Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT:- Petition is allowed with permission/modification to file the said Statutory Form TRAN-I by 31.12.2019.
-
2019 (12) TMI 924 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Detention order - discrepancy noticed after the physical verification of the goods and conveyance - section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Issue Notice, returnable on 20th December 2019.
-
2019 (12) TMI 923 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Profiteering - purchase of flat in the Respondent’s project “Nirala Greenshire” - Respondent had not passed on the commensurate benefit of input tax credit - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - penalty - HELD THAT:- The provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 are aimed at ensuring that the recipient gets the commensurate benefit, in the form of reduction of price, in case of any tax rate reduction and/or incremental benefit of ITC (i.e. a sacrifice made by the Govt. from its tax kitty) and the method of interpretation of this provision has been given in the text of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 itself. We observe that the said provision clearly links profiteering to be a function of each supply of goods or services or both and hence, profiteering needs to be computed at the level of each invoice and not at the entity level or any consolidated level. From a complete reading of Section 171 of the Act ibid, it is amply clear that the total quantum of profiteering by an entity/registrant is the sum total of all the benefits that stood denied to each of the recipients/consumers individually. The intent of the words “commensurate reduction” is also clearly explained by the words “by reduction in price”.
The Authority hereby determines the profiteered amount as ₹ 2,88,43,422/- as per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the above Rules. The above amount shall be paid by the Respondent to the eligible buyers as per the details given in Annexure-21 of the DGAP’s above Report within a period of 3 months from the date of passing of this order along with interest @18% per annum from the date from which the above amount was collected by him from the buyers till the payment is made failing which it shall be recovered by the concerned Commissioner CGST/SGST and paid to the concerned eligible buyers - this Authority under Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017 orders that the Respondent shall reduce the prices to be realized from the buyers of the flats commensurate with the benefit of ITC received by him.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- It is also evident from the above narration of facts that the Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him in his present project in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has committed an offence under Section 171 (3A) of the above Act and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of the Section - Accordingly, a SCN be issued to him directing him to explain as to why the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) of the above Act read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him.
-
2019 (12) TMI 877 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Release of confiscated goods alongwith vehicle - section 121 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the said submission, it is directed that if the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee for the amount determined in Ext.P2 notice, then the 1st respondent shall forthwith release the consignment and the vehicle to the petitioner.
The respondents shall, thereafter, refer the matter for adjudication in terms of Section 130 of the CGST Act.
-
2019 (12) TMI 876 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Reopening of portal for Filing of Form GST Tran-1 - transitional credit - HELD THAT:- The issue involved herein is no more res integra in view of the order of this Court in M/S ASIAD PAINTS LIMITED, VERTIV ENERGY PVT. LTD., M/S. WEIWO COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, GOODS AND SERVICE TAX NETWORK, THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (GST) , THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [2019 (12) TMI 464 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], whereby this Court has extended the period to file/revise the TRAN-1 by the registered persons under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by 31.12.2019.
The petitioner is entitled to avail the extended period for filing/revising of TRAN-01 as aforesaid - Petition disposed off.
-
2019 (12) TMI 875 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - interstate movement - demand of tax alongwith penalty - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of Ext.P13 notice, it is seen that the interstate transportation of the goods was being carried out by dealers who did not have a registration as mandated for interstate movement under the CGST Act. On a consideration of the reasons contained in Ext.P13 notice, I do not find the detention to be unjustified.
The petitioner is ready to furnish a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount determined in Ext.P13, it is directed that if the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount determined in Ext.P13 notice, then the respondent shall release the consignment and the vehicle to the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2019 (12) TMI 839 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Release of seized goods alongwith vehicle - direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P10 objection and to hear the petitioner before finalising the proposal for imposition of penalty against the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The writ petition disposed off with a direction to the 1st respondent, before whom Ext.P10 objection has been filed by the petitioner, to consider the objection of the petitioner and also hear the petitioner before finalising the penalty proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act.
-
2019 (12) TMI 838 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - detention on the ground that e-way bill was raised in favour of a consignee who had a GSTIN number, and was a defaulter in the filing of returns for almost 27 months - HELD THAT:- The detention of the goods cannot be said to be unjustified.
The 2nd respondent are directed to release the goods and vehicle to the petitioner on the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee to cover the tax and penalty amounts determined in Ext.P3(d) notice. The 2nd respondent shall thereafter forward the file for adjudication under the CGST Act.
Petition disposed off.
-
2019 (12) TMI 837 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Transfer of accrued credit - transition/migration to GST regime - Sections 139 to 143 of the Act and Rule 117 of the SGST Rules - HELD THAT:- Since it is not in dispute that the petitioners herein did attempt to upload the necessary details in the system maintained by the respondents, and it cannot be disputed, based on a perusal of the system log, that the petitioners did attempt to log into the system, the mere fact that the petitioners cannot establish that the inability to upload the required details was on account of a system error that was occasioned by the respondents, cannot be a reason for denying them the substantive benefit of carrying forward the credit earned by them under the erstwhile regime.
Writ petitions were allowed and a direction was issued to the respondents to permit the petitioners therein to file the TRAN -1 Form, either electronically or manually on or before 31.12.2019 without prejudice to the right of the respondent statutory authorities to verify the genuineness of the claim of the petitioners - petition allowed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 836 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - recovery of amounts - In the writ petition, it is its case that the assessments have been concluded against it without taking note of the returns filed by it, which would have indicated the extent of the turn over that could have been subjected to assessment. Contrary to this, the assessments have been completed by relying on past assessments of the petitioner, thereby resulting in an exaggerated demand against the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Exts.P24 and P25 orders have been passed in terms of Section 62 of the CGST Act, after finding that the petitioner had not furnished the necessary returns within the time contemplated under the Act for filing the same. It was therefore that the assessments were completed on best judgment basis as against the petitioner.
It is also found from the assessment orders impugned that, had the petitioner availed the opportunity of furnishing the returns within a period of 30 days from the date of the aforesaid assessment orders, the assessment would have been automatically withdrawn and the petitioner would have obtained a fresh opportunity to produce the relevant material for the purposes of a proper assessment. The said facility was not, however, availed by the petitioner for reasons best known to it.
The only alternative for the petitioner is to approach the statutory Appellate Authority through an appeal against Exts.P24 and P25 assessment orders. The challenge in the writ petition against Exts.P24 and P25 orders cannot be maintained in view of the availability of an effective alternate remedy against the assessment orders impugned herein because the assessment orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or violation of the rules of natural justice - recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P24 and P25 assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks so as to enable the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority through an appeal against Exts.P24 and P25 assessment orders in the mean while.
-
2019 (12) TMI 835 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of consignment of goods - E-Way Bill that accompanied the consignment of goods had expired - HELD THAT:- The detention of the goods cannot be said to be unjustified - Taking note of the submission of counsel for the petitioner that he is prepared to furnish security for the release of the consignments, it is directed that if the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amounts determined in Ext.P6 notice, then the 1st respondent shall release the goods to the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
........
|
