|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 156 Records
-
2020 (2) TMI 548 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Computation of ITC - alleged profiteering and demand - Petitioner submits that if only the ITC availed of in respect of the residential project is considered, the demand would not be more than ₹ 64 lakhs - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is directed to deposit ₹ 65 lakhs as an interim measure within three months in three equated instalments.
The first instalment shall be paid by 15.02.2020. It shall be open to the respondents to seek variation of this order, in case; they claim that the aforesaid statement of the petitioner is not correct by moving an appropriate application - the penalty proceedings shall remain stayed - application disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 537 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Maintainability of application for rectification - error apparent on the face of the record - HELD THAT:- The issue raised by the applicant by way of rectification application, has already been considered by this authority in the order itself - this authority has rightly decided the matter as per the facts and contention submitted on the record while passing of the impugned advance ruling order and there is no apparent mistake from the record to be rectified in the said order. Therefore, the present application is not found tenable under scope of rectification. Hence it is rejected.
-
2020 (2) TMI 536 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - refund of ITC - Export sale - shipping bill is not trackable on ICEGATE website - drop- shipping transaction - levy of IGST - Export sale or not - HELD THAT:- In the subject case there is no supply of goods undertaken by the applicant the provisions of Section 95 of the CGST Act will be applicable, in view of which the application is non-maintainable and liable for rejection.
The present application filed for advance ruling is rejected, as being non-maintainable as per the provisions of law.
-
2020 (2) TMI 535 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - Export of services or not - services for providing Cargo Handling Services for its goods imported into Nepal from Vietnam - HELD THAT:- As per the Section 97(2) of CGST Act, the questions on which advance ruling is sought under this Act, shall be in respect of, matters or issues mentioned in Section 97 (2) (a) to (g) only - the “place of supply of services” does not find mention in the said Section 97 mentioned above.
The present application filed for advance ruling is rejected, as being non-maintainable as per the provisions of the GST Act, 2017 and Rules made thereunder.
-
2020 (2) TMI 534 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Permission for withdrawal of Advance Ruling application - refund of credit accumulated on account of rate of tax on inputs being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies - N/N. 5/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - HELD THAT:- The Application in GST ARA Form No. 01 of M/s. DTL Ancillaries Ltd., vide reference no. ARA No. 49 dated 04.10.2019 is disposed of, as being withdrawn voluntarily and unconditionally.
-
2020 (2) TMI 533 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Permission for withdrawal of Advance Ruling application - levy of GST - amount collected as membership fees from Local Organization Member (LOM's) is in the nature of affiliation fees which is applied for the purpose of meeting the objects of the trust such as various administration expenses, etc. - other incomes received by the Trust.
HELD THAT:- The Application in GST ARA Form No. 01 of M/s. Junior Chamber International India, vide reference ARA No. 43 dated is disposed of, as being withdrawn voluntarily and unconditionally.
-
2020 (2) TMI 532 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - levy of GST - sale of shop which is 44 yrs old - Liablity of GST, on lessor to the lessee / or any other person? - HELD THAT:- Section 95 allows this authority to decide the matter in respect of supply of goods or services or both, undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. We find that the applicant has not undertaken the supply in the subject case. In fact, the applicant is a recipient of property in subject transaction. Thus, the condition under Section 95 is not satisfied by the applicant and hence, the issue is not within purview of this authority. The impugned transactions in not in relation to the supply of goods or services or both undertaken by the applicant and therefore, the subject application cannot be admitted.
The subject application for advance ruling made by the applicant is rejected under the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017.
-
2020 (2) TMI 530 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Form GSTR 3B not filed - period from May 2018 till December 2019 - HELD THAT:- Petitioner undertakes to pay the GST liability in installments - Let NOTICE be issued to the respondents returnable on 05.03.2020.
By the next returnable date i.e. 05.03.2020, the writ-applicant is directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 42,63,031/- in terms of his under on oath.
-
2020 (2) TMI 529 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Stay on implementation and operation of the impugned sealing memos in relation to the Godown - the godown is used for the purpose of storing agricultural produce like cotton bales and cotton yarn - grievance of the writ applicant is that he, being the owner of the godown, the seal which has been affixed, cannot be for an indefinite period of time.
HELD THAT:- Section 67(2) and 67(4) of CGST Act makes it clear that if the proper officer, not below the rank of Joint Commissioner, either pursuant to a search carried out under sub-section (1) or otherwise has reasons to believe that any goods liable to confiscation or any documents or books, which in the opinion of the proper officer, may be useful or relevant to any proceedings which may be undertaken or such goods are liable to be secreted to any place, then the proper officer may authorize in writing any other officer of the State Tax to search and seize the goods, documents or books or things. Clause (4), referred to above, empowers the authorized officer to seal or break open the door of any premises where access to such premise is denied.
In the case on hand, we have not been shown anything to indicate that the proper officer had any reasons to believe that the goods stored in the godown in question are liable to confiscation. However, for the time being, we are not going into this issue. We are trying to find a way out, by which, the seal can be removed without prejudice to the rights of the department to proceed against the dealers in accordance with law.
Writ application is disposed off with certain directions issued.
-
2020 (2) TMI 525 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty and confiscation of goods - section 129(1) of the GST Act - writ applicant availed the benefit of the interim-order passed by this Court and got the vehicle, along with the goods released on payment of the tax amount - HELD THAT:- It shall be open for the writ applicant to point out the recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of SSYNERGY FERTICHEM PVT. LTD VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT [2019 (12) TMI 1213 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT].
It is now for the applicant to make good his case that the show cause notice, issued in Form GST-MOV-10, deserves to be discharged - Application disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 524 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty and confiscation of goods - section 129(1) of the GST Act - writ applicant availed the benefit of the interim-order passed by this Court and got the vehicle, along with the goods released on payment of the tax amount - HELD THAT:- It shall be open for the writ applicant to point out the recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of SSYNERGY FERTICHEM PVT. LTD VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT [2019 (12) TMI 1213 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT].
It is now for the applicant to make good his case that the show cause notice, issued in Form GST-MOV-10, deserves to be discharged - Application disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 523 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty and confiscation of goods - section 129(1) of the GST Act - writ applicant availed the benefit of the interim-order passed by this Court and got the vehicle, along with the goods released on payment of the tax amount - HELD THAT:- It shall be open for the writ applicant to point out the recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of SSYNERGY FERTICHEM PVT. LTD VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT [2019 (12) TMI 1213 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT].
It is now for the applicant to make good his case that the show cause notice, issued in Form GST-MOV-10, deserves to be discharged - Application disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 522 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty and confiscation of goods - section 129(1) of the GST Act - writ applicant availed the benefit of the interim-order passed by this Court and got the vehicle, along with the goods released on payment of the tax amount - HELD THAT:- It shall be open for the writ applicant to point out the recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of SSYNERGY FERTICHEM PVT. LTD VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT [2019 (12) TMI 1213 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT].
It is now for the applicant to make good his case that the show cause notice, issued in Form GST-MOV-10, deserves to be discharged - Application disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 517 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Constitutional validity of the 3rd proviso to Rule 138(1) and Rule 138(5) read with Section 129 of the CGST Act - tax demand and imposition of penalty for the discrepancy/invalidity of E-way during movement for job work - HELD THAT:- We are inclined to issue notice to the respondents with a view to resolve the controversy as highlighted.
Let Notice be issued to the respondents returnable on 12.02.2020.
-
2020 (2) TMI 516 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Second bail application - evasion of tax - It is contended that petitioner has sold the goods without generating the Outward supply invoice and has thus evaded tax - HELD THAT:- The offence as alleged in the FIR is under Section 132(1)(a) read with Section 132(1)(h), (j) and (k) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services [Tax] Act, 2017, the maximum sentence provided under Section 132(a)(i) is five years. From the E-way bills produced with the charge-sheet, it is revealed that the total Inward supply was to the tune of ₹ 133 crores which included the import of ₹ 108 crores made by the petitioner.
In the charge-sheet itself, the report of fire made to the police and the fire brigade is also available which goes to show that fire took place in the factory premises of the petitioner. Petitioner has already furnished the bond with regard to import of ₹ 108 crores and in case the export is not made within eighteen months, he is liable to pay in accordance with bond executed by him. Petitioner has remained in custody for a period of more' than five months. No notice with regard to tax outstanding has ever been issued to the petitioner.
The second bail application allowed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 497 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Input tax credit - GST paid on replacement of existing lift/ elevator at its own premises to the vendor registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act for manufacture, supply, installation and commissioning of lift/ elevator - Maintenance Charges collected from its Members - blocked credits under the Goods and Services Tax Act.
HELD THAT:- The lift, after erection and installation is an immovable property because it becomes a part of an immovable property i.e a building. In other words it is to be considered as an integral part of the building itself. It is not a separate part of the building. When any person speaks of such a building, he also includes the lifts as an integral part of the building, like storage water tanks, etc. - thus, Manufacture, Supply, Installation and Commissioning of Lifts/Elevators is in the nature of Works Contract activity which results in creation of an immovable property. Hence in view of the discussions and Explanation to Section 17 of the CGST Act, we are of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled to ITC of GST paid on replacement of existing Lift/Elevator, in its premises.
Thus, input tax credit not allowed - the question regarding blocked credit not required to be answered.
-
2020 (2) TMI 496 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - Exemption from GST - services provided by VFS global to applicant which are in the nature of collection services - pure service provided to the local authority by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a Municipality under article 243W of the Constitution of India - Benefit of N/N. 12/2017 of CGST Rate) read with N/N. 02/2018 CGST (Rate).
HELD THAT:- The question raised in the subject application, is not in relation to supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. From the submissions made by the applicant, we find that in the subject transaction, they are a receiver of supply of services from VFS. The question raised by Applicant does not pertain to supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed by them - in view of the provisions of Section 95 of the GST Act, since the supply in the subject case will not be undertaken/ is not proposed to be undertaken, by the applicant, we are of the opinion that this authority is not allowed to answer the question raised by the applicant, being out of the purview of Sec. 95 of CGST Act.
The applicant is recipient of services and not supplier of services, hence their application is not in accordance with the provisions under Section 95 of CGST ACT and is not maintainable - The application for advance ruling is rejected, as being non-maintainable.
-
2020 (2) TMI 495 - SC ORDER
Reopening of portal for uploading of returns - assessees are unable to upload their returns both GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C - HC extended the date till 12.2.2020 - Stay of the order which has extended the deadline for submitting the returns - Penal punishments - HELD THAT:- we only stay that part of the order which has extended the deadline for submitting the returns. - This is on the basis of Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General’s statement to this Court that only ₹ 200/- per day is being charged for the filing of late returns beyond 12.02.2020.
We do not intend by this ad-hoc order to at all interfere with what the High Court may ultimately do on the facts of this case - SLP disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 494 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Release of confiscated goods alongwith vehicle - section 130 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- The provisions of section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, would be clearly applicable for the purpose of the writ petitioner seeking release of his goods and vehicle. Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is a complete and comprehensive code by itself which provides the mechanism required to be adopted for the purpose of detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 493 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty and redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of goods - section 130 of CGST Act - requisite amount already paid - validity of SCN - HELD THAT:- Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 129 of the Act determining the amount to be paid towards the tax and liability, the requisite amount has been paid by the writ-applicant and the conveyance and the goods have been released. It appears that later, a show-cause notice came to be issued under Section 130 of the Act calling upon the writ-applicant to show-cause why the goods and conveyance should not be confiscated.
As the matter is now at the stage of MOV-10, the writ-applicant shall appear before the authority and file an appropriate reply to make good his case that the notice issued in GST MOV-10 deserves to be discharged - Application disposed off.
....
|
