|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 156 Records
-
2020 (2) TMI 492 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty and redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of goods - section 130 of CGST Act - service of SCN - goods along with truck were already released as per interim-relief- HELD THAT:- Persuing the present writ application, a final order, in the Form GST MOV-11, came to be passed. However, according to the writ applicant, at no point of time such order was served upon him. As on date also, the writ-applicant has not been able to go through the contents of such order, as he has not received the same. However, such order passed in the Form GST MOV-11, is available now on record at page No.45 of the petition - Since the final order has been passed in the Form GST MOV-11, we relegate the writ applicant to avail the remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 107 of the Act before the appellate authority.
Application disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 435 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KARNATAKA
Supply or not - Levy of CGST and SGST - amount of contribution received from its members - association of apartment owners - exemption upto ₹ 7500 from each member / flat - benefit of N/N. 12/2017 CT(R) dt 28.06.2017 (SI.No. 77) read with N/N. 02/2018 dt 25.01.2018 - Input tax credit - levy of CGST/SGST on amounts which it collects from its members for setting up a corpus fund - challenge to AAR decision.
Whether the activities of the association of apartment owners are liable to tax under GST as a supply? - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the monthly contribution made by the members to the association is in return for receiving the services of the Association in ensuring the maintenance and upkeep of the residential complex. The money collected by the Appellant from its members is used to procure services and goods from a third party and provide the benefits of such procured goods and services to the members of the association. In terms of Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, consideration needs to necessarily flow from one person to another.
In the Finance Act, 1994, the taxable event in terms of Section 66B was on services ‘provided or agreed to be provided by one person to another’. Under GST, the taxable event is the “supply” of goods or services or both. As already mentioned, ‘supply’ though not defined has been explained in Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 to cover the activities stated therein made in the course or furtherance of business. Under GST law, the term ‘business’ has been specifically defined in Section 2(17) of the CGST Act to include provision by a club, association, society or any such body (for a subscription or any other consideration) of facilities or benefits to its members. Thus, there is a marked difference in the concept of the levy between the Finance Act and the CGST Act.
Thus, there is a supply of service by the Appellant to its members and the same is taxable under GST.
Whether in terms of entry No.77 of the N/N. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) Dated 28-06-2017 as amended by the N/N. 02/2018-CentraI Tax (Rate) dated 25-01-2018, the contribution received by the association from its members are liable to tax only in excess of the amount of ₹ 7500 per month per member? - HELD THAT:- Exemption notifications are subject to strict interpretation. The Advance Ruling Authority had correctly interpreted this exemption Notification. The Circular No.109/28/2019-GST dated 22.07.2019 issued by the CBIC only clarifies this position. The Appellant has argued that this Circular will apply only prospectively since it is oppressive in nature. This argument does not hold water since the said Circular does not introduce any new levy by its clarifications. The position regarding the exemption from GST was always applicable only when the individual member’s contribution per month was within ₹ 7500/-. The Circular dated 22.07.2019 only clarified this position and did not bring in any new levy. Hence the question of applying the Circular prospectively does not arise.
Maintainability of Advance Ruling pronounced - time limitation - Appellant has also contended that the ruling pronounced by the Authority after the mandated period of 90 days is unsustainable in law - HELD THAT:- In this case, the Authority was well within its jurisdiction to pass a ruling on the subject matter. Not adhering to the time limit in passing an order can be termed as an irregularity in procedure which can be set right in appeal proceedings - the ruling given by the Authority is correct in law and we do not find reason to interfere with the same.
Decision of AAR upheld.
-
2020 (2) TMI 434 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Inquiry proceedings initiated against the petition u/s 70 of GST - Availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Whether the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be availed by the writ petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the instant case?
HELD THAT:- The series of summonses / notices which have been issued, clearly reveal that the writ petitioner is not interested in cooperating with the enquiry. Apart from a letter dated 24th January, 2020, written by the writ petitioner, addressed to the concerned Senior Intelligence Officer, after almost four months from the date of issuance of the first summons dated 26th September, 2019, there is nothing on record to show as to how the writ petitioner has specifically responded to the summonses / notices dated 26th September 2019, 27th September, 2019, 1st October, 2019, 7th October,2019, 15th October, 2019 and 19th November, 2019.
The facts of the instant case do not qualify for use of discretion by the writ Court in order to grant the writ petitioner such reliefs as prayed for - The writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2020 (2) TMI 433 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Confiscation of goods alongwith the conveyance - section 130 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Form GST MOV-10 has been issued, calling upon the writ-applicant to show cause why the goods in question and the conveyance used to transfer the goods, should not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and why the penalty and fine shall not be recovered.
As the matter is at the stage of show-cause notice, under Section 130 of the Act, 2017, the writ-applicant should appear before the authority and file an appropriate reply - So far as the release of the goods and the conveyance is concerned, it shall be open for the writ-applicant to prefer an application, under Section 67(6) of the Act, 2017, for provisional release.
-
2020 (2) TMI 432 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Confiscation of goods - goods alongwith the vehicle have been released already - section 129 and 130 of CGST Act - 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.
-
2020 (2) TMI 431 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Confiscation of goods - Detention of goods alongwith the conveyance - levy of penalty - section 129 and 130 of CGST Act - 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.
-
2020 (2) TMI 430 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Grant of anticipatory bail - input tax credit - generating of fake and fabricated documents availed or to make other availed and illegal input tax credit causing huge loss to the revenue - HELD THAT:- Learned Advocate for the applicants on instructions states that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including imposition of conditions with regard to the powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent court for their remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of the applicants-accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.
The present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest of the applicants herein in connection with FIR registered - the applicants shall be released on bail subject to conditions imposed.
Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for Police remand of the applicants. - if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicants, even if, remanded to the Police custody, upon completion of such period of Police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.
-
2020 (2) TMI 429 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Grant of default bail - Section 167(2) CrPC - evasion of tax - charge sheet was not filed within sixty days, applicant was enlarged on default bail - applicant is not able to fulfil the said conditions imposed by Court below. - HELD THAT:- The application is liable to be allowed and the conditions imposed by the Court below vide impugned order are liable to be modified - bail granted subject to conditions imposed - application allowed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 428 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Grant of Regular Bail - Section 69 read with Section 132 of CGST Act - input tax credit - business of generation and selling of fake tax invoices without supplying the goods through various firms/companies - HELD THAT:- The allegations against the petitioner are serious and magnitude of fraud is to the extent of ₹ 127 crores. It is to early to conclude that arrest can't be effected or prosecution can't be launched without issuing notice under Section 74 of the Act particularly when the power of arrest has been given under Section 69 of the Act. Furthermore, merely because no police remand of the petitioner was sought and he has been remanded to judicial custody, it cannot be construed as a circumstance which may entitle him to be released on bail.
In the instant case, there are serious allegations against the petitioner that fake invoices of approximately ₹ 931 crores involving GST of approximately ₹ 127 crores without movement of goods have been issued and input tax credit has been availed.
No justified ground is made out to grant concession of bail to the petitioner - Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 374 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seizure of goods alongwith conveyance - requirement to furnish bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of his liability - Section 129 of UPGST Act - HELD THAT:- The scheme of Section 129 of the UPGST Act, 2017 is the most reliable guide of the legislative intent. Section 129 of the UPGST Act, 2017 contemplates a comprehensive scheme with a summary procedure for release of goods and conveyances seized in transit. The legislative intent is to secure revenue interests and equally to ensure expeditious release of the seized goods and conveyances. This procedure is distinct from the adjudicatory process of determination of tax liability.
It is admitted by the State Revenue that the petitioner had furnished a security in the form of a bank guarantee, equivalent to the amount payable under clause (a) of section 129(1) of the UPGST Act, 2017, upon demand made by the Revenue to furnish such security of like amount. The security in the form of a bank guarantee so furnished upon demand to the satisfaction of the State Revenue Authorities is clearly relatable to Section 129 (1)(c) of the UPGST Act, 2017 -
The seized vehicle and goods have been released on the strength of such security deposit. Hence, the proceedings taken out under section 129 of the UPGST Act, 2017 are liable to be concluded in view of section 129 (5) of the UPGST Act, 2017 - Clearly the notice under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017, dated 4th December, 2019 is infructuous and the proceedings taken thereunder are liable to be treated as concluded.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 373 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Grant of permission for online quiz game - rejection on the ground that after coming into force the GST Act, 2017 and Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, the Uttar Pradesh Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1797 and Uttar Pradesh Entertainment and Betting Tax Rules, 1980 have been removed by Section 174 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the petitioner has filed application dated 27.01.2020 under new rule and the same is pending consideration before the respondent no.2, the respondent no.2/respondent no.3/competent authority are directed to decide the application dated 27.01.2020, expeditiously.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 343 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Reopening of portal for uploading of returns - assessees are unable to upload their returns both GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C - HELD THAT:- An interim order needs to be passed in light of the fact that the GST portal of the Govt. of India has not been effectively functioning and clearly there appears to be a physical limit, to which extent returns/forms can be uploaded on any one day (apart from admitted intermittent technical shutdowns) - We are prima facie satisfied that even if an assessees is ready and willing to comply with the statutory duty, so far as filing of returns are concerned, the website appears to be having technical bottlenecks, which appears to limit the opportunity of an assessee from uploading the forms.
The petitioner Association and the assessee, for whom they represent, may keep uploading their returns at the earliest possible and we direct that no late fee shall be charged till 12th of February, 2020 for uploading. The respondents are directed to enable compliance of such uploading by making necessary/consequential corrections on its official portal.
List this matter on 12.02.2020.
-
2020 (2) TMI 342 - KERALA HIGH COURT
GST registration of the petitioners blocked - failure to pay GST for long period - permission to purchase goods and other articles with their GST registration - HELD THAT:- It is the admitted case of the petitioners that they have not paid the tax dues pursuant to the assessment orders rendered in this case for the respective assessment years and that petitioners would contend that petitioners will be prosecuting statutory appeals to impugn the legality and correctness of the said assessment orders and that in the meanwhile, due to default in such payments, respondents have blocked the GST registration itself.
It is for the petitioners to take necessary steps to ensure that due tax amounts are paid, so that, the default in that regard is not for more than a period of two months as envisaged in clause (b) of Rule 138E(1) of the Rules. In case the petitioners wish to prosecute statutory appeals to impugn the assessment orders for the years concerned, it is for the petitioners to avail such remedies, in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 341 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods alongwith the vehicle - validity of order of confiscation u/s 130 - HELD THAT:- The 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. The proceedings, as on date, are at the stage of show cause notice, under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017.
It is now for the applicant to make good his case that the show cause notice, issued in GST-MOV-10, deserves to be discharged.
Application disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 340 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Challenge to the constitution of National Anti Profiteering Authority - adjournment of proceedings beyond the date specified in the Petitions - HELD THAT:- We defer the hearing of these Petitions to 11 March 2020. The Petitions to be listed under the caption “For Directions”.
-
2020 (2) TMI 339 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Release of seized truck alongwith the goods - liability of damage / detention charges - HELD THAT:- Considering the material on record it appears that this Court, while admitting the matter, found that the impugned order dated 02.01.2019, passed under Section 130 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is without any reason and the same is passed without considering the objections raised by the petitioner - In view of such fact, the impugned order, passed under Section 130 of the Act, is hereby quashed and set aside.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 338 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Release of confiscated goods alongwith vehicle - e-way bill not generated - under-valuation - the petitioner has already deposited tax and penalty as per the provisions of section 129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act - HELD THAT:- We are convinced with the submissions of Mr.Sheth, as regards the legality and validity of the impugned order of confiscation in Form GST MOV-11 - this Writ Application is allowed, in part. The impugned order of confiscation, in Form GST MOV-11, is hereby quashed and set aside.
The matter is remitted to the respondent No.2 for fresh consideration, so far as the issue of confiscation is concerned.
-
2020 (2) TMI 337 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods alongwith vehicle - section 129 and 130 of CGST Act - validity of confiscation order dated 11.4.2019 in Form GST MOV-11 - the final order of confiscation came to be passed on the very same date on which the notice was issued. -
HELD THAT:- We are convinced with the submissions of petitioner, as regards the legality and validity of the impugned order of confiscation in Form GST MOV-11.
This Writ Application is allowed, in part. The impugned order of confiscation, in Form GST MOV-11, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent No.2 for fresh consideration, so far as the issue of confiscation is concerned.
-
2020 (2) TMI 336 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods alongwith vehicle- Section 129 and Section 130 of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- The 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. The proceedings, as on date, are at the stage of show cause notice, under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. The proceedings shall go ahead in accordance with law.
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 281 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Levy of IGST on Ocean Freight - Reverse charge - Vires of N/N. 8/2017 - Integrated Tax (Rate, issued on 28.06.2017 and Entry 10 of the N/N. 10/2017 Integrated Tax (Rate) also dated 28.06.2017 - Respondents seeks an adjournment to take instructions whether the Respondents have accepted the said decision or they are proceeding to challenge the same before the Supreme Court - HELD THAT:- At request of learned counsel for the Respondents, adjourned to 18.05.2020.
....
|
