|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 131 of 131 Records
-
2020 (6) TMI 162 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, HYDERABAD TELANGANA
Levy of GST - ex-factory inter-State supplies - What tax should be charged on ex-factory inter-State supplies? - HELD THAT:- In case of ex-factory inter-State sales affected by the applicant, the goods are made available by the supplier to the recipient at the factory gate, but this is not the point where movement terminates since the recipient subsequently assumes the charge for transportation of the goods up to the destination in another state. Thus, termination of the movement of goods evidently takes place at the location (in a different state) to which the goods are consigned/destined and such movement is effected by the recipient or by any other person such as transporter authorized by the recipient.
The place (in the other state) where the goods are destined turns out to be the ‘place of supply’ in terms of Sec. 10(1)(a) ibid. Consequently, the ‘location of supplier’ and the ‘place of supply’ fall under different states and the supply qualifies as inter-State supply - the supplier in the stated instance is liable to charge IGST in respect of ex-factory inter-State supplies made by them.
-
2020 (6) TMI 161 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Bail application - applicant could not be released for want of sureties as per the conditions mentioned in the bail order - pandemic COVID-19 situation - HELD THAT:- The applicant, namely, Pradeep Kumar is directed to be released on bail in Case Crime No.- 30 of 2020 (State v. Pradeep Kumar) under Section 132(1)1 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, P.S.- Commissionerate, District- Meerut on his furnishing a personal bond only to the satisfaction of the jail authorities, where the applicant is languishing - It is further provided that this order as well as the bail order available on the official website of the High Court will be taken to be the authentic one.
-
2020 (6) TMI 160 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Imposition of GST and penalty - transfer of goods - transfer of consignment only for “demo approval” - section 7 of IGST Act - Non-speaking order - HELD THAT:- Since there was no taxable event, which had occurred, the question of having to pay the tax would not arise. Despite the fact that the said contention was raised by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 has failed to deal with the said contention. Moreover, the respondent No.1 has not even assigned any reason for ignoring the said contention. Therefore, the impugned order is clearly a non-speaking order, as the material contention has been totally ignored by the respondent No.1.
Since the impugned order is a non-speaking one, this Court has no other option, except to set aside the said impugned order, and to remand the case back to the respondent No.1 with a direction to decide the issue - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (6) TMI 114 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Search and Seizure - seizure of Mentha Oil - approach to appropriate authority under Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - petitioners has submitted that "Mentha Oil" has been seized in the matter which is perishable in nature but the concerned authority has not yet exercised its power under Section 67 of the Act - HELD THAT:- This writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to make an appropriate application/representation before the concerned authority under the relevant provision of the Act, 2017 ventilating their grievances along with a certified copy of this order enclosing therewith a copy of the writ petition and its Annexures and, if any such application/representation is filed, the concerned authority shall make all endeavour to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order, after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of the said application.
-
2020 (6) TMI 113 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Grant of bail - issuance of fake invoices giving benefit to companies who availed benefit of of ITC - offence under Section 132(1)(b)(c)(f)(j) and (I) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- This Court notices that the complaint has already been filed with complete details before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, who is ceased with the matter and the trial has commenced. The witnesses are in a huge number and the trial is likely to take time. No further documents are required to be produced apart from any other document, which may be required subsequently. The petitioners cannot be said to be required for any further investigation and no recovery is required to be effected against them and their account has also been seized - The recovery, which is required to be made as against the accused petitioners, is under the provisions of GST Act, which are not part of the criminal case.
This Court also notices that the offence alleged against the accused petitioners is compoundable. However, no process for compounding the offence has been undertaken by either of the party. However, learned counsel submits that as the petitioners are behind bars, no proceeding for compounding the offence could be taken.
Keeping in view that the petitioners are already in jail for 450 days and no further investigation or recovery is to be made for the purpose of the case, the petitioner is allowed to be released on bail subject to submitting a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- along with one surety of the like amount along with certain conditions imposed.
Bail Application allowed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 112 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Grant of third (interim) bail application - It is contended that in any of the reports, it is not mentioned that petitioner’s father needs treatment - offence under Sections 132(1), (b), (c), (f), (g), (k), (i) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with 69 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the Union of India, the grant third (interim) bail application, cannot be granted.
Third (interim) bail application dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 111 - GUWAHATI HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction - power of the department to proceed for levy of service tax under Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994 inspite of the same being omitted by Section 173 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Clause 29(h) read with Clause 13 of the Notification No.25/2012-Service Tax dated 20th June, 2012 - HELD THAT:- The matter is fixed on 12.06.2020, on which date Mr. Keyal will produce the connected records pertaining to the petitioner in original.
List accordingly.
-
2020 (6) TMI 110 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Profiteering - supply of Fogg Deo Fougere BX 150 ml - allegation that the benefit of tax reduction not passed on - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - Penalty - HELD THAT:- It is revealed that the Central Government, on the recommendation of the GST Council, had reduced the GST rate on the impugned good “Fogg Deo Fougere BX 150 ml” from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11.2017, vide Notification No. 41/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017. It is also revealed that the DGAP has calculated the amount of net higher sales realization due to increase in the base price of the impacted good/products, despite the reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% as ₹ 8,50,442/- only (inclusive of the excess GST collected by the Respondent from his recipients) in respect of the Respondent. The said profiteered amount had been arrived at by the DGAP by comparing the average of the base prices of the impacted goods sold during the period 01.07.2017 to 14.07.2017, with the actual invoice-wise base prices of such goods/products sold by the Respondent during the period from 15.11.2017 to 31.03.2019.
The profiteered amount is determined as ₹ 8,50,442/- (inclusive of the GST) as per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the above Rules as has been computed vide Annexure-25 of the Report dated 24.09.2019. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to reduce his prices commensurately in terms of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the above Rules. The Respondent is also directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 8,50,442/- in the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Central and the Delhi State Governments, where the Respondent has made his supplies, as the recipients are not identifiable, as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (c ) of the above Rules alongwith 18% interest payable from the dates from which the above amount was realised by the Respondent from his recipients till the date of its deposit.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- The Respondent has denied the benefit of tax reduction to the customers in contravention of the provisions of Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus profiteered as per the explanation attached to Section 171 of the Act. Therefore, he is apparently liable to be penalised as per Section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, a show cause notice be issued directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under the above sub-Section should not be imposed on him.
-
2020 (6) TMI 82 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Bail Application - creation of bogus firms/companies solely for the purpose of fraudlently creating and issuing GST invoices without any sale/purchase and actual movement of goods - HELD THAT:- It is deemed just and proper to grant bail to the petitioner(s) under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - it is directed that petitioner(s) - Gaurav Maheshwari S/o Sampat Lal Maheshwari shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.146/2018 of Police Station Sardarpura, Jodhpur provided he/she/they execute(s) a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- and two sureties of ₹ 50,000/- each.
This Court is of the view that in the prevailing circumstances of complete lock-down amidst spread of COVID-19, furnishing of two sureties will be difficult on the one hand and the same may pose eminent threat to the concerned. It is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner(s) shall be released on bail upon furnishing the personal bond. He/She/They may furnish requisite sureties by 30 th May, 2020 to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
-
2020 (6) TMI 81 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Profiteering - supply of “Food Processor” - allegation that the benefit of GST at the time of implementation of the GST, is not passed on - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- It is evident from the details furnished in Annexure-17 & 18 that the profiteering is determined as ₹ 4,53,949/- as per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Respondent is therefore directed to reduce the price of the impugned product as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017, keeping in view the reduction in the rate of tax so that the benefit is passed on to the recipients. The Respondent is also directed to deposit the profiteered amount of ₹ 4,53,949/- along with the interest to be calculated @ 18% from the date when the above amount was collected by him from the recipients till the above amount is deposited. Since the recipients, in this case, are not identifiable, the Respondent is directed to deposit the amount of profiteering of ₹ 2,26,975/- in the Central Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF) and ₹ 2,26,974/- in the State CWFs as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (c) of the CGST Rules, 2017, as mentioned in the Annexures- 17 & 18, along with 18% interest.
Imposition of penalty - HELD THAT:- The Respondent has denied the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax to his buyers in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, and has thus resorted to profiteering. Hence, he has committed an offence under section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017, and therefore, he appears to be liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of the above Section - Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice be issued to him directing him to explain 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 them.
-
2020 (6) TMI 36 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment of property - petitioner states that in the absence of any notice issued u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST), no order of attachment under Section 83 of the Act, 2017 could have been passed by the respondents - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
A Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat in PRANIT HEM DESAI VERSUS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DGGI, AZU [2019 (4) TMI 917 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that considering the fact that the petitioners were diligently prosecuting the proceedings before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders of attachment, if the petitioners file objections under sub-rule (5) of rule 159 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 on or before 18th April, 2019, the competent authority shall consider the same as having been filed within time.
It is deemed appropriate to direct the respondent No.1 to treat the present writ petition as an objection under Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and decide the same within three working days - petition disposed off.
....
|
