|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 131 Records
-
2020 (6) TMI 457 - GUWAHATI HIGH COURT
Validity of action of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC), in trying to demolish the billboards/hoardings of the petitioners - demand of fee for two periods, namely, pre GST and post GST - HELD THAT:- Without even answering the query raised as to whether the GMC would have the authority to levy such fee for the post GST period, it is an admitted fact that certain disputes has arisen for the period prior to promulgation of the GST. While the statutory authority of GMC contends that huge sum is pending from the petitioners as fee for the billboards/hoardings erected in the city of Guwahati, it is the case of the petitioners that no amount is payable and rather, excess amount is lying with the GMC. Such questions are no doubt questions of fact and that too, disputed by the parties. This Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be loath to adjudicate any matters constituting disputed questions of fact inasmuch as this Court lacks the mechanism for adducing evidence which would be necessary to prove the respective cases of the parties.
Admittedly, the materials on record suggest that there is a vast difference of opinion regarding the amount due, if any. In that view of the matter, this Court is not in a position to make any comments on the demands made and the challenge made to such demands and it will be left for the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum to adjudicate such questions of fact which are disputed in nature.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 451 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
Works Contract - Composite Supply - supply made by NEC under the Automatic Fare Collection (AFC) project - original works meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry, or any other business or profession - applicability of GST rate of 12% provided in the Notification 24/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 21 September 2017 - HSN classification of supply made by NEC would fall under ‘8470’ or ‘9954’? - maintenance and management services post implementation.
HELD THAT:- The proposed contract is for supply of the AFC system comprising supply of multiple hardware and software and commissioning, installation and integration of the same. Under said contracts, the hardware and software to be provided by the applicant consists of POS machines, ETMs, flap gates, validators, station servers, communication components, control centre hardware, manual swing gates for disabled etc.. All the supplies i.e. hardware, software, installation and integration etc. are integral part of the AFC system - The term “works contract” has been restricted to contract for building construction, fabrication etc. of any immovable property only. Any such composite supply undertaken on goods say for example a fabrication or paint job done in automotive body shop will not fall within the definition of term works contract per se under GST. Such contracts would continue to remain composite supplies, but will not be treated as a Works Contract for the purposes of GST.
As per Para 6 (a) of the Schedule II to the CGST Act, 2017, works contracts as defined in Section 2(119) of the CGST Act, 2017 shall be treated as a supply of services. Thus, there is a clear demarcation of a works contract as a supply of service under GST. Hence, Works contract will be treated as service and tax would be charged accordingly.
The applicant’s contention that the contract for supply of the AFC system to the local authority does not qualify as a ‘Works contract’ under Section 2(119) of the CGST Act, 2017, since the installed AFC system cannot be said to result in the emergence of an immovable property is agreed upon - the AFC system is not an immovable property as it can be dismantled and moved to a different location without any damage. Further, it is found from their submissions and agreement that the contract is considering a clear demarcation of goods & services to be provided by the applicant.
The goods (hardware) and services (software, installation and integration etc.) are supplied as a combination and in conjunction and in the course of their business where the principal supply is supply of goods - there is a composite supply in the subject case.
Classification of supply - Rate of Tax - to be treated as original works or not - HELD THAT:- In this case, the proposed contract is for supply of the AFC system comprising supply of multiple hardware and software and commissioning, installation and integration of the same. All the supplies i.e. hardware, software, installation and integration etc. are integral part of the AFC system and any of such individual supply is not the principal supply. The principal supply would be the goods i.e. the AFC system as a whole. Thus, the services of commissioning and installation cannot be said to be a principal or main supply under the contract - the supply of the AFC system would not qualify as ‘original works’. Thus, the rate of 6% as provided in entry number (vi) of the Notification No.11/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) as amended by the Notification No. 24/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) should not be applied in case of the AFC system.
Whether the HSN classification of supply made by the applicant would fall under ‘8470’ or ‘9954’? - HELD THAT:- The supply to be made under proposed Contract by the applicant does not qualify as a “Works contract”. Since, the supply by the applicant does not qualify as works contract, such supply should not get classified under ‘9954’ - Considering that the main purpose of the AFC system is to compute the fare automatically and issue tickets along with integration of the system with the banks, the most appropriate HSN classification is to be ‘8470’. Considering the rate of GST prescribed for HSN ‘8470’ is 18%, the same should be applicable in this case.
Whether the maintenance and management services post implementation would qualify as composite supply as defined under section 2(30) of the CGST Act, 2017? - whether such supply would be eligible for exemption under Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June 2017 in case value of supply of goods constitutes not more than 25% of the value of the said composite supply? - HELD THAT:- The supply of the maintenance and management services to be provided post implementation of the AFC system under proposed contract would also qualify as a ‘composite supply’ with the AFC system, being the principle supply.
Whether supply of the maintenance and management services post implementation of the AFC system would be eligible for exemption under Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June 2017 in case value of supply of goods constitutes not more than 25% of the value of the said composite supply? - HELD THAT:- The Notification No. 12/2017 – Central Tax (Rate), dated 28th June, 2017, as amended by the Notification No.02/2018–Central Tax (Rate) dated 25th January, 2018 provides that composite supply of goods and services in which the value of supply of goods constitutes not more than 25 percent of the value of the said composite supply provided to the Central Government, State Government or Union territory or local authority or a Governmental authority or a Government Entity by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under article 243G of the Constitution or in relation to any function entrusted to a Municipality under article 243W of the Constitution would be exempted from levy of GST - the said contract would be awarded for supply of the AFC system along with maintenance and management of the all hardware and software forming part of the AFC system. The supply of the AFC system comprises supply of goods (multiple hardware) and services (software, installation, commissioning, integration of the same). Further, the maintenance and management would also include supply of spares etc. for undertaking repairs of the AFC system. The proposed contract, thus, comprises composite supply of goods and services.
M/s SSCDL is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 and, hence, does not fall under the definition of the local authority or a Governmental authority or a Government Entity. As such, supply of the maintenance and management services to be provided post implementation of the AFC system does not eligible for said exemption.
-
2020 (6) TMI 450 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
Requirement of GST registration - medical store run by Charitable Trust - medical Store providing medicines at a lower rate - supply of goods or not - HELD THAT:- The applicant is a charitable trust which appears under the definition of ‘person’ and falls at clause(m) of sub-section 84 of Section 2 of the CGST Act, 2017.As per definition, a charitable trust is a person as per clause (m) of sub section 84 of section 2 of CGST Act, 2017. The applicant is providing medicines from its medical store at lower rate, so activity of dealer is to provide medicines with less pecuniary benefit. As per the definition of ‘business’ any trade, commerce, manufacture, profession, vocation, adventure, wager or any other similar activity, whether or not it is for a pecuniary benefit is termed as business. Hence, it is clear that any trade carried out whether for pecuniary benefit or not is a business as per CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the applicant is carrying out business activity as per CGST Act, 2017.
Applicant is selling medicines from its medical store. Medicine is goods as per subsection 52 of Section 2 of the CGST Act, 2017. Medicine is a taxable supply as per sub section 108 of section 2 of CGST Act, 2017 and GST is leviable on medicine as per Chapter-30 of HSN code. Therefore, sale of medicine by the applicant is a taxable supply of goods. Applicant is providing medicines from its medical store at lower rate so price paid by the customers is consideration for the applicant as defined in sub-section 31 of Section 2 of the CGST Act, 2017 - the activity of supply of goods by the applicant does not fall under the list appearing in Schedule-III of the CGST Act, 2017.
The applicant is making taxable supply from its medical store, so as and when aggregate turnover (here medicine) of applicant exceeds threshold limit as specified in sub-section(1) of Section 22 of the CGST Act, 2017, the applicant has to obtain registration under the relevant provisions of the CGST Act, 2017.
-
2020 (6) TMI 449 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
Computation of threshold limit for the purpose of GST registration - Receipt of Interest on savings / loans - receipts in the course or furtherance of Business or not - scope of supply - Interest received in form of PPF - Interest received on Personal Loans and Advanced to family/friends - Interest received on Saving Bank Account - whether the interest should be considered for the purpose of calculating the threshold limit of ₹ 20.00 Lakh for registration under GST Law?
HELD THAT:- The services regarding interest income are covered under the above Notification. Therefore, such services are exempted from payment of GST and the individual is not required to discharge GST on the activity of providing services by way of extending deposits, loans or advances where the consideration is represented by way of interest. Therefore, in given case GST is not leviable on Interest Income earned by the Applicant.
The applicant is an individual with an annual turnover of more than ₹ 20 Lakh. Since this income is interest-related, the turnover is exempt from GST. However, the Applicant also supplies services of “Renting of immovable property” along with activity of providing services by way of extending deposits, loans or advances where the consideration is represented by way of interest. His turnover from the rent income is ₹ 9.84 Lakh and we know that this transaction (Renting of immovable property) is chargeable to GST. However, his taxable turnover is only ₹ 9.84 Lakh. Going by the definition of “aggregate turnover”, the Applicant is required to consider the value of both the taxable supply i.e. “Renting of immovable property” and exempted supply of service provided by way of extending deposits, loans or advances for which they earned interest income, to arrive at “Aggregate Turnover” to determine the threshold limit for the purpose of obtaining registration under the GST Act.
The Applicant is required to aggregate the value of exempted interest income earned by way of extending deposits in PPF & Bank Saving accounts and loans and advances given to his family/friends along with the value of the taxable supply i.e. “Renting of immovable property” for the purpose of calculating the threshold limit of ₹ 20.00 Lakh for obtaining registration under GST law.
The Interest received in form of PPF should be considered for the purpose of calculating the threshold limit of ₹ 20.00 Lakh for registration under GST Law - Interest received on Personal Loans and Advanced to family/friends should be considered for the purpose of calculating the threshold limit of ₹ 20.00 Lakh for registration under GST Law - Interest received on Saving Bank Account should be considered for the purpose of calculating the threshold limit of ₹ 20.00 Lakh for registration under GST Law.
-
2020 (6) TMI 448 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
Levy of GST - sale of plot of land for which, as per the requirement of approved by the respective authority (i.e. Jilla Panchayat), Primary amenities such as, Drainage line, Water line, Electricity line, Land levelling etc. - HELD THAT:- The applicant is the owner of the land, who develops the land with an infrastructure such as Drainage line, Water line, Electricity line, Land levelling etc. as per the requirement of the approved Plan Passing Authority (i.e. Jilla Panchayat). After this development of the land, he sales developed land as plots. His sales price includes the cost of the land as well as the cost of common amenities, Drainage line, Water line, Electricity line, Land levelling charges, etc. on a proportionate basis - Schedule II of the CGST Act, 2017 pertains to activities or transactions to be treated as “Supply of goods or supply of services”. As per clause 5(b) of the Schedule-II of the CGST Act, 2017, construction of a complex, building, civil structure or a part thereof, including a complex or building intended for sale to a buyer is a “Supply of service” and, hence, is liable to the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
The activity of the sale of developed plots would be covered under the clause ‘construction of a complex intended for sale to a buyer’. Thus, the said activity is covered under ‘construction services’ and GST is payable on the sale of developed plots in terms of CGST Act / Rules and relevant Notification issued time to time.
-
2020 (6) TMI 447 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
Classification of goods - Rice Bran (22+0il) - rate of tax on supply - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the information provided by the applicant indicates that the product under consideration has not been obtained by milling rice but rather consists of Rice husk of poha and mamra and Sludge/ Wax oil. Thus, the product is clearly not Rice Bran in light of the meaning of Rice Bran.
Further, in absence of the actual process undertaken on the raw materials it can only be concluded that product is a combination of Rice husk of poha and mamra and Sludge/ Wax oil. From the scarce information provided in the application, it is understood that the assessee is a chemical or allied industry. Further, the actual processes undertaken and the resultant product have not been accurately specified and as such, the only option available is to classify the said product in the residual entry of Chapter 38 pertaining to miscellaneous chemicals Products - Residual products of the chemical or allied industries, not elsewhere specified or included; Municipal Waste; Sewage Sludge; Other waste specified in Note 6 to this Chapter.
The above product can be classified under Chapter 38259000 as the residual entry of the miscellaneous chemical products - Chapter 3825 is covered under Sr. No. 98 of Schedule III of Notn. No. 1/2017 CT (Rate) and attracts rate of 9% CGST and the corresponding State notification specifying the rate of 9% SGST.
-
2020 (6) TMI 446 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Maintainability of Advance Ruling Application - scope of Advance Ruling - Levy of GST - online or telephonic educational coaching from India for corporate, individuals or any other entities residing required outside India - Category under which taxable - HELD THAT:- As per Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017, this authority can only pass a ruling on matters or questions specified in subsection 2 of Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant.
The supply of services is to entities situated outside India and therefore to answer their question we will be required to discuss the provisions of Section 13 and Section 2(6) of IGST Act, 2019, pertaining to place of supply of services - 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 - this authority is not allowed to answer the subject question.
The subject application is not maintainable and thus liable for rejection.
-
2020 (6) TMI 445 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Classification of goods - Heat Activated Ultra-Violet (HAUV) Polyester Film with Adhesive Coating and UV Printing - applicable HSN code - HELD THAT:- The subject product is nothing but a self-adhesive film which is able to stick permanently to paper and classifiable under Chapter 3919. Our finding is also strengthened by the fact that applicant is importing the said goods under Chapter 3919.
The goods which fall under Chapter 3919, as in the subject case will not fall under Chapter 49. The fact of the matter is that the said goods during import are classified under Chapter 3919 and the same has been accepted by the applicant. It will therefore not be open for them to apply for a change of classification, for the same product, to this authority.
-
2020 (6) TMI 444 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Export of Service or not - design & Development services provided by Lear India to Lear entities situated abroad - whether services fall under the category of OIDAR services? - HELD THAT:- A letter dated 23.01.2020 was submitted by applicant, wherein it was requested that they may be allowed to voluntarily withdraw the first question made in the subject application. The request of the applicant to withdraw the first question of application voluntarily and unconditionally is hereby allowed, without going into the merits or detailed facts of the case.
Whether the Design & Development services provided by the Applicant to Lear entities situated aboard would fall under the category of OIDAR services? - HELD THAT:- Prima facie this is a question, pertaining to classification and is covered by Section of the CGST Act, 2017 - he subject services are presently being classified by them as ‘Consulting Engineering Services’. However, the GST department has issued them a Show Cause Notice 27.08.2018 proposing to classify the services of the Applicant under “On-line database access services” wherein the SCN has alleged that the services provided by the Applicant is bundled service of design, prototype, testing in virtual world through computer network and online database access gives the essential characteristic of OIDAR to the said bundled service - In view of the provision to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, this authority cannot admit the application in respect of this question because the question raised in the application is already pending before the department under the provisions of this Act as is seen from the SCN issued to the applicant on 27.08.2018.
-
2020 (6) TMI 443 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Maintainability of Advance Ruling Application - Place of supply of services - “Commission” received by the Applicant in the convertible foreign exchange for rendering services as an “Intermediary” from overseas clients - Trade in goods between an exporter abroad receiving such services and an Indian importer of goods, is an ‘export of services” falling under Section 2(6) & outside the purview of Section 13(8) (b) - cross-border sales/purchase of goods - intra-state supply - HELD THAT:- As per 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 service” does not find mention in Section 97.
This authority is not allowed to answer the subject question - The subject 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 (6) TMI 442 - SC ORDER
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternate remedy - validity of the action initiated by the revenue authorities when an alternate remedy would have been available to the assessee - HELD THAT:- Issue notice, returnable in twelve weeks - Till the next date of listing, there shall be a stay of operation of the impugned judgment and order of the High Court for the State of Telangana dated 4 March 2020 in WP No 2161 of 2020.
-
2020 (6) TMI 441 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Grant of Regular Bail - Offence under Section 132(1) a,b,c of Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - prevailing COVID-19 pandemic situation - HELD THAT:- Considering the existing situation due to COVID-19 and the fact that trial is likely to take some time, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the release of the petitioner on regular bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds. However, it is made clear that anything observed herein shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case - Petitioner is also directed to furnish security worth ₹ 10 lacs in the form of bank guarantee/original paper of immovable property, within 15 days.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (6) TMI 440 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reopening of portal for claiming CENVAT Credit - vires of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the judgment in BRAND EQUITY TREATIES LIMITED, MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD., DEVELOPER GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, RELIANCE ELEKTRIK WORKS VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2020 (5) TMI 171 - DELHI HIGH COURT], has not been stayed so far and therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to abide by the directions issued therein by adequately publicising the said decision and uploading it on their website as also by opening its common portal to enable the petitioner and all similarly placed parties to upload Form GST Trans-1, for claiming CENVAT tax credit.
The respondents are directed to ensure compliance of the captioned judgment by 19.06.2020, particularly since the cut of date fixed by the court in the said case is 30th June, 2020, which would leave only ten clear days for the petitioner and similarly placed assessees to take necessary steps.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (6) TMI 415 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods alongwith truck - section 130 of GST Act - HELD THAT:- We should not interfere at the stage of adjudication of the confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the Act. The adjudication proceedings shall proceed in accordance with law. However, we are inclined to grant some relief to the writ applicant so as to protect the goods getting damaged, but at the same time keeping in mind the interest of the State also. We direct the writ applicant to deposit an amount of ₹ 4,20,000/- towards tax and penalty with the authority concerned and also furnish a bank guarantee to the tune of ₹ 22,00,000/- of any Nationalized bank. We are asking the writ applicant to furnish the bank guarantee keeping in mind the value of the goods.
On deposit of ₹ 4,20,000/- towards tax and penalty along with the bank guarantee of ₹ 22,00,000/- of any Nationalized bank, the authority concerned shall release the goods and the vehicle at the earliest. The deposit of bank guarantee shall abide by the final outcome after adjudication - Application disposed off.
-
2020 (6) TMI 414 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Grant of Anticipatory Bail - evasion of GST - bogus invoices of sales and purchases - HELD THAT:- The allegations are that the petitioner forged and fabricated the documents to avoid the tax liability. All the documents are already in possession of the police. Whether the petitioner had any role to play in the entire gamut or he has been made scapegoat, as alleged, can be ascertained once the petitioner joins the investigation vis a vis the documentary evidence already seized.
The petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds of local and sound surety, to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh, subject to his complying with provisions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. - Petition allowed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 386 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - existence of alternative remedy - appealable order or not - Section 112 of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is not disputed that the impugned orders are appealable under Section 112 of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017. The appeal is to be filed within 90 days from the date on which the order sought to be appealed is communicated to the person preferring the appeal - The instant petition has been filed by-passing the remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Act on the ground that the appellate tribunal has not been constituted till date.
The instant petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioner can invoke the remedy of filing appeal before the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019.
-
2020 (6) TMI 385 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Transition of available Input Tax Credit - revision of Form GST TRAN-1 - electronic credit ledger under the GST laws does not reflect the entire credit - HELD THAT:- The exactness required in compliance of tax provisions should not be construed so rigidly that permissible flexibility is completely disregarded. In effect, the ITC has been expropriated without any lawful sanction. The ITC that was shown in the returns under the existing laws were taxes that stood paid to the respective Governments for goods or services and were available for adjustment or utilization in accordance with law. Now, on account of a clerical mistake the said taxes paid are being appropriated, without cause, putting the Petitioner in serious jeopardy by subjecting it to further taxation under GST without the benefit of ITC. The case before us demonstrates how the tax department has miserably fallen short of the expectation. It is regrettable that Respondents have failed to address the basic and fundamental problem faced by the Petitioner that occurred while filing a Form, seemingly on account of a bona fide or inadvertent mistake. Instead of offering a restitutive solution they have stonewalled all the attempts made by the Petitioner The injustice and prejudice caused to the Petitioner is profound and it’s disillusionment and despair is evident.
It cannot be upheld the stand of the respondent which is founded on some illogical understanding of the Rules. We have time and again made adverse remarks on the procedural working of the GST system in several decisions. We may just add that we do not derive any pleasure when we make such observations, as comments of the Court affect the reputation of the administration in the country. Such remarks are made only when we are constrained to do so.
The case before us is one where there is a complete lack of understanding and fairness on the part of the Tax Department. The fact that Respondents have done nothing to solve the problem faced by the Petitioner, fueled with the adamant stand before us, contributes to skepticism of GST technical infrastructure, which we feel should and can be easily avoided. Only if Respondents were to engage with the taxpayers with a genuine intention to solve the problems, confidence in the system can be built up and such matters would not reach courts.
Petitioner is permitted to revise TRAN-1 Form on or before 30.06.2020 and transition the entire ITC, subject to verification by the Respondents - petition allowed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 384 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Release of seized goods alongwith vehicle - seizure on the ground that the driver of the conveyance was not able to produce a valid E-way bill - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact that there is a statutory appeal provided against the impugned order, the writ applicant should avail the alternative remedy and prefer an appropriate appeal if he deems fit.
At this stage, it is clarified that if the statutory appeal under Section 107 is preferred by the writ applicant and if the appeal is not disposed of at the earliest or in near future, it is always open for the writ applicant to prefer an application under Section 67(6) of the Act for interim release of the conveyance pending the final adjudication of the statutory appeal.
Application disposed off.
-
2020 (6) TMI 383 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Release of seized goods alongwith vehicle - seizure only for the discrepancy in the e-way bill that the vehicle number was not correlated - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that we should not interfere with the impugned show cause notice issued by the authority under Section 130 of the Act. We are of the view that the authority should be permitted to adjudicate the show cause notice in accordance with law. However, we deem fit to take into consideration the fact that the goods involved in the present litigation is a consignment of Tobacco and with the onset of monsoon the goods are likely to get damaged.
The writ applicant to deposit an amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- with the concerned authority towards tax and penalty. To secure the interest of the State, we also direct the writ applicant to furnish Bank Guarantee of ₹ 7,00,000/- that is the value of the goods. On deposit of the amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- and furnishing of a Bank Guarantee to the tune of ₹ 7,00,000/- of a nationalized bank, the authority concerned shall release the goods and the vehicle at the earliest.
Application disposed off.
-
2020 (6) TMI 382 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Permission to petitioner to file revision of GST TRAN-1 - section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - while the case of the petitioner is that mistake committed was procedural, the court considers appropriate not to entertain the petition at this stage - HELD THAT:- Whether there is a procedural lapse or otherwise, is the aspects to be gone into and decided by the competent authority, to which the petitioner has already addressed communication way back in August and September, 2019. The authority of the respondents department has not decided to respond to the same so far. It is only after the decision is rendered by the authorities, it will be open for the petitioner to take a further legal recourse in accordance with law - While not entertaining this petition and not touching the merit part of the case of the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 are directed to respond to the communication of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Petition disposed off.
|
